[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4678, FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND H.R.
5156, CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT ASSISTANCE ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 16, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-136
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-913 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Vice Chair Ranking Member
JOHN SARBANES, Maryland RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BART GORDON, Tennessee JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
BART STUPAK, Michigan MARY BONO MACK, California
GENE GREEN, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, opening statement........................................ 8
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 8
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 9
Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 10
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, opening statement................................. 11
Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, opening statement................................ 12
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Iowa, opening statement..................................... 13
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 14
Hon. Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, opening statement......................... 15
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 15
Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 16
Hon. Michael R. Turner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, opening statement............................... 17
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 140
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 142
Witnesses
Jeremy Baskin, Office of the General Counsel, United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission............................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions............................... 145
Ami Gadhia, Policy Counsel, Consumers Union...................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Answers to submitted questions............................... 149
William Morgan, victim of defective Chinese drywall.............. 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Andrew Popper, Professor of Law, American University Washington
College of Law................................................. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 155
Marianne Rowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI).................. 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Answers to submitted questions............................... 171
Mary Saunders, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and
Services, United States Department of Commerce................. 81
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Answers to submitted questions............................... 180
Deborah Wince-Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Council on Competitiveness..................................... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Answers to submitted questions............................... 189
Owen E. Herrnstadt, Director of Trade and Globalization,
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers.... 111
Prepared statement........................................... 113
Answers to submitted questions............................... 193
Jack Crawford, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, Jadoo Power......... 116
Prepared statement........................................... 118
Answers to submitted questions............................... 196
Anthony Kim, Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation................. 124
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Answers to submitted questions............................... 199
H.R. 4678, FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND H.R.
5156, CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT ASSISTANCE ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rush, Sarbanes, Sutton, Stupak,
Barrow, Matsui, Braley, Dingell, Stearns, Whitfield, Terry,
Murphy, Gingrey, Scalise, and Latta.
Also Present: Representatives Sanchez and Turner.
Staff Present: Angelle Kwemo, Counsel; Felipe Mendoza,
Counsel; Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Trade, &
Consumer Protection; Peter Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant;
Althea Gregory, Intern; and Elizabeth Letter, Special
Assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer
Protection will now come to order.
The purpose of today's hearing is to hear testimony on two
bills, H.R. 4876, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal
Accountability Act, and H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy and
Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act.
The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for
participating in this important legislative hearing. As I
stated before, we will be considering two important bills.
The first bill deals with products manufactured overseas
that are flooding the U.S. market and aren't safe for American
consumers. And the second bill deals with access to global
markets by American manufacturing new products. Both bills aim
at protecting American jobs and American consumers. And I would
be remiss if I didn't commend Congresswoman Betty Sutton and
Congresswoman Doris Matsui for attempting to lean on both of
these very critical issues for the safety of the American
people.
Last year we were saddened by the tragedies caused by the
toxic effects of Chinese drywall on consumers. The victims
sometimes from areas still reeling from the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, finding themselves suffering as a result of
serious health problems.
More saddening is the fact that it is very difficult, if
not impossible, to hold accountable the foreign manufacturers
of those products. H.R. 4876, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal
Accountability Act, will fix that loophole and allow suppliers
of foreign-made products to be sued for defects in those
products used here on U.S. soil. And I must also say that while
the U.S. market is open to global manufacturers, the contrary
is not always the case.
Our next bill illustrates the need for green technology and
the need for necessary remedies. Last year, the subcommittee
held a hearing on how to increase the export of green
technology products. We heard about the challenges U.S.
manufacturers are facing in overseas markets despite the fact
that U.S. technology is unquestionably one of the best.
We all agree that clean energy is a vast, untapped market.
There is a large world demand for U.S. goods. But our market
share in 2008 dropped in from 14 to 9 percent. Even emerging
economies are rising and trying to replace the U.S. in its
current position as global leader in manufactured goods. It
will happen if we don't assert our long-recognized and long-
held leadership on this particular matter.
H.R. 5156, the Clean Technology Manufacturing and Export
Assistance Act will help our industry do that and will
strengthen the manufacturing industry's capacity and also
provide them with the tools they need to boost their exports.
We have, on several occasions, highlighted the importance
of having a strong domestic policy to allow the manufacturing
industries to be confident enough to penetrate the
international markets. We are all aware that the events
currently taking place in the Gulf of Mexico is another real
concern. It reinforces the need for environmentally friendly
technologies. This is where our future lies.
As I said before, and I will repeat it again, we must seize
every opportunity or fall drastically behind. And I want to
thank all of the witnesses again for being here, and I look
forward to your testimony on the bills we are considering
today.
And now I am going to recognize the ranking member for 5
minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Chairman Rush, thank you very much and we
certainly appreciate the witnesses being with us here this
morning as we explore two pieces of legislation that I think
all of us would agree have great intentions, and I think it's
important because this legislation is so important that we
listen to some experts today about some concerns that certainly
I have about this legislation, although I agree with the intent
of the legislation.
For example, on 4678, which holds foreign manufacturers
accountable in the U.S. for selling products that comply with
our safety standards and require them to have an agent for
service of process, I don't really have any problem with that.
But I think we have to explore, for example, in 2002, the
Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Act, and under that Act, under certain circumstances, certain
companies had to have registered agents. The U.S. Customs law
already requires agents for companies that do business in the
U.S. in certain instances.
We are signatory to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and
we know that in many countries around the world like China, a
lot of those companies are owned by the government and it
raises the issue even if you have a service of process you
obtain the judgment can you really collect on it, because of
sovereign unity and so forth. And then we have the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial
Act and what will the impact of this have on that?
So we have a lot of mechanisms already in place through the
government to ensure the people of America that we are dealing
and consuming and using safe products. Now, I am not saying
that those are enough. But I also know that if we adopt this
kind of legislation, we might also expect that other countries
may also adopt it, which could have some negative impact on our
small exporters that are trying to open up foreign markets, and
I know that President Obama, one of his goals is to
significantly increase our exports.
So all of these are issues that I think we have an
opportunity to work together here, but I think it is important
that we explore the ramifications of this legislation. And so
we look forward to the witnesses' testimony on that issue.
On the clean energy technology manufacturing export
assistance fund, I think all of us are certainly interested in
exporting green technology or clean technology, and I know
already the Department of Commerce has an extensive assistance
program to encourage exports of U.S. products. And it appears
that this legislation would simply be carving out clean energy
technology, which is fine.
But as I was reading this legislation, just to give you an
example of one thing I was concerned about because I am from a
coal State. Coal still provides 51 percent of all electricity
produced in America, and I don't think anyone believes that
renewable energies or wind power or anything else, I guess they
are one in the same, over the immediate term will come close to
providing our electricity needs.
But if this bill became law, for example, I would like to
see some assistance given to carbon capture sequestration
technology because China is using more coal every day than the
United States even thinks about. And right now, they are just
burning coal, low-grade coal, and polluting the environment and
if we can export clean coal technology to them, that would be
great.
But as I read this legislation, it says to be eligible for
this program, the project or the entity has to do one of the
following: Generate electricity. Well, carbon capture
sequestration does not generate electricity but it removes
carbon dioxide. Second thing, substantially increases the
energy efficiency of buildings, industry, or agricultural
processes. Well, I am not sure that carbon capture
sequestration would meet that criteria, or it substantially
increases the energy efficiency of the transportation system.
So those are some questions that I think we need to explore
because this is very important legislation, it has great goals,
and I think we have an opportunity here to explore a lot of
these issues and come up with a proposal that all of us can
agree to. I yield back my 14 seconds.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton,
for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Ms. Sutton. I thank the chairman for holding this hearing,
and I think both of these pieces of legislation are important.
I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 4678 along with 61
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
I am going to keep my remarks limited to that at this
point.
Every year many Americans are injured, sometimes fatally,
by dangerous products that have been manufactured abroad and
imported into the United States. Recent examples include toxic
drywall, faulty infant cribs, lead paint in children's toys and
defective tires. These products not only hurt American
consumers, they hurt American businesses.
U.S. manufacturers are responsible for insuring that the
products that they put on the market are safe, yet it is
extremely difficult for injured parties to hold foreign
manufacturers accountable because they are unable to serve
process or establish jurisdiction. As a result, American
consumers and businesses are forced to engage in cost-
prohibitive and time-consuming international legal battles
rarely receiving the redress they deserve.
The Foreign Manufactures Legal Accountability Act would
require foreign manufacturers doing business in the U.S. to
identify a registered agent authorized to accept service of
process on behalf of that manufacturer. Registering an agent
would constitute an acceptance of jurisdiction of the State in
which the agent is located. This bipartisan bill would help
protect American consumers and businesses from defective
products manufactured abroad, would level the playing field for
American manufacturers, and provide U.S. consumers with the
necessary tools to seek proper redress.
And I want to thank my colleague and cosponsor
Representative Mike Turner who is here this morning for his
work and support on this legislation.
I also want to thank Representative Linda Sanchez for her
leadership and work on this issue, and she may be joining us as
well.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and to working
through whatever concerns that the ranking member may have to a
solution on this very, very important work.
At the end of the day, this is about fairness and justice.
