▶ 0:14:02Okay. This hearing on the subcommittee of economic growth, energy policy and regulatory affairs will come to order. Welcome everyone to this meeting. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening We are here today to discuss an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent. The future of US manufacturing. The United States is facing a a need that it has never faced before.
▶ 0:14:31The need to shake off and reverse its fall as the global leader in manufacturing. We won the Second World War not just because our generals were great leaders and strategists, and not just because we put so many heroic men and women on the field of battle. and in support. But because we manufactured our enemies into oblivion, the United States held approximately 40% of the globe's manufacturing in 1941.
▶ 0:15:01After Pearl Harbor, that vast manufacturing power became the free world's arsenal for democracy. For every German tank manufactured, we produced four tanks. For every merchant ship tonnage that the Japanese built, we produced eight. For every aircraft carrier the Japanese deployed, we launched three. For every plane that combined Axis powers built, we by ourselves manufactured one and a half planes. Before the war, the US manufactured less than 3,000 planes.
▶ 0:15:31But by the end, we had a force of 300,000 planes. Overwhelming material was pivotal to our winning the war. And the United States left World War II as the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth in very large part because of our manufacturing prowess. Yet, as time marched on and the good post-war times rolled, we began to forget how important our capacity to manufacture and innovate was to making and keeping America great.
▶ 0:16:01And as the Cold War ended and we entered the end of history era, unprecedented globalization took hold. And in that moment, instead of embracing new technologies or innovating in the manufacturing industry, we sold off our manufacturing birthright to other countries. A vast amount of what was once American manufacturing was shipped off to foreign manufacturing. In the end, we lost our manufacturing base. And that was not just because the US leaders supported globalization.
▶ 0:16:30It was also because we overregulated existing manufacturing and imposed enormous obstacles to the permitting of new manufacturing. This strangled possibilities for new growth and further encouraged US manufacturers to move their manufacturing overseas. In the end, the United States share of global manufacturing fell from 40% that it won was in 1950s to 16% as a share that we hold today.
▶ 0:16:58We lost millions of skilled labor jobs. The middle class has shrank and communities across America have been harmed. Filling the void of the US was China. China's share of global manufacturing increased at an exponential rate. China leaned in heavily on cheap labor, slave labor, and suicide inducing labor conditions to achieve the manufacturing share that it possesses today.
▶ 0:17:26And China's position as the current world leader in manufacturing poses economic, military, and national security threats to the United States. Ne never nevertheless, there is hope that we are approaching an American industrial renaissance. Under President Trump, the United States has the technology, the capital, and the political will to reshore manufacturing stateside. Congressional and executive branch efforts to decrease unnecessary regulatory burdens and streamline permitting processes will encourage reshoring.
▶ 0:17:57And by adopting automation and artificial intelligence, the United States can and will multiply the economic output of the average American worker exponentially. Salaries will rise as costs of goods stay low. Skilled labor and manufacturing employment that was extinguished due to globalization will return. the middle class will expand again and we can we can and will bring manufacturing back to the United States.
▶ 0:18:24And with that, I yield to ranking member Frost for his opening statement. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning. Since the 1980s, the United States has faced a decline in manufacturing jobs that has left many workers feeling forgotten and turned away by many once thriving communities into ghost towns.
▶ 0:18:46Democrats are united in wanting to bring more good, highpaying manufacturing jobs to these communities and making sure America is leading the way in strategically significant manufacturing sectors of the future. But President Trump's disaster tariff plan, which is estimated to increase costs to American households by 49 uh $4,900 a year, is not the solution.
▶ 0:19:10During the Biden administration, the Democrats made in America agenda resulted in legislation like the Chips and Science Act, the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, and Democrats drafted this legislation with Republicans in a bipartisan way, and with the vital input of manufacturing workers, employers, and impacted communities.
▶ 0:19:29This legislation jumpstarted industry, helping to create more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States and secure over 1 trillion in plant investments. Our country has not seen this much new factory construction in half a century. This legislation and these investments created during the Biden administration should continue to pay off, creating over 200,000 more jobs each year going forward, assuming no new policies stifle that growth.
▶ 0:19:59There's still so much to do and to support in terms of domestic manufacturing and creating good paying, safe and affordable products here in America while protecting our environment. I'm here to work with anyone regardless of political affiliation to continue this work. But I'm also concerned that instead of advancing the progress we've made over the last several years, we're going to trend in the opposite direction due to Trump's irrational blanket tariff policy.
▶ 0:20:24While Democrats legislative achievements in manufacturing have created again more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs, Trump's chaotic tariffs are expected to eliminate 770,000 jobs in 2025 alone. Tariffs are an important tool. when used carefully and intelligently can help the American worker.
▶ 0:20:45But from slashing services at the VA to accidentally encouraging our air traffic controllers to resign and firing the essential workers that maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile, deporting American citizens and discussing sensitive military operations on signal. Careful and intelligent does not describe this administration and that is the case with their tariff policy as well.
▶ 0:21:08Investors are pulling back from doing business in America, which impacts critical industries and prevents companies from actually starting new businesses to make goods here in the United States. Hardworking Americans are seeing a tanking stock uh a tanking stock market uh tank, widespread firing, and are concerned about what's to come. I've heard from countless Central Floridaidians in my community who have fears. Uh David, an Orlando retiree, has lost 20% of his 401k in the last two months.
▶ 0:21:39Patricia, an Orlando resident, wrote in saying she cannot make improvements to her home with the recent instability of the economy. And Delia, who also wrote into our office, a Winter Park working person, said she won't be able to afford the tariff driven increase on the cost of foods, housing, medicine, and uh and other things as well. We know there's a better way.
▶ 0:22:01The laws we led created the stability that manufacturers need to create jobs, and we worked to make sure that they were jobs that Americans want and deserve, safe jobs that offer financial security and stability. Democrats increased both worker safety protections and worker safety inspections while making good wages a key component to the chips and science uh awards. The Democrat-led National Labor Relations Board cracked down on law-breaking corporations and fortified workers right to organize.
▶ 0:22:31As we know, in 2023, President Biden became the first sitting US president to ever walk a picket line when he w marched with striking United Auto Worker members in Michigan. The president, Donald Trump, worked aggressively to put corporate profits over workers rights during his last term, and he's doing it again. This is why we're going to see in the second term, just like happened in the first term, that wealth inequality in this country will continue to rise.
▶ 0:22:58For starters, he attacked the National Labor's Relations Board and its mission of defending workers rights, illegally fired the one Democratic board member like in his first term, and he stuffing the board with anti-worker people. Elon Musk even called the NLRB unconstitutional, while Trump has praised Musk for firing striking workers. The president is also looking at repealing sick leave, minimum wage, and overtime protections for some categories of workers.
▶ 0:23:25While making working conditions worse, he has also made it less safe. During his first term, Trump had the fewest OSHA safety inspectors ever. And he's already fired twothirds of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health uh and Health Workforce since retaking office. His assault on workers rights and safety does not stop at the factory gate, but it follows workers at home as well.
▶ 0:23:48And this is important because we can't talk about bringing manufacturing jobs and this industry back to America without ensuring that we empower and protect the American worker. It's probably the most important part of this conversation. and and and Democrats are going to ensure that the American worker is front and center here.