American consumers and businesses deserve both, and this
legislation will help us achieve that.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Latta, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Whitfield. Thank you for holding this hearing today on these
two pieces of legislation both related to manufacturing. My
congressional district is heavily based in manufacturing, and I
am constantly advocating for ways to assist these manufacturers
to remain in business and to continue producing goods.
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, my
district is the largest manufacturing district in the State of
Ohio, the 20th largest in Congress. When I was first elected in
December of 2007, I represented the ninth largest manufacturing
district, and in two years it dropped to 20th. The current
unemployment rate in Ohio is just under 11 percent, and there
are many counties in my district that have over 12 percent
unemployment.
In looking at these two pieces of legislation, the
subcommittee needs to ensure that it does nothing to hinder
further economic growth to put further restrictions on U.S.
manufacturers. It is important that Americans have safe
products for use and that companies comply with U.S. safety
standards. However, I have several concerns with H.R. 4678 and
that will have unintended consequences on American
manufacturers.
They are concerns that under this bill the U.S. companies
that have contracted with foreign manufacturers for parts will
be the ones responsible for establishing a registered agent on
behalf of the foreign supplier. In addition, I have concerns
that other nations will reciprocate similar laws that would
impose additional compliance regulations or liability exposure
to U.S. exporters abroad.
The manufacturers in my district can not withstand either
of these scenarios. Many of these companies are still holding
on by their fingernails in this troubled economy and will not
be able to withstand further government mandates or increased
exposure to liability. I have concerns that this legislation
could inadvertently lead to an increase in lawsuits on our
manufacturers.
My district is also home to many facilities relating to
alternative energy sources. Clean energy technology
manufacturing is an important piece of the puzzle for America's
energy independence. As with all of our manufacturing products,
exporting is a key to the U.S. to remain a world leader.
However, I do have concerns with H.R. 5156 and its creation of
another new government program administered by the
International Trade Administration within the Department of
Commerce. At a time when our national debt is skyrocketing, I
do not believe in expanding our government but should be trying
to limit it.
There are also concerns that this new grant program
duplicates other programs that have already been created
through the energy stimulus bills.
I look forward to the hearing today.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mrs. Matsui for 2
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling today's hearing.
I, first of all, want to applaud my good friend, Betty
Sutton, for introducing H.R. 4678, and I support her
legislation. I would also like to thank the witnesses for being
with us here today. And I particularly want to welcome our
witness from the Sacramento area, Jack Crawford, CEO of Jadoo
Power.
Under Jack's leadership, Jadoo Power is a leader in
manufacturing clean energy technologies and providing hybrid
fuel cell power for military, government, and commercial
applications. Jack has a wealth of expertise in the clean
energy sector, and I look forward to hearing from him today.
As he can attest, the Sacramento region is well positioned
to be a leader in producing clean energy technologies with more
than 110 clean tech companies that focus on production of fuel
cell technology, biofuels, solar, wind energy, and others.
To continue growth, the U.S. clean energy sector,
particularly small and medium-sized firms, need manufacturing
expert assistance to boost their competitiveness in the
international marketplace. In fact, our Nation's clean tech
industry is lagging behind many of its competitors in exports,
including Germany and China. This is simply unacceptable. The
U.S. must be a leader in manufacturing and exporting clean
technologies. That is why I, along with Chairmen Rush and
Dingell and Representative Eshoo, introduced H.R. 5156, a bill
to boost the competitiveness of American-made clean tech
products both here in the United States and around the world.
The bill will create a fund to develop and sustain a
national clean energy technology export strategy to provide
U.S. clean tech firms with expert assistance and finding and
navigating foreign markets to sell their goods and services to
new customers.
The President has laid out a laudable goal to double U.S.
exports over the next 5 years, and this legislation will ensure
clean energy exports are at the forefront of the national
export strategy. The bill will also strengthen America's
domestic clean tech manufacturing industry.
Ultimately, H.R. 5156 will enhance our standing in the race
to be the global leader in clean energy. The BP oil spill only
underscores the need for leadership in the clean energy market,
and this spill has sent a strong message that America is
serious about being the leader in producing and exporting these
technologies.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
committee to achieve this goal, and I thank you, again Mr.
Chairman, for holding today's hearing.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Gingrey is recognized for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Gingrey. I want to thank you for holding today's
hearing on two pieces of legislation, H.R. 4678 and 5156, to
allow us to hold a discussion on important issues facing
consumers as we strive to create jobs. I believe that both of
these bills are well intentioned as they attempt to assist
consumers and improve the clean technology trade deficit that
we currently face.
Unfortunately, I believe that both bills will have
unintended consequences that could prevent them from
accomplishing their respective goals.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4678 seeks to rectify the problems that
have been associated with foreign product recalls. While I am
saddened by what has occurred to the victims--one of whom is on
our first panel of witnesses--I fear that H.R. 4678 will not
fully address the underlying issue.
The purpose of this legislation is to hold foreign
manufacturers responsible for the products that come to the
United States. However, unintended consequences many times
domestic companies contracting with foreign manufacturers will
likely be responsible for establishing registered agents,
thereby putting American companies at risk as opposed to their
foreign counterparts.
I have similar concerns with H.R. 5156. During the budget
window of this bill, we provide $75 million in funding instead
of tackling two of the biggest problems with our clean
technology trade deficit.
Mr. Chairman, the first deals with the raw materials
available domestically to support innovation in clean
technology. The minerals needed to commercially manufacture
these products are either not abundantly available in U.S. or
current policies prevent them from being mined properly.
The other problem is the issue of trade. Without access to
markets, without burdensome tariffs, we will continue to trail
our competitors when it comes to clean technology products.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that H.R. 5156 will ultimately
alleviate the trade deficit that we face in this area.
Mr. Chairman, despite my concern about these bills though,
I do look forward to hearing from both panels of witnesses so
they can provide us with their expertise on these matters.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus
for the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Dingell, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I commend you for
holding today's hearings on H.R. 4678, the Foreign
Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, and H.R. 5156, the
Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance
Act.
The former will help ensure foreign manufacturers are held
accountable for injuries their products may cause to American
public health and safety. And the latter will bolster the
Nation's exports in the growing sector of green technology.
Both are important, and I support efforts such as these and
will welcome the input of our witnesses.
Before concluding my remarks, I wish to say a few words in
support of H.R. 5156 which you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Matsui, and I are original sponsors.
There is broad agreement that the United States lags behind
other nations in terms of exports. Whereas exports can now
account for 49 percent of Germany's GDP, they account for only
9 to 13 percent of our own. More alarmingly, while Germany
exported $19.6 billion in clean technologies and services
between 2004 and 2008, the United States exported only 7.7
billion.
In brief, the United States consumes far more than it
produces and in so doing, is squandering not only our valuable
resources, our moneys, but our opportunity to be a leader in
green technology exports. H.R. 5156, by establishing a modest
support mechanism for the export of such technologies by U.S.
manufacturers will significantly help remedy this matter.
Moreover, the tax revenue generated from these exports will
pay more than the bill's cost over a 5-year period. The bill
should enjoy bipartisan support and must be recognized as a
critical component of our Nation's economic recovery.
And to return to H.R. 4678, it should be noted that had
such legislation been in effect, our troubles with the matter
of Toyota vehicles and their safety consequences would have
been handled much easier.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Scalise.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Scalise. I would like to focus my comments on H.R.
4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, a
bill that is relevant to my State and district because of the
problems we are experiencing with toxic drywall.
To date the Consumer Product Safety Commission has received
over 3,300 incident reports related to toxic Chinese drywall
from 37 States. Twenty percent of these reports are from
Louisiana, which is second only to Florida. And my office
continues to receive complaints from constituents affected by
toxic drywall.
Last week, a resident of New Orleans contacted my office at
a loss for what steps to take or what to do for help. Like many
others, her family was forced to move out of her home because
of toxic Chinese drywall, and they can no longer afford to pay
the mortgage on the home they aren't occupying while paying
rent for temporary housing at the same time.
The CPSC has been investigating toxic Chinese drywall for
over a year and a half, and it has sufficient evidence that
toxic Chinese drywall manufactured by Chinese companies is
responsible for the severe damage we have seen in thousands of
American homes. Last month, the Commission even identified 10
drywall manufacturers whose products emitted high levels of
hydrogen sulfite in laboratory testing. Unfortunately, no
action has been taken against these companies.
We must hold the manufacturers of toxic Chinese drywall
accountable, and I have continued to push for this including
requesting that the Department of Homeland Security pursue any
and all options available to the department including the
seizing of assets being shipped into the United States against
those entities that manufacture toxic Chinese drywall and have
been found liable for the damages associated with the
contaminated products.
These foreign manufacturers bear responsibility for serious
damage for thousands of homes across the country and have
caused homeowners significant financial hardship and in some
cases, physical harm. Even more concerning is that they have
done so without repercussion. We must take action to hold
accountable those who are responsible for the damages caused by
toxic Chinese drywall until they settle with the affected
victims or comply with the rulings of U.S. courts.
Given the challenges we are facing in doing this, I am
pleased to see some of my colleagues recognizing this issue.
The goals of H.R. 4678 are good, but I do have questions about
whether its implementation will accomplish its intentions.