▶ 0:24:11I look forward to working with my colleagues from both parties as well as workers, labor representatives, private industry to continue the manufacturing boom that was started by Democrats over the past four years. But this effort must never be at the expense of safety, dignity, and prosperity of the American worker. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. I'm pleased to welcome our panel of expert witnesses who each bring experience and expertise that will be valuable for today's discussion on manufacturing.
▶ 0:24:38I'd first like to welcome Chris Power from Hadrien who serves as the company's chief executive officer. Next we have Kevin Zinger who is a founder of Divergent and currently serves as its executive chairman. Next we have Austin Bishop who is the chief executive officer of the New American Industrial Alliance. And lastly we have Adam Hirs who serves as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.
▶ 0:25:07Thank you each for being here. And with that um I would ask everyone to stand. Not you. Okay. Pursuant to the committee rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand or raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you, God.
▶ 0:25:36Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. Um let we appreciate you being here today and we look forward to your testimony. Let me remind you that we have read your written statement and it will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral arguments to 5 minutes. It's very simple. The light in front of you will turn or yellow when you have one minute left and then when it's red, your time is expired.
▶ 0:26:04Um, as a reminder, please press the button and often people do not know to speak directly into the microphone. Um it and so this this is being covered on C-SPAN and we want the American people to hear what you have to say. And with that I recognize uh Mr. Power for his opening statement. Thank you Chairman Bellinsson and Ranking Member Frost and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today.
▶ 0:26:32I uh came to this country from Australia 5 years ago purely because I recognized that as the rank as the chairman quite rightly said uh we're past the end of history for Kyama phase and what we've done to the United States um is de-industrialized the country over the last 40 years some through our own mistakes and some through forcible Chinese policy where they're using aggressive subsidiz subsidies to pull out critical manufacturing capability from offshore And what I
▶ 0:27:03recognized before I came here to make as big of an impact on the country as as possible is that you know Americans treat manufacturing as a a kind of globalismfree trade uh over the last 40 years and China has quite rightly treated it as a strategic capability of being able to make things onshore.
▶ 0:27:24And the German was quite right in that what won World War II was our ability to pivot the commercial manufacturing base into the defense base when it really mattered. And over the last 40 years, we've offshored everything that wasn't bolted down to the defense industrial base by regulations like ITAR. So we're in a real crisis now. And the impact of that that both the chairman and ranking member Frost were quite right is that it decimated the middle class. It decimated the American manufacturing workforce.
▶ 0:27:50And culturally that means, you know, no one wants to work in manufacturing because why would you why would you sign up your son or daughter to go into an industry that's in declining. So we've created this real crisis for ourselves. And now that China is a real global threat, you know, we're in very much crisis mode. So I came here to make a difference in that and I'll provide some specific recommendations. But in reality, what this is all about is the highly skilled American workforce.
▶ 0:28:16And for the last 40 years, because of those declining jobs, because the revenue has gone out of the country, there are less factories, there are less good jobs. And now we're at a point where most of the skilled American workforce is in their late 50s and early 60s. And by skilled, I mean incredibly highly skilled and especially in the defense industrial base. It normally takes 10 to 20 years to train someone. These are very highly paid jobs at defense primes or subcontractors to the defense primes that are critical to remain on shore.
▶ 0:28:44But because of that demographic load, you've got most of the uh workforce aging out across the next decade as people get older and they tire and we are losing their knowledge and skills with them. And we are forgetting as a country to manufacture and it is all about the people on the ground floor that are getting the job day in day out and they are just retiring faster and faster and faster.
▶ 0:29:07So what my company does, Hrien, we're the fastest growing manufacturer in the United States, is we build autonomous AIdriven factories where we're not replacing people, but we are making the American workforce 10 times more efficient so that we can compete globally while creating new and advanced jobs along the way.
▶ 0:29:25And the only way to re-industrialize this country is to leapfrog the Chinese system which has been built on the back of slave labor conditions, enormous CCP policyled energy subsidies, raw material subsidies that are simply not a leveling a level playing field with American innovation. Um, so what our company is built to do is build and rapidly scale United States factories that are software and robotics first, that do not replace people, but let them be 10 times more productive.
▶ 0:29:54And also simplify things so that 100% of our workforce now have never set foot inside a factory before they join our company. We can train them in 30 days in not 10 to 20 years. And what that means is that there is new types of jobs coming online that are higher paid.
▶ 0:30:08They're better, friendlier conditions and it allows us to scale with the demand that the country needs, especially in critical areas like ship building and munitions where the number one problem that you'll hear from program officers or other actors in the ship building space is I simply cannot you could give me a billion dollars. I simply cannot hire enough welders. They no longer exist in the country. There simply aren't enough machinists or quality inspectors in the country.
▶ 0:30:33And the only way to do that to meet the national mission of both re-industrializing the country to compete globally in this new world order where we are disconnecting from the Chinese economy and to meet the emerging needs of the defense industrial base. The only way to do that is build factories that give the American workforce superpowers and have them have better jobs, more highly paid jobs that are robotics and software first. Um, and allow us to scale as a country by leaprogging China with what America is best at.
▶ 0:31:01We still have global leadership in software, AI, and robotics. And the point of building these advanced factories is to give the American workforce superpowers so that we can scale as a country and compete globally without falling into the trap of low paid jobs or simply giving up the farm and not being a manufacturing superpower anymore, which is critically important. Um there's two critical points that are in my testimony, but I would like to reinforce given that the time is up.
▶ 0:31:31One is that much of our spend that is going to China is through defense primes or other manufacturers in the US that get paid by the federal government but end up offshoring a big chunk of their supply chain. One thing that you would immediately create millions and millions of jobs and demand in the country is by forcing a statement that if you get paid in America, you must have your supply chain and make it in America without us subsidizing the competitive landscape.
▶ 0:31:57And the second thing that I'd like to encourage everyone to think about, whether it's a tariff policy or other policy, is that we have to create an even playing field with China. Our energy cost and our raw materials cost, not to mention labor subsidies, are 10 times greater than China. To sort of compete globally, we have to find strategic ways to give the American manufacturers a level playing field with the egregious CCP subsidies that get put on core inputs to manufacturing like energy and bor materials cost. Thank you for the time.
▶ 0:32:34Thank you. And I think the the yellow light turns on. We have 30 seconds left. So, um, just as reference, I now recognize Mr. Zinger for his opening Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking member and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to testify here today. Uh, I'm representing uh my company, Divergent, and I'm also here as someone who has spent a lifetime believing in America's capacity to lead.
▶ 0:33:05I grew up workingass in Cleveland, an industrial city that once took great pride in helping power the American economy. Football helped me earn a college education as the first in my family to go to school and I later served as a US Marine Corps infantryman before becoming an inventor and technology entrepreneur.
▶ 0:33:29What drives me is the belief that this country more than any other has the ingenuity, the grit, and the values to lead the world in innovation and in actually creating things. I founded Divergent because I saw what happened to America's industrial core. We didn't just outsource jobs. We outsourced our key core national strength.
▶ 0:33:55We weakened our supply chains to save a buck in the short run, both in industry and in Silicon Valley. We ignored the needs of our workers and our communities. We gave China the lead. And through turning over our supply chain to them, we gave them in plain sight hidden control of our national security and our economic security. Now, we need a fix.
▶ 0:34:24This can't be done through traditional incremental steps or going back to old technology. We must fundamentally rethink manufacturing and the factory itself. That's why Divergent was built from a clean sheet of paper. We started with what the future demands today. Divergent developed the world's first fully integrated digital industrial system.
▶ 0:34:46By combining together in one system, generative design, additive manufacturing, uh advanced materials and robotics, we design, print, and assemble high performance structures at industrial volumes faster and with greater flexibility than ever before in the history of the planet. It is today fully operational, proven across aerospace, defense, and automotive platforms, and it is entirely built and based here in the United States.
▶ 0:35:14We've proven the system at scale, delivering components for fighter jets, hypersonics, and space systems. We are currently working with every major US defense prime, and with some of the most demanding commercial auto companies in the world, including Aston Martin, McLaren, Mercedes, and Bugatti. These are production programs with cars out on the road today with AI designed 3D printed structures built here in the United States.
▶ 0:35:41These companies that I mentioned do not compromise on quality, safety, and precision. A depleted munitions stockpile, huge sustainment backlogs, and obsolete parts are plaguing the defense department. Divergent is ready to step in now and scale production with a scale ready digital factory system. Faster, more resilient, and at a far lower cost to the taxpayer. Now, think ahead.
▶ 0:36:07A nationwide network of next generation American families across and can be in virtually every state of the union that don't just build resilience, they rebuild America's industry. This isn't one factory making one product. its factories each able to serve many industries, produce any parts and support hundreds of companies across the country. That's what divergent enables. That's how we upskill the American workforce.
▶ 0:36:33That's how we take jobs back from China and bring them back home under standards that uphold human rights and deliver good wages. This is about more than advanced technology. It's about responsibility and resilience. It's about rebuilding an industrial base that is accountable to the nation it serves because we've seen what happens when fragile global supply chains break whether in a pandemic or in war. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, President Kennedy went to Dr.
▶ 0:37:01Von Braonn then the space director of NASA and asked how the US could catch up. Wernner von Braonn said Mr. President we won't catch up to them in Earth orbit. We need to beat them to the moon. The good news is in the last decade, we've done that moonshot and we now have a fully digital factory that is ready to scale. Divergent is proof of what is possible when innovation is unleashed.
▶ 0:37:26Now think about what we could achieve if we align policy, capital, and the will to accelerate this innovative transformation. This is our chance to re-industrialize with purpose. Let's not only play defense, let's play offense. Let's not only reshore manufacturing over the coming years, let's leapfrog China and disrupt them with proven technology. Let's lead again and let's do it in a way that builds a more vibrant, secure, and equitable America. Thank you, and I look forward to your Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
▶ 0:37:56Bishop for his opening statement. Chairman Berles, Ranking Member Frost, and the members of the committee, thank you again for your for the opportunity to testify today. We are at a pivotal moment in American history that demands urgency, imagination, and national unity. The question before us is not whether America can lead in the world in cutting edge production again, but whether we choose to.
▶ 0:38:20So re-industrialization is not about nostalgia or recreating a past economy, but about building a dynamic future-facing industrial base that strengthens national security, revives economic mobility for working Americans, and reclaims American leadership in critical sectors. This is a nonpartisan challenge and a once in a generation opportunity. As ranking member said, workforce is at the front of this.
▶ 0:38:43I mean, I'm I'm a guy from Cleveland, Ohio as well, and over the decades that I grew up there and certainly the decades leading up to that. I wish that there was this much interest in in ensuring that our industrial base um stayed on shore. And what we saw over those few decades is something that we have a chance to reverse going into the future.
▶ 0:39:04You know during CO 19 that pandemic exposed a really painful truth which is our over reliance on globalized supply chains has left America American families vulnerable and our economy brittle. Basic goods from personal protective equipment to microchips became scarce almost overnight. Moms in the Midwest couldn't get baby formula because the sewish canal was blocked. An absurdity that everyone must admit reveals a massive weakness created by surrendering sovereignty over where and how things are produced.
▶ 0:39:32Resilience on far-flung manufacturing hubs, particularly in Asia, has caused a profound loss of confidence in our systems resilience. We are all worse off in a world where the West cannot manufacture certain goods in aband in abundance. And that reality forces us to rely on the good graces of distance powers to meet our needs. weakens our military's ability to to deter aggression and to defend its allies and deprivives millions of Americans in every state of stable, high productive employment in high-tech industries.
▶ 0:40:03Moreover, this v vulnerability was not accidental. De-industrialization was a choice resulting from bad policy decision and flawed ideologies that prioritized short-term cost savings over long-term national strength and discouraged investment in capital inensive industries. Cheap labor abroad and foreign subsidization combined with burdensome regulations and protracted permitting processes has hollowed out our domestic envi manufacturing base.
▶ 0:40:30We socialized the cost and privatized the gains as entire cities were reduced to rusty shells of their former selves while the S&P made record highs. We should remember that the pandemic the pandemic as a warning shot. We cannot entrust our prosperity to fragile distant supply chains. Further compounding this is the reality that is that China is an increasingly hostile geopolitical rival and sits at the center of many global global supply chains.
▶ 0:40:58Today the United States depends heavily on China for critical minerals, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ships. Everyone in this room knows this at this point. It these supply chains could collapse overnight in the event of a conflict or even heightened tensions. We must be cleareyed. Economic dependency is a strategic vulnerability. If we cannot produce the essentials of modern life within our own borders, we are not truly sovereign.
▶ 0:41:24Onshoring critical industries is not simply an economic imperative, but a national security mandate. Bringing manufacturing home is also not about reliving the past. It's about forging a better future. The future has to look like the future. I say this again as a guy whose city is maybe most famous for its rivers catching on fire. We are no fans of that.
▶ 0:41:46The old industrial jobs of the 20th century were the foundation of the American middle class, providing millions with good wages, dignity, and upward mobility. Since manufacturing share of the GDP declined from 30% in the 1950s to just 11 or 12% today, we have witnessed the undeniable hollowing out of our middle class. However, manufacturing jobs of tomorrow will not look like the jobs of the past.
▶ 0:42:10There'll be extensions of the advanced manufacturing jobs that we already have here in America at companies like some of my colleagues here. Highly skilled, technologically advanced careers working with robotics, precision manufacturing, AI, logistics, and more. Onshore companies will also need workers for sales, construction, management, maintenance. This represents millions and millions of jobs, many of which do not require four-year degrees.
▶ 0:42:36By investing in a modern industrial base, we can rebuild a middle class that is not only larger but is better equipped for the demands of the 21st century. Finally, onshoring manufacturing will ignite innovation across our economy. Historically, industrial leadership has been inseparable from technological leadership. When we manufacture, we invent.
▶ 0:42:59When we lose production capabilities, we lose the ability to Today, America l lags in critical manufacturing R&D areas from battery production to advanced materials to micr fabrication. By bringing industry back home, we will secure our supply chains and unlock new frontiers of research, entrepreneurship, and invention, the average American will benefit far more from reliable access to goods in a healthy, more dynamic economy where workers share more directly in the nation's growth and prosperity.