While it can be argued that this bill would make it easier to
prosecute foreign manufacturers in the U.S., foreign courts
would still be under no obligation to enforce such judgements.
We would still be dependent on the good will of foreign courts
to enforce those judgments.
My constituents and others around the country who have been
affected by toxic Chinese drywalls deserve answers and
solutions, and this subcommittee must work with the
intergovernmental task force on problem drywall to help deliver
that.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Barrow of Georgia for 2 minutes.
Mr. Barrow. I thank the chairman, and I will waive opening.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Braley for 2
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important
hearing.
And as chairman of the Populist Caucus, I am proud that the
bill known as H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal
Accountability Act, is part of our America Jobs First platform.
This bill requires foreign manufacturers doing business in the
United States to identify a registered agent authorized to
accept service of process on behalf of the manufacturer.
And one of the reasons I support this legislation is
because unlike a lot of people at this hearing, I have actually
tried to hold foreign manufacturers accountable for their
defective products in U.S. State courts. It is virtually
impossible. There are companies marketing products in this
country who put the word ``U.S.A.'' in their company logo and
put out publications that say ``in an industry dominated by
foreign competition, we are proud of the fact that our products
are manufactured right here in the United States,'' and yet
when those products gave rise to a defect and suit was pursued,
they turned around and said these products, in fact, were not
made in the United States. They were made in China. Which then
dumps you into the bottomless pit of attempting to get suit on
an entity that may be a part of the Chinese government who is
manufacturing that defective product.
So you can imagine how difficult it is when you have to
translate that document into the native language of the country
of where the suit is being served, then get help from a
government entity that may be unwilling to subject its
manufacturers to liability in U.S. courts. And after all of
those delays, nothing happens.
And I have heard some of my colleagues express concerns
about U.S. companies being exposed to increased litigation.
They are not well founded concerns because the reality is right
now in many States if you cannot find the manufacturer of a
defective product and hold them accountable, then some of the
immunity that goes to the distributors of those products, if
the manufacturer is available and can be pursued in that State
court go out the window and then the U.S. distributors and
manufacturers are the one on the hook.
So this bill actually is a great thing for U.S.
manufacturers. It levels the playing field and gives them the
same opportunities to compete with foreign manufacturers that
U.S. companies have.
That is why I support it. And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Stearns, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Having chaired this committee when the Republicans were in
the majority, we tried to wrestle with this problem of
reciprocity between countries where there is fraud, abuse, and
incompetence and intentional mislabeling and things like that.
Mr. Braley mentioned some of the problems. We were never able
to get to the point where we were able to get together a bill
that would deal with this very serious problem. It affects not
only manufacturing, but also the Internet, how to go after
people that are fraudulent on the Internet or basing their
companies outside the United States. So I think the bill is
well intended. I think the hearing will be worthwhile listening
to.
But I have to tell you that I don't think the problem that
Mr. Braley talked about is going to be solved here because this
agent is going to like a cardboard agent where he will deliver
all of these documents that are in English, and he will just
dead file them.
I think this registered agent will be there, but I think we
might even have to explore other ways to have reciprocities
between countries because that is the larger issue because a
lot of these countries are going to just stonewall us.
Can we hold foreign manufacturers accountable for harmful
products? Foreign courts are under no obligation to enforce
U.S. judgements. So I welcome this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I
look forward to what they have to say.
I just conclude with H.R. 5156, the Manufacturing and
Export Assistance Act, clean energy technology. This is going
to cost us money. This is questionable. I would think all of
this, Mr. Chairman, was in the cap-and-trade which passed out
of the House. Perhaps it is also in the stimulus bill. So, you
know, I think we have to realize that if we didn't get
everything together in that cap-and-trade I would be very
surprised. There were hundreds of amendments and we discussed
it for weeks. So I think a lot of it was there.
I just conclude where are you going to get all of this
clean energy technologies bit parts from.
So I think it is worthwhile to have these hearings on these
two bills. I just think that perhaps when we mark this up, we
might have to make it a little bit stronger.
Mr. Rush. At this time I am going to entertain a unanimous
consent request that two members who are not members of the
subcommittee for the purposes of this hearing. And those
individuals are Ms. Sanchez of California and Mr. Turner of
Ohio.
Hearing no objections. So ordered.
I will recognize Ms. Sanchez recognized for 2 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of the committee, and I appreciate you allowing me to
participate with the subcommittee today. And I apologize. I am
not going to be able to stay for the entire time, but the
committee I serve on is currently holding a hearing as well.
I want to share my support for the Foreign Manufacturers
Legal Accountability Act that was introduced by my good friend,
Congresswoman Sutton from Ohio. I am an original cosponsor of
this piece of legislation, and I introduced similar legislation
in the last session of Congress, and we held hearings on that
in the Judiciary Committee as well.
I have long been alarmed by the steady stream of toxic or
defective foreign manufactured foods or products that harm U.S.
families every year. Beyond the risks that these products pose
to our health and welfare, I am also concerned that many
foreign manufacturers have gained an unfair advantage over U.S.
manufacturers by avoiding liability for the injuries and deaths
that their products cause.
Because of the difficulties associated with serving process
on and establishing jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers,
many Americans that are harmed by defective foreign-made
products have no recourse. They literally never get their day
in court.
The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act amends
current law to facilitate service of process on foreign
manufacturers. Quite simply, it just requires manufacturers who
want to put their goods in our stream of commerce to establish
a registered agent in the United States who then can be served
process.
That simple requirement just making sure that they are
servable if injuries should arise will level the playing field
for U.S. manufacturers by eliminating the unfair competitive
advantage enjoyed by foreign manufacturers. This would
essentially put them on equal footing making sure that all
companies, whether foreign or domestic, are held accountable
for the harm that they cause to American consumers.
I want to thank the chairman for calling this hearing, and
I am pleased that the subcommittee has taken the time to
discuss H.R. 4678.
And again, I appreciate the invitation to come. And I yield
back my time.
Mr. Rush. I now recognize Mr. Terry.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Terry. I appreciate that.
I am concerned. I am also going to discuss the Foreign
Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act as one of the original
sponsors and worked a little bit with Ms. Sutton on this.
I think this is an important piece of legislation in
protecting American consumers from defective goods manufactured
outside the United States in the sense that if they don't have
any presence within the United States, there may be very little
ability for the victim to be compensated or justice to occur
which then falls then mostly on the taxpayers instead of the
foreign entity. And all this does, and Cliff is correct, the
gentleman from Florida, that this doesn't really correct that
problem but you can't get to the second hurdle and the third
hurdle in this process without being able to effectively hand
the petition to a representative of that country. And so this
is just setting up the first step here.
We do need to continue the dialogue on this. But this seems
to be kind of the first step, the easy, noncontroversial, or
for the most part, the least controversial part of the process.
I want to thank the chairman for holding the hearing on
this matter. I am anxious to hear from the witnesses and their
input.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Murphy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have now reached a
point where China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt at
$900 billion, and more than 2.3 million manufacturing jobs have
been displaced to Chinese companies that sell products like
drywall that causes terrible illness, lead in toys, and fungus
in diapers and toxins in baby bottles.
I am thankful we are having a hearing on how to hold better
manufactures of a harmful product liable, but the larger issue
is, how we are going to pursue policies that are going to
invigorate American manufacturing in a fair playing field. And
if we are going to tame an economic dragon like China, it is
not going to be about lofty theories or more government
spending, but how to make sure that it is a level playing
field. I know that along with Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio, he
and I have introduced H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform Fair Trade
Act, which stops some of the unfair trade practices of China,
particularly some of their currency manipulation, which we
consider vital.
As we are looking at legislation that tries to find ways to
help promote American businesses, I believe that often times we
do not need American businesses to get more ideas on how to
wade through complex trade laws, but make sure that we have
trade laws that are fair and they are fairly enforced. Recently
the Steel Caucus, which I am vice chair, has pushed for and
been successful in getting some findings where China has dumped
pipe and in the past steel, rolled steel in unfair trade
practices. This is what manufacturers want to see. But we also
want to make sure we have a system whereby we are not setting
up laws here such as cap-and-trade and light bulb laws which
basically turn our jobs over to China.
I am looking forward to hearing some insight today from
this panel today to make sure we do have fair trade laws and
make sure what we are doing. Not just to tell American
companies how to wade through this complexity but make sure
they are able to use their ingenuity, their creativity and
their manufacturing skills to bring back American jobs.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Turner, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
Whitfield. I thank you for allowing me to participate in
today's hearing on H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers
Accountability Act of 2010. I am an original cosponsor of H.R.
4678, and I want to thank my Ohio colleague, Betty Sutton, for
her hard work on this important piece of legislation.
Representative Sutton has been a steadfast advocate for her
community and for manufactures in Ohio.
I also want to thank the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has
been working with both my office and Representative Sutton's
office on H.R. 4678, and I look forward to the continued
collaboration as we move forward with this important
legislation. The Chamber has expressed concern about a
provision that may permit jurisdiction in U.S. courts for non-
U.S. matters it is an unintended consequence and both Betty
Sutton and I are looking at language that could adjust that.
In this hearing I know there could be other unintended
consequences, and I look forward to those being addressed. But
mostly I appreciate the manner in which Representative Sutton
has worked on this in a bipartisan manner and worked with the
Chamber to ensure that the bill will protect consumers while at
the same time avoid jurisdiction in U.S. courts concerning
matters that have not caused injuries in the United States.
The State of Ohio has faced many challenges as it
transitions from being a manufacturing-based economy. Many of
our local manufacturers have worked to remain competitive but
find themselves in an uphill battle with foreign manufacturers
because of unfair trade practices. One way in which foreign
manufacturers are given an unfair advantage is by their ability
to often times avoid the American judicial system. Because
service of process in establishing jurisdiction is difficult
with these products, maintaining a registered agent in the U.S.
will assist American consumers in their ability to redress
injuries. How does it do this? By establishing agents, it
allows U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over the foreign entity
and thereby allow them to render a judgment including the issue
of seizing assets.
And it will also help level the playing field for domestic
manufacturers as they also have to avail themselves of the
American judicial system. I want to thank you again for the
opportunity to participate and for holding this important
hearing. I look forward to reading the testimony from the
witnesses today and hearing the comments and working with
Congresswoman Sutton for drafting this important legislation.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks all of the members of the
subcommittee for their opening statements.
It is now time for us to hear from the policy experts, our
witnesses who have been invited to testify before this hearing.
And let me again welcome you and thank you so much for
extending your valuable time to this subcommittee.
And I want to introduce you all beginning on my left, Mr.
Jeremy Baskin, who is with the Office of the General Counsel
for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Seated next to
Mr. Baskin is Ms. Ami Gadhia. She is a policy counsel for the
Consumers Union. Next to Ms. Gadhia is Mr. Bill Morgan. He is
the victim of defective Chinese drywall. And seated next to Mr.
Morgan is Professor Andrew Popper, and Professor Popper is a
professor of law at the American University in Washington. And
next to Professor Popper is Marianne Rowden. She is the
President and CEO of the American Association of Exporters and
Importers, or the AAEI.
The chair again welcomes you. And it is the practice of
this committee that all of the witnesses be sworn in.
So will you please stand and raise your hands.
Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses have
responded in the affirmative.
And now we will have 5 minutes of opening testimony from
our witnesses beginning with you, Mr. Baskin.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY BASKIN, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION; AMI GADHIA,
POLICY COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION; BILL MORGAN, VICTIM OF
DEFECTIVE CHINESE DRYWALL; ANDREW POPPER, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW; MARIANNE ROWDEN,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS (AAEI)
STATEMENT OF JEREMY BASKIN
Mr. Baskin. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Whitfield. My name is Jeremy Baskin. I am the general attorney
who works with the import surveillance division of the Office
of Compliance of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission's efforts in the area of import
surveillance and H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal
Accountability Act. Before I begin, let me first note that the
testimony that I give this morning is mine and has not been
reviewed or approved by the Commission and may not necessarily
represent the views of the Commission.
From 1998 to 2007, the volume of consumer products imported
into the United States increased over 100 percent. During that
time period, imports from China nearly quadrupled and now
constitute over 40 percent of all consumer goods. The shift in
specific product areas has been more pronounced.
In 2002, approximately 60 percent of toys purchased in the
United States were imported from China and Hong Kong. By 2008,
that number had risen to almost 80 percent of the U.S. market.
In response to the rapid increase in consumer product
imports, the CPSC has taken several steps to inspect products
entering the country to ensure that they comply with applicable
safety standards. In 2008, the Commission announced its import
safety initiative and established a new import surveillance
division within the Office of Compliance. The establishment of
this new division allowed the CPSC to collocate permanent full-
time compliance investigators at key ports of entry of the
United States.
In 2009, the division had 10 full-time employees, FTEs,
dedicated to port surveillance. That number is scheduled to
rise to 14 FTEs by the end of fiscal year 2010 and 19 by fiscal
year 2011. In addition, the division can call on the resources
of the entire Office of Compliance which has over 100 FTEs when
necessary.
The CPSC has also sought to enhance its relationship with
larger agency partners such as the Department of Homeland
Security. Through the operation guardian program, CPSC partners
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, staff in order to
leverage joint resources. In addition, CPSC recently assigned
two FTEs to CBP's new commercial targeting and analysis center,
called to CTAC, and executed a memorandum of understanding with
CBP that allows the agency direct access to pre-arrival cargo
data. This allows CPSC inspectors to target suspect shipments
before they arrive, and most importantly, before potentially
dangerous goods can enter the U.S. stream of commerce.
We have also conducted training programs with CBP to
educate both government personnel and the importing community
on CPSC and CBP product detention and seizure authorities. So
far, the results of these initiatives are encouraging.
In fiscal year 2007, CPSC collected approximately 750
samples of suspect products entering our country. In fiscal
year 2009, the number more than doubled to almost 1,600. At the
same time, we started to see a commensurate decrease in the
number of voluntary recalls from 5,063 in fiscal year 2008 to
466 in fiscal year 2009.
In most cases, CPSC has been able to work with domestic
partners of foreign manufacturers such as importers or
retailers on enforcement activities to obtain relief for
consumers without resorting to adjudicative proceedings. In a
few cases, however, the lack of a registered agent for service
of process has hindered the Commission's ability to develop
information that would help us provide relief to consumers.
One example of this is the CPSC's effort to provide relief
to U.S. homeowners impacted by problem drywall imported from
China. In a number of cases, CPSC staff attempted to send
requests for information to Chinese drywall manufacturers only
to have these requests returned to the Commission refused and
unopened.
The lack of registered agent for service of process has
also been recognized by Chinese industry groups and some local
lawyers in China have provided legal advice seeking to exploit
this situation. Thankfully this type of sentiment appears to be
rare. However it is foreseeable that additional attempts to
stymy or obstruct commission efforts to obtain information
voluntarily from manufacturers outside of U.S. legal
jurisdiction and that could occur in the future.
Any such recalcitrance could impede commission efforts to
assist consumers with potentially defective consumer products.
Additional authority allowing CPSC to require that foreign
manufacturers designate a U.S. registered agent for service of
process could be helpful in some cases, particularly those
involving administrative requests for documents or information.
On January 15, 2010, CPSC chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum noted
in a statement accompanying a report to Congress that helpful
changes to existing statutes might include service of process
requirements for foreign manufacturers so the agency can more
easily pursue recalls.
Currently, any action against an identifiable foreign
manufacturer would require service of process using The Hague
convention.
As the subcommittee moves forward however some additional
direction would be helpful with regard to the range in size of
manufacturers that would be subject to the registration
process. In addition, it might also be helpful to involve the
import safety working group in this process to ensure that
appropriate jurisdictional and operational details are
addressed.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baskin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you, the chair now recognizes Ms. Gadhia
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMI GADHIA
Ms. Gadhia. Thank you, good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking
Member Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Ami Gadhia, and I'm policy counsel with Consumers Union, the
nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine. We appreciate
the opportunity to testify the today in support of the Foreign
Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act. I offer my testimony on
behalf of both CU and the Consumer Federation of America. My
full comments are contained in my written testimony, but I will
summarize them briefly here.
H.R. 4678 is necessary to ensure that consumers who are
harmed by unsafe products can obtain redress no matter where
the product is manufactured. It will also create a level
playing field for all manufacturers, both domestic and foreign,
by holding the responsible party accountable when consumers are
injured. CUA and CFA have long fought for legislation and
regulation that will result in safer products on our store
shelves. But in the event that an unsafe product makes it into
the marketplace, consumers should be able to pursue all
remedies for the harm they suffer whether the manufacturer of
the unsafe product is a foreign company or a domestic one.
The products that Americans use every day are increasingly
being manufactured overseas. According to the Toy Industry
Association in 2007, toys made in China made up 70 to 80
percent of the toys sold in the U.S.
Of the products recalled by the CPSC since 2006, more than
75 percent of products were manufactured outside of the U.S.
We have too many frightening examples in recent years of
dangerous or deadly foreign made products melamine, which is
toxic to animals, was blended into pet food to give
artificially high protein readings. Diethylene glycol,
potentially lethal to humans, was substituted for its higher
cost cousin glycerin, in the manufacture of toothpaste. Tires
were manufactured with either a minimal or missing gum layer
needed to prevent catastrophic tread separation. Toxic lead
paint was substituted for the paint that was originally
approved for popular children's toys presumably to save money.
These are all cases were unscrupulous business practices
have jeopardized the health and safety of the consumer.
This legislation would assist our Federal agencies as well
in their ability to recall consumer products manufactured by
foreign entities.
The following example is illustrative in May 2001, the CPSC
recalled a home soda machine manufactured by Drinkmaker of
Sweden. Components inside the soda machine broke apart and went
flying, and there were reports of lacerations, fractures and
contusions caused by the machine. However, the manufacturer,
Drinkmaker of Sweden AB, either could not be contacted by the
Commission or would not cooperate with the voluntary recall.
Fortunately, a responsible company, the Soft Drink Company of
Seattle, Washington, agreed to conduct the recall of these
machines with the CPSC and to repair the Drinkmaker.