▶ 0:43:30Finally, re-industrialization is not about going backwards. It's about moving America forwards. It's about making America safer, more prosperous, and more unified. It's about empowering the next generation of American workers with the tools to build a better future. Thank you again for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Hirsh for his opening statement. Chair Berles, Ranking Member Frost, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today.
▶ 0:43:58My name is Adam Hirs and I'm a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute where I study trade, industrial policy, manufacturing, and the USChina economic relationship. Today's hearing covers an important topic for legislators. Manufacturing is a special and economically critical activity, and I have to say I agree with most of what I've heard from my co-panelists here about uh the causes of uh its long-term decline. While we're having a timely discussion, the premise for this hearing is somewhat out of debate.
▶ 0:44:28the pre uh out of date. Uh the previous administration had already ignited a renaissance in key manufacturing industries. 2024 saw the highest US manufacturing investment in our history. 2023 was the next highest year. This was achieved with an embrace of industrial policy that incentivized US manufacturing and defended against unfair and mercandalous practices from our trading partners.
▶ 0:44:51Now, in less than 100 days, the current administration has squandered this progress with policymaking chaos, senseless cuts to critical and effective government programs and investments, and an indiscriminate, non-strategic approach to trade policy. Economic indicators now for the manufacturing sector outlook are hitting near or at their lowest levels in recorded history, and economic policy uncertainty is at its highest level ever. To be sure, industrial policy has begun under President Biden left room for improvement.
▶ 0:45:21But President Trump is not doing this. He's not so much throwing the baby out with the bathwater as he is demolishing the entire bathroom. As a nation, this will leave us all poor, more dependent on foreign technology leadership, and more exposed to supply chain disruptions. There is another way forward. It is not going back to the failed trade policies that brought us here, but is also not continuing with the chaotic, indiscriminate, and non-strategic tariff policies we've seen for the past three months. Nor will we get there with corporate tax cuts and deregulation.
▶ 0:45:51The path forward is to recognize the emerging consensus in economics that industrial policy is both feasible and effective, and if we heed its recommendations for how and when it can succeed. I provide some detail of this in my written testimony, but I'll summarize here by saying the economy is rife with market failures that call for strong public sector interventions and scientific research and coordination of economic stakeholders.
▶ 0:46:16Research finds that public investments in science yield a return on investment of between 140 and 210%. To put it in comparison, the long run average return for the S&P 500 is less than 10%. Public research complements and enhances private sector development.
▶ 0:46:33For example, uh my co-panelists here are no doubt impressive and even visionary entrepreneurs, but they stand on the shoulders of 3D printing technology that was developed by a government scientist in a public research center in Japan. In addition to research, policymakers should identify priority industries for economic and national security importance.
▶ 0:46:56analyze the unique webs of complimentary investments required to succeed in those industries and devise coordination strategies specific to each application. This is how China's BYD became the world's number one electric vehicle manufacturer. They didn't do it by stealing US technology. We don't have that technology here. Succeeding at industrial policy requires substantial state capacity, which the so-called Department of Government Efficiency is rapidly dismantling.
▶ 0:47:23When China began its economic re reforms in the 1980s, it did not cut cut its bureaucracy. It ousted the political hacks and added millions more bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, management professionals. There is no successful implementation of industrial policy in world history where state capacity is in decline. Finally, let me talk about manufacturing jobs. Uh these were not always good jobs. They only became good jobs when union when unionization achieved high density.
▶ 0:47:53As manufacturing unions have declined, so has manufacturing job quality. We will not restore manufacturing jobs to anything like the levels in America's economic heyday. But we can ensure that the jobs we create everywhere in the economy provide dignity and decent pay. Thank you. I look forward to our questions. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania for five minutes of questions. I thank the chairman. Mr.
▶ 0:48:21Bishop, it's estimated that the US has 3.7 million jobs since 2001 largely due to Chinese illegal trade practices. You know, they they bypassed the trade rules as you know um through shell companies, back door tactics. They steal protected American intellectual property and then they use that the products to undercut American sales. Since 1981, the US federal government, that's that's what China does, right?
▶ 0:48:50But since 1981, our government has issued at least at least one manufacturing related regulation per week since 1981. And that's a long list of regulations which is which is you know quite honestly it's played into China's hands bringing our manufacturing to a standstill which is is what they love.
▶ 0:49:14Do you have any recommendations for where to start with onshoring manufactur onshore manufacturing deregul like where do where do we start? What's what's the highest priority and then give us like a road map if you have one about how to deal with that. Thank you for the question.
▶ 0:49:32I mean to this point, I mean just the example of BYD that just came up um they didn't steal the technology for sure, but they were able to leaprog us over the last five six years literally because American executive exa auto executives and consultants went over and gave them the playbook. Um I know this because I know a number of these ex ex-executives and these consultants.
▶ 0:49:57Um, and one of the reasons that they're able to take ideas and then turn them into a reality a lot faster is on the regulatory front. Um, to your point, I think one of the one of the the things that we should be aiming the highest at and is certainly on everyone's mind right now is is nepo regulation. And again, as I said, um, the town that I'm from had a lot of rivers catching on fire in the 1970s. I'm for sure no fan of that.
▶ 0:50:23But I think we are so far away from where the pendulum is swung from those days to where now we have law firms making hundreds of millions of dollars a year just doing NEPA regulation. If I had one thing to focus on, I think it would be a more common sense regulatory regime that is modern and built for the the century uh that we're in rather than something that was built in the 1970s.
▶ 0:50:50Well, as a person who's in the manufacturing business, we I think on this committee um would like your specific recommendations on where to start, whether that's NEPA or something else. Something some things that are specific that plague us. Look, we got a lot of work to do, right? One a week since 1981. Obviously have a lot of work to do, but um we need to start with some kind of prioritization and then get after it. Mr. power.
▶ 0:51:16China accounted for 14 over almost 15% of all US imports in 2023. Uh it's also the largest foreign supplier of critical technologies for the Department of Defense. Greg Hayes, the CEO of Rathon, stated that it would be impossible for him to decouple from China due to the company's reliance on thousands of Chinese suppliers.
▶ 0:51:40Meanwhile, the Communist Party of China considers the United States of America and its businesses not strategic adversaries, not strategic competitors, but the enemy. What are the realworld implications as you see them for America's warfighting capabilities if we don't change course? Thank you for the question, sir. Um, in my opinion, we're on a uh, you know, five to eight year clock with China threatening Taiwan.
▶ 0:52:08And in the current state of the vast majority of defense manufacturing, the supply chains are so intermingled with rare earth minerals that produce magnets is a don't call them rare earth. They're not rare. They're critical, but they're not rare. There's plenty of them in this country, we're just not allowed to go get them. But carry on. That is correct, sir. I appreciate the clarification.
▶ 0:52:27um they are so intermingled that even um I'll give you a practical example is there's some components on the F-35 program that uh the DoD gave an exception to so that there I think it was a magnet is in the Chinese supply chain and it's not just one part it's not like a class of things like magnets it's all over the place and yes it will take time to decouple it is not a trivial thing to do but in my mind the only thing to do is pass legislation that says if you're getting paid in America You have to have your whole
▶ 0:52:58supply chain in America and let the economic system correct. Cuz at this point, they could shut off a lot of our critical programs, not to mention semiconductors, and we'd be flying completely blind, and we would simply not have the productive capacity to make it past the first two weeks of a Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Frost for his five minutes of questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:53:22I'm I'm really glad that uh my Republican colleagues want to continue the democratic historic efforts to rebuild America's manufacturing sector and reval revitalize local economies. An effort that has led to the creation of over 700,000 manufacturing jobs during President Biden's term. But the the goal is not simply just the quantity of jobs um but also the quality of these jobs as well.
▶ 0:53:48Um, we have to be focused on creating manufacturing jobs and working conditions that allow workers to actually prosper and support their families. This includes uh uh rules for better working worker safety, increases in OSHA inspections, an emphasis in prevailing wages when awarding federal funding, and working closely with organized labor. Mr.
▶ 0:54:09Hirs, how does a unionized manufacturing workforce benefit workers and the manufacturing Thank you for the question. Uh it it benefits uh in a several ways. Uh number one is it attracts a high-skilled workforce with good wages and good compensation. Uh and it retains them so that they can accumulate skills on the job that get fed back into the production process.
▶ 0:54:36Uh number two is it gives the workers from the shop floor who understand the production process uh the ability to contribute uh and work with management uh in designing and uh more efficiencies and improving production as well as on innovating uh in products and how does unionized manufacturing workforce also benefit the people who buy their products and the people in the community as a whole?
▶ 0:55:02Well, this is something that Henry Ford recognized when he started paying a living wage to his workers uh back at the turn of the previous century. Uh he recognized that for uh workers and communities to be able to uh have the consumption uh to meet the growing uh production capacity of our economy, they needed to be paid a decent wage. Uh so unions help uh help provide that decent wage. uh when unions go away the wages of manufacturing jobs decline.
▶ 0:55:32Uh we have been adding manufacturing jobs uh but uh on net in large part these are in parts of the country where uh labor standards are are quite low and not uh very well enforced. So uh while uh manufacturing has been expanding uh the quality of those jobs uh has been in decline.
▶ 0:55:52Essentially, we're creating American Mchiadoris and and union apprenticeships can also help us significantly boost manufacturing uh by helping provide us with the skilled u and reliable workforce workforce that's needed. Mr. Hurge, what do these moves tell us about the quality of manufacturing jobs that Trump policies will create?
▶ 0:56:14And the moves I'm talking about are the fact that President Trump has tried to convince workers that his policies will be good for them while at the same time working aggressively to attack collective bargaining rights and uh the agencies responsible for protecting worker health and safety. Well, I think Commerce Secretary Lutnik has given us a clear vision of what these jobs uh will look like from the Trump administration. He says that Americans should be screwing little screws into iPhones.
▶ 0:56:42Now, these are not the jobs of the future that are going to make our country prosperous again. The Trump administration also is working aggressively to strip Americans of their regulatory protections. Um, this is a problem for all of us as uh industrial hazards go beyond the factory door and extend to surrounding communities as well. Um, without these protections in place and enforce, these hazards threaten our drinking water, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the products we use.
▶ 0:57:10Some would have us believe that it's a zero- sum game that you have to pick one or the other. Zero regulation rolling everything back or regulation at the wazoo and no one can do anything. But I think with the use of course technology and a skilled workforce and good workers um we're able to have a world where everybody can thrive. Mr. Hirs, how do current regulatory protections keep manufacturing workers safe not just at work but when they're home as well?
▶ 0:57:37These regulations exist for a reason and often they're working so well that people have long forgotten the problems that they were put in place to solve. Uh when we take them away they're going to be problems again. What they will do is shift the the costs and the risks uh from the companies who are doing this to uh the workers to the communities where production is happening to the country as a whole and consumers.
▶ 0:58:00Um, you know, people don't and they're don't want to see uh have polluted water and polluted air uh in their communities. They don't want their kids playing on a playground uh where there's toxic chemicals in the air. They don't want to go fishing where there's toxic chemicals uh in the water. Uh so these regulations play an important role uh in preventing that.
▶ 0:58:21And the way we could be using uh tariff policy instead of this chaotic and indiscriminate uh approach which is disrupting and causing so much uncertainty is we could be using this to uh create a regime uh of high standards uh whether it's for worker rights or whether it's for environmental protection, whether it's for stopping the pollution of carbon emissions. uh uh putting those costs back onto the goods that are being produced abroad without those protections. Thank you.
▶ 0:58:51I yield Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Um I want to start Mr. Um during one of the previous witnesses testimony, it was said that uh that you you um the American manufacturing is standing on the shoulders of 3D printing um that was developed by other governments in Japan.
▶ 0:59:17Would you would you say that that's accurate that you're standing on the shoulders of of that technology? specifically as to what we do. Our printing machine is not based on any Japanese patents. It's solely based on uh US inventions, a US supply chain and is built within our factories in the US. Thank you.
▶ 0:59:46Um many critics argue that manufacturing simply can't return to the US because we have um high labor costs. Um from your perspective, what is the strongest counter argument to that? strongest counterargument is that right now we have European car makers that we are in a relatively high cost labor market California shipping to Aston Martin and other
▶ 1:00:16companies. So Aston Martin, Bugatti, McLaren, Mercedes and Porsche. These are customers of an American company with American workers shipping today. I think that is because American innovation can create tools for American workers that allow them to do things faster, better, and cheaper.
▶ 1:00:39And when that happens, then you create uh a manufacturing infrastructure, which we absolutely can have and we absolutely can rebuild our global manufacturing market share, but it has to be based on new leapfrog technology that exists today commercially. Uh can you give us an insight as to the the issues regarding supply chain?
▶ 1:01:10Um for example, the resources that you need. You're you have some objects in front of you that are printed with a type of aluminum. Um I think that aluminum the last aluminum smelter was in southeast Missouri. It's no longer there in the United States. Is there is there any concerns about the core materials in that supply chain?
▶ 1:01:33I'd say we have a variety of materials that range from aluminum alloys we develop to uh hightemp materials for hypersonic applications to high strength materials for munitions from the very start and the company uh was founded about a decade ago. We wanted to make sure that we had a secure supply chain. So we uh use uh US allied suppliers.
▶ 1:02:00What I would say is these are metal powders that atomization process there is no reason that with uh you know different uh areas in the United States that have cheap abundant energy such as natural gas that we couldn't bring back atomization production of metal powders and scale that as we build uh advanced manufacturing and that is something we absolutely can do and should
▶ 1:02:30do. Uh Mr. Power, we have had previous hearings on the the situation with our energy infrastructure and the Can you expound on what a company is, you know, what's going through their process when they're deciding where to locate a facility and and how much does electricity costs and availability play into that? Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:02:58Energy costs and regulations related to energy are a huge part of where we decide to put new factories in the United States. Um firstly, uh just for speed of building, you would be probably surprised at how hard we could build a factory faster than we could get the permits to rig up electricity to it in certain states, which is a huge barrier to speed and pace, especially in the United States.