It is untenable, however, to have a system of
accountability that relies upon this kind of altruistic and
rare behavior. By requiring that foreign manufacturers have
registered agents in the U.S., H.R. 4678 will make considerable
strides in assisting CPSC, FDA and EPA in holding the
appropriate entities responsible for the products that they
introduce and sell to U.S. consumers.
If foreign entities have the benefit of selling products
and making profits from sales in the U.S., they should be
accountable if the product causes harm.
While in some instances, U.S. retailers and other entities
have shouldered the burden of the foreign manufacturers for the
products they sell, this cannot be relied upon and is not
always fair.
Domestic manufacturers who make safe products should not be
undercut by foreign manufacturers who are not prioritizing
safety. If a foreign manufacturer knows that they cannot be
held responsible in U.S. Courts for the dangerous products they
sell, this knowledge has a likely significant impact upon the
manufacturing decisions. Did they use the stronger more
expensive component? Do they ensure that the product meets
safety standards? Holding manufacturing entities accountable in
our civil justice system acts as an important deterrent to
unethical and potentially harmful business conduct.
Deterring wrongful conduct is a significant attribute of
our civil justice system and it does not make sense that
foreign manufacturers who sell products in the U.S. Should be
outside that system.
We have a modest suggestion for an improvement to the bill.
In section 3(a)(3) of H.R. 4678, the minimum size of the
foreign manufacturer is left to the discretion of the
applicable agency. At a minimum, the heads of each agency must
coordinate the definition of which companies would fall under
the bill's scope, and ideally there will be a consistent
definition. It would be confusing and counterintuitive if a
manufacturer were to produce some products that fall under the
scope of this bill and some products that do not.
Further, a consumer could be killed or seriously hurt by a
product made by a manufacturer of any size. Our groups
understand that it may be necessary to make a determination
about which manufacturers fall under the bill but ensuring that
consumers can obtain redress should be prioritized.
We want to prevent companies from purposely using the size
limits to evade responsibility to purchasers and users.
Finally, we oppose efforts to weaken aspects of this
legislation including efforts to shift cases from State to
Federal courts. Efforts to limit access to State courts have
negative consequences for consumers. Corporations that violate
State laws are less likely to be held accountable for their
wrongdoing when a Federal Court hears the case rather than's
State court. Further corporations now seek to avoid
responsibility under State law as States enact laws expanding
consumer and environmental protections.
When a case is based solely on a violation of State law as
many product liability cases are, no compelling reason exists
for stripping State courts of the ability of enforce that State
law.
Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America support
the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act and we look
forward to working with you to ensure that this bill becomes
law. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gadhia follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Morgan for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MORGAN
Mr. Morgan. Chairman Rush members of the subcommittee,
thank you for allowing me to come here and testify. Thank you
for allowing me the opportunity to come here and share my
experiences with you here this morning. My name is Bill Morgan.
I'm a retired police officer after having served the City of
Newport News, Virginia for 24 years. My wife, Deborah, is a
school teacher. She and I have been married 27 years. We have
two daughters and our first grandchild was born a couple of
weeks ago.
My wife and I bought our dream home in July 2006. It was a
beautiful home on a corner lot in Williamsburg, Virginia with a
big yard. Both Debbie and I fell in love with the home. It was
the perfect home for our family. We paid a little under
$400,000 for the home.
After my wife experienced multiple episodes of nose bleeds
and headaches and after our house had a series of failures with
the air conditioning and electrical systems, we discovered our
had been built with defective drywall imported from China. We
learned that this drywall contains high amounts of sulfur and
that corrosive sulphur gases were circulating in our home
corroding our electrical and mechanical equipment. My home was
built with almost 200 sheets of 4 foot by 12 feet Chinese
drywall.
After a hearing in front of Judge Eldon Fallin in New
Orleans earlier this year, he found that the electrical and
mechanical systems in my home had been completely destroyed and
needed to be replaced. The only solution to this extensive
damage is to strip my house back down to the studs and
completely rebuild it. I can't afford that.
The corrosive gases have also damaged my computers,
televisions and other electrical and electronic devices in my
home. We were scared for our family's health and concerned
about the risk of fire. We moved out of the house in June, 2009
last year. Since having to abandon our dream home, I've been
unable to pay the rent on the place where we are currently
living and my mortgage. I have lost my home in foreclosure, and
I have had to file for personal bankruptcy.
The company that manufactured the drywall in my home was
called Taishan. This company is located outside of Beijing in
China. Although the Chinese company sent enough drywall into
Norfolk, Virginia to build several hundred homes, it has
refused to take any responsibility for its defective product.
In the complaint that was filed on my behalf, it was necessary
to have a lawsuit translated into Mandarin with special process
service flying to China utilizing a time consuming and
expensive process.
The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act would
streamline this process and give victims of defective foreign
products a more speedy and equitable procedure to have their
claims addressed. My lawyers have advised me that they spent
well in excess of $150,000 serving foreign drywall
manufacturers for victims like myself.
It's not unusual for these foreign authorities to sit on
the lawsuits for 6 months before serving them on the defendant
manufacturers. The average American, like myself, cannot afford
this expensive time consuming and frustrating procedure.
Foreign manufacturers should not be allowed to sell
products which destroy homes and make people sick with
impunity. Unless these companies require to make themselves
amenable to being sued in U.S. Court, they should not be
allowed to sell their products here.
U.S. businesses are required to abide by our laws and
foreign businesses that profit off of U.S. consumers should do
so as well.
I look forward to answering any questions you folks may
have, and thank you for allowing me to come here and share this
experience with you here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. Popper for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW POPPER
Mr. Popper. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a special hello
to Congresswoman Sutton from my alma mater Baldwin-Wallace in
Berea, Ohio.
H.R. 4678 is a straightforward appropriate essential step.
It is, as far as I can tell, constitutionally sound, beneficial
to consumers, beneficial to U.S. businesses and consistent with
the laws and practices in many of our trading partners. It is
as far as all of the witnesses seem to understand, a way to
level the playing field. It strips foreign manufacturers of an
unfair advantage. It closes an understandable loophole in our
legal system. And that is not a loophole that is illegitimate.
There is a constitutional basis for it. But there is also an
answer for it. And the answer is this legislation.
It begins at least in terms of how we think about these
things with the obvious need, and I don't think any of us could
say it better than Mr. Morgan just did. When you place into the
stream of commerce millions of products, and we are talking
about millions of products with toxic levels of lead, drywall
that is destroying a home and a family, cribs that present a
risk of strangulation, aqua dots that are coated with date rape
drug as part of their paint, contaminated toothpaste and
seafood and honey and pet food, you got a problem.
And you might want to think that there are nice ways to get
around this or our existing system of laws will account for it,
but you really need to take the bull by the horns here.
This is a very wise, very simple piece of legislation. The
idea of designating an individual for service of process, and
by that designation, establishing consent is, as I think we all
said, it's a logical, simple, appropriate and constitutional
approach.
Imagine the scenario that was just presented by Mr. Morgan
repeated over and over and over again. The majority of our most
common pharmaceutical products are manufactured abroad, crash
helmets, manufactured abroad, and the list, as you see from my
testimony, goes on and on and on.
Here is a bill that deals with the problem finally of the
difficulty of haling into court--an interesting term--a foreign
entity that otherwise has a minimum contact and reasonability
basis for resisting service of process.
Here is a bill that actually solves the problem.
And we all recognize what the problem is. If you don't have
an agent or officer in this country, if you don't own property
or have a representative in the United States, it becomes
difficult under our current system, under our current
jurisprudence to establish in persona jurisdiction. Now with
one simple bill that mimics legislation in other fields that
seems fair that seems a legitimate quid pro quo, a condition
for doing business in the United States that is mimicked in
many other areas, you solve the problem.
There were other solutions that people thought of, the
aggregate of contacts suggestion that comes from the concurring
opinion and the plurality opinion in Asahi is a legitimate
answer. It's just complicated.
This is simple. This is right. And this is the moment to do
it.
You have foreign producers who are creating a risk and are
now being given a simple choice. I like to think of this
legislation in terms of that word. This is choice. This is
party autonomy. You don't have to do business here. If you
choose to do business here, then you're subject to our laws. If
we are lucky enough under the other legislation that is being
considered or in any other area to have our wonderful
manufacturing community able to market its goods abroad, do you
think that they would get a free pass from other countries?
China has just adopted a comprehensive tort law with strict
liability, punitive damages, do you think that China is going
to recognize a minimum contacts theory and not impose on our
companies who do business there the same responsibility that we
ought to be imposing on companies who do business in the United
States?
I don't think so. I don't think so.
On the question of trade, and on the question of whether
this creates an unfair advantage, there was a case involving
artificial Christmas trees that catch on fire in the United
States District Court about 2 years ago. And that product was
manufactured in China. And the court held as follows, in this
age of WTO and GATT, it is only reasonable that companies that
distribute allegedly defective products to regional
distributors in this country anticipate being haled into court.
Well, of course it's reasonable. Of course it's normal, it
is a condition of doing business here. And yet a loophole
exists. Close the loophole. It's not that complicated. This is
leveling the playing field. This is getting rid of a free pass
that we are giving foreign manufacturers, a free pass that our
manufacturers don't get.