▶ 1:03:21And energy costs are such a huge part of our cost space that you know compared to China I think our energy cost is 20 10 to 20 times without subsidies. And the second point I'd make on energy costs is 95% of the cost of aluminum as an example is actually the cost of energy.
▶ 1:03:40So having energy too cheap to meter in the United States is not just helpful for running factories and having energy grids that can scale with all these advanced factories, but also for the raw material costs and inputs that are being passed on to our customers. So I think it's incredibly important and strength of the grid, clean power, and then the cheapness and scalability of that power really drive a lot of the decisions of where we put factories, where we put data centers and any advanced facility going into the American States. Thank you.
▶ 1:04:09I yield back and I now recognize Mr. Kana from California for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Power, I uh appreciated uh your testimony and your focus on innovation, your focus on stabilizing demand, on building capacity. I noticed uh even though you're here as a Republican called witness, there was a word missing in your testimony, the beautiful word of tariffs.
▶ 1:04:37Uh I assume by that omission uh you don't think that uh President Trump's tariff strategy uh is working in building uh advanced manufacturing here. Uh thank you for the question, Congressman. Um we're not really impacted by tariffs. Um and it's hard for me to comment on it directly in this hearing because our entire supply chain is regulated that we have to have everything from raw materials and everything onshore.
▶ 1:05:05Um, so for United States companies that serve the defense market, um, we don't really buy anything offshore and it's hard for me to comment directly. Mr. Power, you're certainly a thoughtful person. I mean, do you, if the president asked you, do you think his tariff policy is working to bring advanced manufacturing in the United States? Would you answer yes or no? I think we're starting to see countries come to the table, negotiate, but my perspective is purely China focused.
▶ 1:05:29So, but would you So, do you think if you think his policy is working in terms of the way he's implemented the tariff policies? I think we're going to start to see tariffs work over the next 90 to 100 days as things settle down. You support his tariff policy. I think tariff policy that means China cannot hide manufactured goods going through other countries. I'm not asking you theoretically. I'm saying the way the president's gone about the tariff policy. Do you support it or or not? Yes. Largely I support tariff policies to reassure United States manufacturing. Trump's tariff policies.
▶ 1:05:59Yes. Mr. Kissinger, do you support Trump's tariff policies? Mr. Kissinger, do you support Trump's tariff policies as he's implemented it? I am not an expert on tariff policies. And I will I would tell you I am an expert if I may finish. You know, I noticed none of the Republican witnesses mentioned tariffs. The beautiful word tariffs. Here he is on a manufacturing industrial policy. Uh, the three Republican experts are recommending everything but tariffs.
▶ 1:06:29Everything but tariffs. Your testimony didn't have tariffs. Correct. I am an expert on enabling advanced manufacturing scale up in the United States and not on tariffs. Tariff in it. Your opening testimony. Of course not. I didn't come to testify on Did your testimony have any word tariff in it? No, sir. We're asked to testify on bringing advanced fat factories back to the United States. Testimony have anything to say with tariffs in it? No.
▶ 1:06:55So, the three Republican witnesses come to a hearing on industrial policy and none of them mention the word tariff. Not a single one. And yet all Donald Trump is doing is tariff policy when the three Republican witnesses are recommending a hundred different things other than tariff policy. Mr. Bishop, do you agree with Donald Trump's tariff I'm not here as an economic expert.
▶ 1:07:22You're all saying you're not here as an economic experts and yet you're giving us all these recommendations for how we build an industrial base. Is it that you don't have any expertise that we should just pick up any random citizen or do you have are you here as some economic expertise on industrial policy? Is that for me? Yes. Oh, sorry. I I misspoke on this. I mean on tariffs, this is just not one of I mean like these guys as well, we're focused on building companies here.
▶ 1:07:49But I I don't understand how I don't have a The president of the United States is saying the way to build manufacturing is to have these tariff policies. You're here to testify on manufacturing, how we're going to build it. You're telling me you don't have an opinion on whether the Trump tariff policy is successful or not? We're here to represent private industry people who are actually building companies, not people who are This is not a theoretical matter. He's implemented tariffs. I'm not even trying to trick you. I'm saying, do you agree with all his tariff policies or do you disagree with them?
▶ 1:08:18or are you so afraid that you don't know what to say? I think all of us have been really clear. We're here to This is not what we're here to talk about, but do you agree with it or disagree with it? Yes or no? I mean, you could say either things. I have the same position as these guys. We're we're we're here to talk about how to incentivize more manufacturing and industrial, right? But do you think that the president's tariff policies are doing that or not? I think it's a mix.
▶ 1:08:44I think what you're as some of it is correct and some of it is You you think some of Trump's tariff policies haven't worked. No, I'm I'm I'm saying I agree with actually what Chris was saying is that what we've seen so far has been and what we're going to be seeing over the next 90 to 100 days has been really interesting, especially as more countries are coming back to the table. But I can't tell the future.
▶ 1:09:06Three of you are so afraid of criticizing Donald Trump that even though you don't mention tariffs in any of your testimonies, none of you are willing to say that this policy is totally backfiring. I just don't want to try to predict the near future. I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what's going on in the minds of the counterparties in other countries. And I think this is an inappropriate place to be asked. Inappropriate to ask you about tariff policy in a manufacturing hearing when that's the president's policy. Anyway, my time is expired. Thank you.
▶ 1:09:34I now recognize Mr. Donald's from Florida for five minutes. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I think I'm in committee at the opportune time. Um, look, this is a great hearing about bringing uh manufacturing stock back to the United States, the end at the end of World War II. About 40% of the world's manufacturing capacity was here in America. Today, depending on who you ask, maybe around 15%, maybe lower, maybe a little bit higher.
▶ 1:10:01Um, I would ask all all three of the of of the witnesses and actually I'll ask you too, Mr. Hirsh. Um, what is actually been the number one driver for a lack of manufacturing capacity in the United States since World War II? Mr. Power, thank you for the question, sir.
▶ 1:10:18Um, in my mind, it is specific CCP policies that have artificially subsidized well past the cost of good jobs and competitive labor in America where if you'll remember, there was a large language model like DeepSeek that got released by China and they're charging, you know, 100th of a use case versus OpenAI and they're doing that to draw the consumer into using that product more and more and more which obviously then captures data.
▶ 1:10:47It is the same sort of industrial policy that's been going on for the last 40 years where we could buy a block of raw material in the United States of aluminum and it will be twice as expensive as the fully landed cost including shipping of that same component from China and it is not possible for them to be so cheap and competitive apart from the slave labor conditions because they aggressively subsidize energy raw materials and kind of reverse tariffs where if I sell something to you from China to the
▶ 1:11:17US, I get a subsidy back from the CCP. It is a strategic policy that has pulled manufacturing out of the United States for the last 40 years and it's been done very intentionally. So, it is artificial anti-competitive subsidies that have pulled that cost base out of the United States and therefore destroyed millions and millions of American jobs is my opinion on the one core reason. Uh Mr. Zinger, if you choose to add or bring your own knowledge.
▶ 1:11:42Yeah, I'll add something briefly which is if you look at uh 2000, China had a a 7% uh global manufacturing market share in 2000. That was a brief 25 years ago with WTO, I'd say two things. Uh going to what Mr. Power said, we did not enforce any of these violations by China after we gave them most favored nation status.
▶ 1:12:12And obviously they understand that national security is directly connected and and and being a world power is directly connected to uh global manufacturing market share and they went about using a set of powers of uh policies to capture that.
▶ 1:12:31At the same time, I would say driven uh uh primarily by some of our large technology companies, we started to outsource manufacturing to companies like Foxcon. So if you look at the actual kind of industry 4.0 0 scale up of automated CNC machining, computer numerically controlled machining.
▶ 1:12:52Between, I'd say 2006 and 2016, you saw Apple pour hundred billion dollars plus into Foxcon, a China based contract manufacturing company. And they went from a couple hundred CNC machines to 150,000 automated lights out by 2016.
▶ 1:13:16those two things, allowing people to cheat and undermine you from a national strategy uh global strategy standpoint and then having our process IP from our most advanced and process IP relating to manufacturing from our most uh advanced companies offshored to contract manufacturers and building that contract manufacturing industry around Foxcon and other contract manufacturers.
▶ 1:13:47That's what drove it. Thank you, Mr. Zinger. Mr. Bishop, just to echo what both of of my colleagues here have said. I mean it especially if you drill into the supply chains that go into the DoD right now and the the massive per permissive use of waiverss to I mean there are already plenty of rules in place that would in theory disallow everything from electronic components to just basic machine parts that go into all of the crucial uh material and devices that our our
▶ 1:14:17war fighters use. Um, and the reality is just the the the massive rampant use of waiverss has been a huge problem. And when you actually go and drill down into that supply chain, you're finding not only direct links um to China, which are the easy ones to find, but this huge web of shell companies and shell relation relationships between shell companies that effectively allow China to have a a I mean, first of all, a huge supply chain risk um directly
▶ 1:14:47in our in the DoD and and anywhere wherever we want to project power. Well, gentlemen, I'm Mr. Hirsh, I'm sorry. Five minutes goes fast in this in this town. Um I appreciate that. I think it's important for the committee uh to recognize that, you know, while um the goal overall is to bring manufacturing back to the United States in as much of a capacity we can either on on onshore or nearshore, one thing is crystal clear.
▶ 1:15:12Uh we have not been minding the store in the United States when it comes to trade policy at large, especially when it comes to enforcement of trade policy. And with that, I yield back. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Min from California for five minutes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank you for bringing this hearing forward. Um, I I also share the panelist's concerns around China and the threat that they pose our economy.
▶ 1:15:38I also share the desire of of everyone speaking today to to bring back manufacturing to the United States. Um, and I represent a district that does not have a lot of manufacturing, but um, you know, I I I wanted to start uh, but I I obviously it's important for our economy. I I wanted to start here by just following up on the comments of Mr. Kana. Uh, I note that um, all of you up there, the Republican side said you're not economist. I I wanted to give uh, Dr. Hirsh, an economist, a chance to weigh in as well uh, to follow up on Mr.
▶ 1:16:07Connor's questions. Yeah, I guess I'm I'm the only one up here who supports uh tariffs. In theory, when a tariff is targeted and strategic, it can be an effective tool for supporting industrial development. Uh but what we're seeing under President Trump's policy is the opposite of that. It's broad-based. It's indiscriminate. It's non-strategic. Uh it's going to be a disaster. Yeah.
▶ 1:16:31And and so I guess what you're saying, if I can summarize, is that tariffs can be a tool to address some of the strategic and and uncompetitive behavior we're seeing out of places like China, uh but not when they're applied in such a blanket and half-hazard ways we're seeing right now. Absolutely. And we've seen that uh just in the past week or so with a determination on ship building, on solar panels. Uh we saw President Biden invoke 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.
▶ 1:16:59These are all things that will contribute uh to uh rebuilding manufacturing including the steel and aluminum tariffs of Mr. President of of Mr. Trump uh uh which helped uh keep that uh smelter which chair Berlinson uh referenced uh online for much longer than it could have been. So I I want to follow up by noting that that the view you share that you express now is shared by many other in fact I would say consens. consensus view among economists and I know the other three are not economists.
▶ 1:17:29You're very careful to say you're not economists and have no views on the strategic effectiveness of these tariffs. But I just want to quote Jerome Powell who said a few weeks back that the Trump tariffs are likely to cause quote higher inflation and slower go growth. Uh Janet Yellen, former Secretary of the Treasury, described Trump's tariffs as quote the worst self-inflicted wound that I've ever seen an administration impose on a well functioning company. I also want to bring it back to a company in my district that does do manufacturing.
▶ 1:17:57Uh they do electronics manufacturing and uh one of the things that I I didn't hear any of you to talk about is is the way that the global supply chain is constructed these days that a lot of the manufacturing that takes place in the United States is dependent on parts and uh repair improvements made crossborder.
▶ 1:18:14Uh so the gentleman I'm describing here who spoke at a round table we had talked about how his goods are typically uh adjusted or improved in Mexico maybe in Singapore they come back to the United States they cross the border many times uh each time they're potentially subject to tariff that is the aggregate of that is going to have huge impacts he described this as something that is an existential threat to his business the tariffs uh that Trump has proposed uh Mr. Hurst do you have any comment on that? Yeah.
▶ 1:18:42So, uh, nothing is 100% made in America. Uh, across the US manufacturing, about 45% of the value added, uh, comes from imported content. Uh, we can't just, uh, rip that out at the roots. Uh, we have to have a strategic approach to, uh, gradually replace that without disrupting the businesses that are already operating.
▶ 1:19:03uh and uh when we put 145% tariff on China without that strategic strategic approach in place then foreign competitors in manufacturing can access all those intermediate inputs without paying tariffs is putting uh US manufacturers at a disadvantage. Yep. I'll just close by noting that I was just in a congressional delegation a couple weeks back to Korea and we met with a number of the chel out there, Hyundai, LG, Hanoa.
▶ 1:19:30uh a number of them have actually committed uh billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to manufacturing in the United States uh following Trump one to try to build out manufacturing capacity here in the United States. Uh but also in response to clear incentives and we talk about a stick and carrot approach. Uh I think we can characterize Trump's tariffs as a a big massive stick that's going to club every economy in the world.
▶ 1:19:53Uh we had the carrots approach uh from the Biden administration with things like the clean energy tax credits to incentivize solar uh EVs etc. Uh the chips act which is starting to bring uh semiconductors back. Uh and I will just tell you and share with you that these companies were very concerned about the tariff policies but also very concerned that that the Trump administration would pull back on some of these tax incentives and other incentives that actually made manufacturing pencil out in the United States. uh what are your views and I'll ask this quickly of the panel Mr.
▶ 1:20:24Power Mr. Singer Mr. Bishop Mr. Hirsh on uh these programs that actually have seem to bring manufacturing back to the United States whether it's a carrot or stick policy or uh regulations that make it easier to produce American jobs. I support both sides whether it's carrot or the stick to you support those keeping those uh programs in place. Which programs? Sorry. uh the clean energy tax credits, the CHIPS act, some of the IRA incentives that that have seemed to bring manufacturing back.