The law of the land in this country, the law of the land in
virtually every common law country is lex loci delicti. You
apply the law to the place of the wrong. The place of the wrong
is here. This is where the manufacturer is harmed. Give the
manufacturer the access to our courts, give the harmed
individual access to our courts and let our system of justice
work.
This is good legislation. It's going to produce fair
result. It isn't perfect. No legislation is. The Constitution
isn't perfect. That's why we keep amending it.
I ask that you give consideration to this bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Popper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Ms. Rowden, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARIANNE ROWDEN
Ms. Rowden. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Marianne
Rowden, and I'm president and CEO of the American Association
of Exporters and Importers. AAEI has been the voice of the
International Trade Community since 1921, and we represent the
entire spectrum of the trade community. AAEI greatly
appreciates the opportunity to testify today. Our written
testimony submitted for the record raises five points, but I
would like to concentrate on two fundamental issues.
Since enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act, product safety has become an integral part of trade
compliance. This new responsibility follows the trade community
adopting new practices to enhance supply chain security since
9/11.
Our experience over the last decade has been that
regulating goods produced outside of the United States requires
two things: First a wholistic risk management system; and two,
implementation of product safety legislation, which would
eliminate the need for H.R. 4678.
Let's turn to the chart entitled A Multi-Layered Approach
to Wholistic Risk Management.
This chart categorizes companies based on risk
characteristics. This solution will allow the government to
spend its limited resources efficiently and effectively to
prevent defective products from entering the commerce of the
United States, secure the homeland and increase trade
compliance.
We would like to highlight the companies who joined CPSC's
voluntary partnership program with CBP, the importer self-
assessment program for product safety would fall into the ultra
low risk category as a result of their demonstrated commitment
to ensuring the integrity of their imported products and the
safety of U.S. consumers.
This wholistic risk management approach is critical to the
implementation of product safety laws enacted by Congress.
First, without information about the integrity of imported
products, we will continue to see defective products. AAEI is
working with CBP, FDA, CPSC and other Federal agencies to
leverage the data already collected by CBP to assess risk.
Congress has chosen different methods for dealing with
risks posed by different products. For consumer products,
Congress has directed CPSC to require certifications
demonstrating that the product meets applicable safety
standards.
For food drugs and devices, Congress chose to require
foreign manufacturers to register with FDA because of the risks
posed to the public health by potential bad actors seeking to
compromise the integrity of these products.
These laws need time for implementation and evaluation of
their effectiveness before adding more legislative
requirements.
Finally, AAEI remains concerned that if Congress chooses to
pass H.R. 4678, similar requirements will be placed on U.S.
companies exporting to foreign markets. We believe it will be
difficult for small U.S. companies to expand export
opportunities and create jobs in the United States if they are
required to appoint a registered agent in foreign countries to
defend lawsuits.
We thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm
happy to answer the subcommittee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rowden follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks all of the witnesses for their
opening statements. And the chair now recognizes himself for 5
minutes for the purposes of questioning the witnesses.
Mr. Morgan, I must begin with you, your story of you and
your family, the tragedy that you had to endure was heart
wrenching. There is not one of us that wasn't moved by your
story that you provided us. And I want to thank you for your
willingness to share your story with us today. The story of
defective Chinese drywall in what you thought was your dream
home has, you said, made your life turned upside down, forced
into bankruptcy and forced you to lose your home. And I can't
think of anything that would be as horrible as having someone
to lose their home under these kind of circumstances.
Your story demonstrates quite clearly to all of us that the
expense of foreign defective products on the American consumer
can be enormous and can be life altering.
We are not only moved emotionally, but we are also outraged
by what happened to you and your family, and what is happening
to not only you and your family but to thousands of other
American consumers who are victims of this defective drywall,
and other products, I might add, foreign manufactured and
defective that come in from overseas.
We are just very, very moved by the results that Americans
have to suffer from the circumstances.
I guess this might be kind of an interesting elementary
question, but can you share how you feel about that and say why
you support this legislation?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. I bear no ill will to China or the
companies, 14 months ago, my life was perfect. We had no
concerns, no issues, and in 14 months, I'm here today talking
with you good ladies and gentlemen. Just hold them accountable
like anybody else in this country. I don't think they should be
placed on a higher standard. Just put them, hold them
accountable like everybody that does business in this country
is. As a police officer, my wife being a school teacher, we
always had to obey the rules. It's just our nature. And I think
that is probably the most frustrating thing is they are not
being made to obey the rules of doing business in this country.
Mr. Rush. Since your story has been made known to the
public, have you been able to identify or share your stories
with other American citizens who have had a similar story?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. And my story is very typical. The sad
thing is it took almost 2 years for our home to start to
display the problems. In other words, we built it brand new in
2006 and it was around 2008 we started experiencing the
problems with the electrical systems, the air conditioning, my
wife had the nose bleeds the coughing, the headaches, all those
types of things. And the homes that were built last year, there
are a lot of people that have it in their homes and they don't
know it yet. Anything I can do, and that's one reason I wanted
to come here today, anything I can do to bring awareness to
this, it's hurtful to sit and tell people that I've had to file
bankruptcy. May 17th my home went into foreclosure.
My wife and I were always the type of people, our mortgage
check was there on the first because we were afraid if it was a
day late they were going to come take the house. Here again, we
have always done what we're supposed to do, and that's just
what I hope anybody that does business with this country will
be held to the same standards as those of us that live here and
work here.
Mr. Rush. Again, I want to thank you and members of this
committee, our hearts go out to you and we are highly motivated
to solve this problem.
Mr. Morgan. Thank you, chairman.
Mr. Rush. The chair is extending this time now, the chair
now recognizes Mr. Whitfield for 5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, and thank you all for
your testimony.
When we talk about safety of products in the U.S., of
course one part of it is we have a mechanism where we can
recall certain items and then what this legislation really is
about is giving an individual or a legal entity an opportunity
to get a defending party into court. And let's take Mr.
Morgan's example, and Mr. Morgan, I also would like to convey
my very much concern about you and your family and what has
happened to you and other people caught in the same
circumstance.
But if this law had been in effect, the one that we are
talking about, and Mr. Popper, if we if we were able to serve,
get the service of process on the Chinese company that provided
this drywall and if we obtained a judgment in a court in the
U.S., whether Federal or State, whatever, how difficult would
it be to actually obtain the funds to collect to the judgment?
Mr. Popper. I guess the best way to answer that would be to
say that you would never get to that question unless this
legislation is adopted. Because you would never get to having
that manufacturer in court.
Mr. Whitfield. I understand that. If we are going to try to
really help people like Mr. Morgan, we can help get service of
process very easily. But what can we do to collect on the
judgment? In his case for example?
Mr. Popper. The potential of liability changes behavior.
The potential for civil liability is one of the most powerful
forces in the American economy. Selling a product in the United
States and knowing that you don't get a free pass or a dodge
but that you can be haled into court and that you can haled,
found liable, I think, creates an incentive that is worthwhile.
That is the whole theory behind the tort system. That is the
corrective justice effect. I don't mean to avoid your question.
But you start with the fact, you asked me how this could happen
or how this could be avoided? That is one way. The second way
is we position----
Mr. Whitfield. How do we collect the money?
Mr. Popper. You go after the manufacturer and if the
manufacturer doesn't cough up the money on the judgment, or if
the manufacturer makes it difficult to secure that judgment
under The Hague convention, then you have to go after the
distributor. But you don't get to do any of that right now.
None of those, none of those values are there.
To be clear, this legislation doesn't solve every problem
in the civil litigation system when you're dealing with a
foreign manufacturer. It does give you a valid starting point.
This bill wasn't designed, as I read it to facilitate the
collection of foreign judgments. It allows for the entry of the
judgment. Now potentially, you have got a judgment creditor,
you have a company that is in trouble, you have an enforcement
mechanism through the Department of Homeland Security----
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Popper, thank you, I appreciate that. I
only have 1 minute and 50 seconds left. Thank you for that.
But the importer of this product, Mr. Baskin, this tainted
wallboard that was used in Mr. Morgan's house, would there be
any mechanism through a treaty or otherwise that a lawsuit
could have been filed against the importer or the distributor
of the product in the U.S.?
Mr. Baskin. The importer is responsible for obligations
that the Tariff Act puts on him with regard to importation, but
the importer would not necessarily be responsible for paying
money damages.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Morgan did your employers sue the
importer of the product?
Mr. Morgan. Not yet, no, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Have they had talked to you about doing
that?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, I know all things are being looked
at, and I would have to defer any additional questions like
that to them.
Mr. Whitfield. So they have not made a final decision yet.
OK. But they are looking in it.
One other question I would like to ask, and I'm not an
expert in this certainly, but some experts have told us that
this legislation may run afoul of WTO requirements for similar
treatment of foreign and domestic products that if the bill
passed foreign manufacturers would face the penalty of
exclusion of their goods from commerce for failure to have a
registered agent and thereby accepting the specific
jurisdiction of the State court. However domestic manufacturers
do not face this significant penalty of banishment from
commerce for any similar violation.
Is there any argument there that WTO would look at this as
a discriminatory type action?
Mr. Baskin. I would have to defer to Customs and
International Trade Commission for an answer like that. CPSC
wouldn't be in a position to answer that.
Mr. Whitfield. But Mr. Popper, you had indicated that
recently China had changed their tort law. Is that correct?
Mr. Popper. My understanding, and it is in my testimony
that China adopted a new, what they call a new tort law to take
effect July 1, 2010.
Mr. Whitfield. Have you had an opportunity to look at that
yet? That law?
Mr. Popper. It has been in the making for 8 years, and I
have looked at the components parts of it that are available
online. I haven't read it in its native tongue.
Mr. Whitfield. May I ask one other question and I know we
have other people.
But Mr. Baskin, does the Consumer Product Safety Commission
have a position on this bill?
Mr. Baskin. Yes. We support the concepts of the bill. But
as I noted in my testimony, there are some issues that we would
have with regard to the range and size of manufacturers that
would be subject to the process.
Mr. Whitfield. You do support the concept?
Mr. Baskin. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. Ms. Sutton is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baskin, in your testimony, you stated that earlier this
year Chairman Tenenbaum sent a letter to Congress, and in the
letter noted that helpful changes to the existing statutes
might include a service of process requirements for foreign
manufacturers so that the agency can more easily pursue
recalls, is that correct?
Mr. Baskin. Yes.
Ms. Sutton. And so this legislation could be helpful to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission as well as to providing
redress for injured consumers, correct.
Mr. Baskin. Yes.
Ms. Sutton. Ms. Gadhia, thank you very much for your
testimony as well.
The CPSC has a number of tools as we have heard here today
intended to prevent unsafe consumer products from entering the
market. And you testified that this bill will make considerable
strides in assisting CPSC and other agencies in holding
appropriate entities responsible for products that they
introduced and sell to our consumers.
Could you elaborate about how this would work together and
complement the CPSC's activities?
Ms. Gadhia. Absolutely. As has been noted, there are
mechanisms on the front end such as the CPSIA and other
statutes in place that hold all manufacturers to certain safety
standards that their products have to meet before they are sold
in the U.S.
And there are mechanisms once those parts come to our
borders, through the good work of CBP and Department of
Homeland Security to screen those products. But there are two
issues with regards to that, one, not every company is going to
follow the safety standards. You're going to have unscrupulous
products, manufacturers and products, dangerous products coming
through. And with the resources that CBP and others have, they
are not able to screen every single one of the products at the
border.
So the end result for a variety of reasons is that there
are going to be dangerous products on the market, despite
everyone's efforts. And so this is yet another mechanism on the
other side of things to address the harm when it does occur and
allows consumers when they are injured and go through the
devastating circumstances that Mr. Morgan and his family have
gone through to try to begin to obtain some redress for that.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you. And of course, Professor Popper, you
were just explaining the benefits of also having this kind of
legislation pass so that we can give an incentive to those who
produce products to make them safe. Would you like to elaborate
on that and how this is a useful tool up front as well as
providing redress?
Mr. Popper. I think that there is no question that the
potential for liability changes behavior. It means both making
sure in the production process that you have exercised
reasonable care and that in the distribution and sale process
you provide adequate information and warning. You know that
liability is down the road. Whether as has been suggested, you
may have difficulty selecting the judgment is a very separate
question.
The other piece of this is that once you interject the CPSC
into the equation and the way the consumer product safety
improvement legislations worked is, you end up with findings of
regulatory violations where you don't have the collection of
judgments a problem. Those findings become facts that
constitute a violation, they constitute a breach of a duty of
care and they are readily imported into our legal system. It's
the way U.S. manufacturers function. They work both the front
end and back end. It's what creates safer products. Why not do
that with foreign manufacturers? It seems fair to me.
Ms. Sutton. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Morgan, thank
you so much for being here and for testifying for sharing your
experience with the committee in an effort to try and improve
the situation for others.
I'm very sorry to hear about what has happened to your
family. I'm sorry to hear about the toll that it has taken and
the time that you have had to deal with in pursuing some kind
of effort at recourse.
To the questions that some of my colleagues have raised
about enforcement, I have some ideas about enforcement too so I
look forward to pursuing those.
But I just, I'm struck and I think that it was professor
Popper who indicated that your words frankly summarize it when
you say foreign manufacturers should not be allowed to sell
products which destroy homes and make people sick with impunity
or the list of any of these other products that come into our
stream of commerce, and frankly it will improve safety of
products not just for American consumers, but for all
consumers. And so I would advise and encourage folks to look at
the list of items, Professor Popper, that is contained in your
testimony I believe about things that are coming in to this
country.
And I don't have much time left, but I would just because
I'm not very familiar, Ms. Rowden, with exactly with your
entity that you are representing but I believe you said you
represent the international trading community in the United
States. And you support what I believe you described as fair
and open trade policies, did you all support, did your
organization support then things like NAFTA and CAFTA and NPTR?
Ms. Rowden. Yes, traditionally, we have supported free
trade agreements.
Ms. Sutton. So you support all those things?
Ms. Rowden. Yes.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Commander Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to the
panel. Professor Popper, a question for you, I just want to
make sure I have a proper summary of your testimony, so if we
use these products, you can be poisoned, strangled, choked,
fall, crash, burned, bruised, cut or die but you can't sue?
Mr. Popper. That's correct.
Mr. Murphy. Then given that, then I have a couple of
follow-up questions there. And you pointed out that when one
has to face the responsibility of litigation or the chance of
litigation, it is a motivator for companies to make sure they
keep an eye on their products because they are going to be held
responsible for that.
Does that add to the cost of products made in America such
that products made in other countries that don't bear that
responsibility use that as a mechanism to actually undercut the
cost of products and sell them cheaper in the United States?
Mr. Popper. I'm not sure I understand exactly your
question, but I believe in my testimony what I stated in the
written portion of it was that foreign manufacturers who are
freed of this responsibility bear lower costs because they
don't have to observe the due care responsibilities and they
bear lower insurance costs and companies in the United States
do have to observe due care responsibilities, do have to
observe statutory obligations, do have to ensure against harm,
and do spend more money. Consequently, the U.S. companies are
definitely at a disadvantage.
Mr. Murphy. That is what I wanted to know if you have any
kind of dollar figure percent figure you have that it is one of
those things that foreign companies may actually, we know they
manipulate currency, they do a number of other things to
subsidize or manipulate taxes, but I'm wondering along these
lines too if we have any kind of dollar figure of what it is
that they may by bypassing us actually undercut the cost of
products.
Mr. Popper. It's actually a very wonderful question, and
it's very volatile because it is what is referred to in the
United States from time to time as the tort tax. If you listen
in the tort reform debate to people who don't necessarily agree
with me on some of the issues, and they complain about the
imposition of liability what they do is they place a percentage
number on what it costs to produce good and safe products in
this country and comply with our tort system. And I'm going to
estimate that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20
percent.
Mr. Murphy. But that is a significant number----
Mr. Popper. Massive.
Mr. Murphy. And companies are saying we will just build in
China and send it over here, and we don't have to pay that
extra 15 to 20 percent and we manipulate currency which puts
another 40 percent savings on, it's hard to compete with those
countries.
Mr. Popper. It's hard to compete with those countries and
with those products so long as those products are not subject
to the U.S. legal system.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Baskin, I have a question, too,
on your testimony. Does the Consumer Product Safety Commission
have sufficient personnel to screen these products before they
even get over here?
Mr. Baskin. That would be a question that would be outside
of my range of knowledge here.
Mr. Murphy. I know you mentioned about the number of people
who were involved in this and you have increased the number of
screening, which is good news, but, even before they enter our
ports, or I don't know where you feel that it's more important
to check them before they leave the country of origin or when
they come to our country, it's one of those areas that in order
to protect consumer safety, if someone from your agency could
get back to us because it's an important question to know what
we would need to do with that.
Mr. Baskin. Certainly, certainly.
Mr. Murphy. Can someone also answer the question of what
happens to U.S. Products in a foreign country? So if we sent
something to a foreign country and it is deemed to be unsafe or
some other problem, what happens to those products from foreign
countries, anybody know?
Mr. Popper. I will just give you a quick answer.
Footnote 33 in my written testimony, I refer to a couple of
pieces, one on the new Chinese tort law, and the other a piece
pertaining to South and Central America and the imposition of
liability on U.S. companies doing business in foreign
countries. And the record varies. But for the most part, I have
come to stand behind lex loci delicti. If you're in another
country and you commit a wrong, the idea that the United States
State Department is going to come in and bail you out when
you're being subjected to civil liability, as far as I know,
doesn't happen.
Mr. Murphy. One final question then, do the importers of
products in this country, do they mislabel products in terms of
country of origin, content, anything else? Is that showing up
anywhere, Mr. Baskin, in your findings?
Mr. Baskin. That is always an issue. I have spent some time
in Customs, and that is always a violation that customs would
find. It would be no less applicable to CPSC.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Braley for 5
minutes.
Mr. Braley. Mr. Morgan, I had the opportunity at the height
of the Chinese drywall publicity to inspect some homes in
Delray Beach, Florida, and I got to see first hand exactly what
you were describing in your home, the corrosive effect on the
wiring and the materials, the overwhelming smell of sulfur in
there. And it was eye opening for me because the homeowners
were devastated about what was happening to homes that they put
a lot of money and were very proud of. And then I went back to
Iowa where I live, and I was sick for about the next 6 weeks
with respiratory problems.
Have you or your family had any types of health-related
problems because of being exposed to this Chinese drywall that
we were talking about?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, my wife experienced nose bleeds for a
long time, persistent coughing and headaches. After we moved
out of the Chinese drywall house into our rental home she had
nose bleeds for 2 days and she hasn't had one since.
Mr. Braley. You're the perfect example of what foreign
manufacturers who aren't subject to having a registered agent
available in the United States do manipulate and that is they
know that the long period and cost of trying to hold them
accountable for what whatever they do, people will get
frustrated and give up because at some point you have to move
on with your life and you can't wait for that magic solution
when you have got bills to pay and people are pushing you into
bankruptcy. Has that been your experience?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, I mean just the cost just to do the
translation, you know, $150,000, to myself or people like me it
might as well be $1 million. It's just money that we don't
have, we can't afford, and being a police officer, I hate to
say in public, thank goodness for attorneys. They have been a
real lifesaver for us in trying to get some of our life back.
It's just been a maddening process. It really has.
Mr. Braley. Mr. Popper I want to follow up with you. I have
a very clear memory of a front line program talking about the
trade imbalance between China and the United States, and they
showed the Port of Long Beach with shipping container after
shipping container come in with finished consumer products, a
lot of them electronics, you name it, coming in and then they
showed what was leaving the Port of Long Beach and it was
recycled scrap metal and cardboard. That was the extent of what
was going on in terms of the bulk of the shipping coming in and
out of that port.
And you talked about the practical aspects of enforcing a
judgment against a foreign manufacturer.
When you have got a judgment, all it is is a piece of
paper. It means nothing whether you're suing a domestic
manufacturer or foreign, but it gives you the right to enforce
a judgment, and if you have got assets available in the United
States, through a domestic manufacturer, you pursue that. If
they refuse to pay, or if they are not insured, you can levy on
those assets, you can attach them, you can have them sold, and
then those proceeds can be used to satisfy a judgment, correct?
Mr. Popper. That is correct.
Mr. Braley. The same thing applies with foreign goods that
would be in this country coming in through our ports that are
owned by a foreign manufacturer, those are tangible assets that
if need be, could be levied upon to satisfy a judgment if you
can trace them back to the owner of the manufacturer, and they
are doing business in the stream of commerce in the United
States, right?
Mr. Popper. That is correct.
Mr. Braley. So it is not like we are developing a remedy
without a payoff. It's just that it's very difficult, given the
relationships with these foreign manufacturers and their
ability sometimes to hide their assets overseas that makes it
difficult for people who have been injured by these defective
products to actually get a payout at the end.
Mr. Popper. Yes.
Mr. Braley. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Popper. I would agree with that.
Mr. Braley. Ms. Gadhia, one of the things I want to talk to
you about is why this is so important? Because when you talk
about something as massive as what we've seen with Chinese
drywall, the average individual consumer, by themselves, are
typically powerless against these large foreign manufacturers
many of whom are hard to identify, because when you go into
your Lowes or your Home Depot, they may have a product there
that looks on the surface like it's a domestic product, and in
reality, it was imported by a distributor, and being sold under
their name rather than the original manufacturer. Why is it so
important to consumers that we move forward on this
legislation?
Ms. Gadhia. It's incredibly important because, first of
all, I think consumers have an expectation, and rightfully so,
that the products that come into their homes regardless of
where they come from are safe and it's only fair to domestic
manufacturers that the rules that they play by should also
apply to foreign manufacturers.
You also need a mechanism that works on the other end of
this entire supply chain in this system, where when you have
got standards in place and you have got border protection in
place, but you still have unsafe products coming through,
sometimes you have a situation where you didn't know that this
product was going to be problematic. I don't think anybody
could have foreseen that you would have a children's toy with a
chemical on it that turned to the date rape drug. I don't think
you could have foreseen years ago that you would have sulfur
coming out of drywall and causing these kinds of horrific
problems. You have a lag time between these products coming in
sometimes and the problems they cause, and you need that
redress on the other side for consumers to be able to be made
whole.
Mr. Braley. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes Mr. Sarbanes now for 5
minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for their testimony.
I always feel at these hearings, and in particular,
committee, that I'm always sitting here saying you mean we
don't already do that? Whatever the topic is, whether it's
regulating chemicals, or in this case, whether consumers are
going to have recourse when these foreign manufactured products
come into the country, because I think the average American
probably expects that this is already being done.
And in that respect, I want to thank Congresswoman Sutton
for this legislation because I think as four out of five of you
testified, it makes absolute common sense to pursue it.
I once argued in the Fourth Circuit a case on minimum
contact. So I'm very familiar with the frustration, of a case
called Eloquent Machine Corporation. And we were down to trying
to make the case that faxes and other communications that were
coming into the State of Maryland were sufficient to establish
minimum contact for the purpose of exercising personal
jurisdiction, I don't know if you're familiar with that case or
not. But in any event, it makes absolute sense to try to fill
this, or close this loophole as you have described it. And I
wondered, though, if you could, Mr. Popper, respond to Ms.
Rowden's arguments about whether we sort of don't need to go
there yet, but it's really just a matter of improving the
oversight through CPSC and other measures that we can take and
that this is just kind of a extra layer that is unnecessary at
this time. If you could respond to that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Popper. I think about 2-1/2 years ago when we started
learning about the problems with pet food and the entire
country seemed to mobilize around the issue, your question was
answered. Were you dealing with isolated incidents, isolated
problems and you had a solid regulatory structure in place, it
might be worth waiting to allow that system to mature.
I think that is not the case. I think you are looking at a
remarkably broad problem when you're talking about 80 percent
or more of the goods regulated by CPSC, the vast number of our
pharmaceutical products, goods throughout the United States
that we use in good faith. You started out your comment about
why don't we already do this, I think as a country, one of the
best things about us is that we operate in good faith, we
operate in trust. We believe that when we buy a product sold by
a reputable seller that we can rely on its safety and its
efficacy. And we have learned with foreign manufactured
products we can't do that. The regulatory system needs to be
bolstered. The civil liability system needs to be bolstered.
I certainly understand the desire to maximize our trade
position. I think that is correct at every level. But requiring
companies doing business in the United States, whether they are
domestic or foreign, to follow the same set of laws strikes me
as not inconsistent with that goal. It strikes me as perfectly
consistent with it.
And from my perspective as a law professor, I thank you for
saying lawyers are, from time to time, heroes. They are. But
you can be a good lawyer and representing a client who has a
serious problem and run into exactly what you ran into in the
Fourth Circuit, and there is nothing you can do about it. And
when that happens, the concerns that we might have about some
of our trading partners being miffed about the impositional
liability strike me as not particularly the dominant concerns
that one ought to have.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate it, and I think, Ms. Gadhia, you
made the point that even a very rigorous regulatory oversight
regime doesn't mean that you're going to completely be able to
prevent harmful products from coming into the stream of
commerce.
Ms. Gadhia. Correct.
Mr. Sarbanes. And you need other ways to create deterrence
and/or create some remedy or recourse should that happen.
Ms. Gadhia. That is absolutely correct. And in addition, as
I mentioned in my testimony, this type of registered agent can
also help agencies like the CPSC that are trying to conduct
recalls within that regulatory scheme to do so in a proper
fashion.
Mr. Sarbanes. I have got 15 seconds. One last question for
you Mr. Popper. And that is you spoke a little bit about what
other countries have in place. Can you speak about what is
happening with Chinese products going into certain other
countries in terms of the way they are handling, because China
has obviously been a focus of our discussion here.
I mean, are we sort of in good or bad company, however, you
might want to characterize it, in terms of the way we are
equipped to handle these products coming in from China when we
look at other countries or are others ahead of us on that?
Mr. Popper. To the best of my knowledge, we provide a
remarkably generous environment for foreign manufacturers by
not imposing liability. I believe in the EU countries and in
Latin America and in South America they are treated the same as
their domestic companies. And so I think what we are doing is
both domestically and internationally leveling the playing
field.
And if I might add just in terms of the regulatory
obligations, keep in mind that as effective as regulatory
systems are, they do not provide individual personal injury
remedies. They provide a regulatory recourse, that affects the
broad population, but the individual affected adversely by the
violation of a safety regulation doesn't have recourse before
the agency. The agency isn't an Article 3 court. It doesn't
provide those remedies.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Stupak for 5
minutes.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you all for your
testimony. Mr. Morgan, sorry, about your problems there and
unfortunately your problems are duplicated many times
throughout this country. Just a question though, you said you
had your house built, right.
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Did your builder charge you the going rate for
drywall or did you get a lesser cost.
Mr. Morgan. I don't know. I would like to know what the
cost difference was.
Mr. Stupak. I would like know that too. You might have a
perfect claim right there against your builder.
Let me ask Mr. Baskin or Ms. Gadhia, what happens when
products come into the United States like this drywall, let's
say, come came in right now from China high in sulfur, what