▶ 1:20:51Yeah, CHIPS Act was a great bipartisan legislation that was designed to bring massive semiconductor, which is such a critical piece of the supply chain. I think I'm out of time. So, Mr. Stinger, I would agree with the comment on the the CHIPS Act. What about the clean energy tax credits? I would have to look at them in more depth to be able to give you a reasonable answer. We support all the above. We're trying to incentivize more jobs here and more innovation. Thank you for that answer, Mr. Hirsh.
▶ 1:21:20Uh pulling back on these policies now risks stranding hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and jobs. And I'll say, you know, my co-panelists have talked about the issue of energy costs. Uh just in the past three months, 8 billion dollars of new energy projects supporting 8,000 jobs have been cancelled. Thank you. I yield Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Higgins from Louisiana for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
▶ 1:21:47Bishop, from your perspective, what happens to the sovereignty of a nation when it loses its industrial base? Well, that's that's a that's a that's a softball question, I feel like. Uh I mean, it is, and I appreciate it because set up for hard question, I imagine. Um, no.
▶ 1:22:10And I'm I'm slightly joking because you would think it'd be it'd be an obvious answer, but it seems like over many decades, no one has taken this as a softball question. Has has either not taken it seriously or has come to the wrong conclusion. Clearly, you concur that that that the sovereignty of a powerful u will gradually disintegrate with with the gradual loss of its industrial base. You cannot have one without the other.
▶ 1:22:40Cannot have one without the other. There you go. So the the loss of of American industrial base largely to China. Let's talk about China. Would you concur that that there's that there's been some perceived price advantage for products on the shelves that this has been a a a foundational like driving factor? Setting aside the details. Basically, people want more stuff and cheaper stuff, right?
▶ 1:23:09It's certainly been the driving narrative clearly. So, the price advantage is that is that the result of the price advantage from from goods manufactured in China and transported across the ocean to American ends up on American shelves? that price advantage in some way. Is that price advantage the result of some combination of subsidized endeavors from from communist child labor and slave labor. All of the above.
▶ 1:23:40All of the above. So there you go. America, I want you to think about this. Please, as a as a child of God, as a compassionate human being, do you really want a cheaper product on the shelf that's been subsidized by communists and produced with child labor and slave labor?
▶ 1:24:06This is what the Trump administration and some conservatives in Congress are pushing back against. We we seek to establish the truth that cheap products produced in abhorrent conditions on foreign soil subsidized by communism and produced by child labor and slave labor.
▶ 1:24:35Not only should they not be available for a cheaper price on our shelf, they shouldn't be available at all on American shelves. in the opinion of some.
▶ 1:24:49So we we not only support the aggressive effort of our executive branch to push back against this worldwide, but particularly with China, we not only support it, we demand it. And some of us, I'm 63 years old. I've watched our industrial base disintegrate in my lifetime and and what we what we hope and I'm going to ask you Mr.
▶ 1:25:18Bishop to address what this means for the next generation. I am prayerful that we can fix this thing in this Congress at least change the trajectory of trade imbalance by by insisting upon core principled trade deals with nations like China. And we have to be aggressive about it for the coming generation. Mr.
▶ 1:25:43Bishop, h how would you how would you see if we fix this thing, what happens for the for the next generation of Americans if we restore the industrial base of our sovereign nation. Uh it it's a golden era. I mean, you look you look for I mean, you look at where these the cities where we used to produce things. St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh. I mean these were some of the richest cities not just in the country but in the entire world.
▶ 1:26:11We literally called it a gilded gilded era and what's happened over the last century and has certainly accelerated over the last two decades is something that's reversible. We have to get very very serious about it. Do you believe a new golden era has been described is is is achievable, good sir, if we make the necessary corrections now. We're we're still we we still have time, but in my in my opinion uh we have to get really serious right now. Well, Mr.
▶ 1:26:41Chairman, we are really serious right now. Thank you for for convening this hearing and I yield. Gentleman yields. Um I submit for the record a document from the National Association of Manufacturers um giving recommendations for um uh for how to improve the manufacturing of the United Without objection. Without objection. So ruled. And I now recognize Mr.
▶ 1:27:11Frost for his closing statement. Well, thank you so much, Mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses again um for coming to share your expertise on a very important subject ensuring that we continue um the manufacturing boom we saw under the Biden administration um into the future. Um like I said this is about of course the quantity jobs but also the quality of these jobs. But I also have to bring up something that one of my colleagues uh Representative Kana had brought up and it has to do with the tariffs policy.
▶ 1:27:41And while advanced manufacturing create jobs, that number of jobs will pale in comparison to the negative impact of Trump's tariffs. Tariffs are tax on all consumers. They put the heaviest burden of that tax on middle and workingclass Americans. You're shaking your head. No, one of the winners is shaking his head. No, but I I we we just went through this and you all conceded that you know nothing about tariffs and have nothing to say about it. Tariffs will result in greater unemployment as well. I have three unanimous consent requests.
▶ 1:28:09The first one is an article from CNBC from April 7th, 2025 entitled, "This is a Trump recession. CEO says with tariff price increases, job loss is coming." Without objection. The other one um is a article from the Independent April 22nd 2025 entitled Trump Tariffs driving thousands of layoffs at US manufacturing plants. Without objection.
▶ 1:28:31The third one is a report from the Center for American Progress from April 10th entitled Trump Tariffs Pause doesn't pause economic pain will cost families $4,600 a year. Without objection. This is important. I appreciate the nuance and a lot of the ideas we heard from all of our panelists um that were brought up today. Uh but if you were to ask the president what he's doing to bring back US manufacturing, he would tell you to look at his tariff policy.
▶ 1:28:57And so it being brought up here, I think was completely gerine to the subject at hand. And hopefully next time we can dive into um that as well. Thank you so much. And I yield back to the Thank you. Now in my closing statement again, thank you witnesses for coming today. Um today's testimony has made one thing clear to me, something that I did not have before, which is hope. Um Mr. Power, Mr.
▶ 1:29:27Zinger, Mr. Bishop, what the efforts that you guys are working on gives me a level of hope. Um US manufacturers stand ready to expand production here in the US, hire American workers, and bring critical manufacturing capabilities back on shore. Financial backers of manufacturing, moreover, are not waiting for a miracle. They've been waiting for a signal.
▶ 1:29:51And now they have it from President Trump, from Congress, and from the American people that the US is serious about rebuilding our once great manufacturing prowess. Americans want to produce here in America. They're willing to buy products made here. The demand is not just patriotic. It's economic, strategic, and its cultural. It's about self-reliance, and yes, national pride.
▶ 1:30:22Reviving American industry is not just an economic goal. It's a national imperative. Industrial strength built this country. It won our wars. It fueled our prosperity and lifted generations out of poverty and into the middle class. And we can do it again. American factories can roar again. Let us seize this moment not just to restore what was lost, but to build something even greater.
▶ 1:30:50Let us make American manufacturing not just a memory of the past, but the backbone of our future. Re-industrializing will make America great again. And we should all strive to help make that happen. Again, thank you for your time today. And with that without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses which will be forwarded to the witnesses for the responses.
▶ 1:31:17And if there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands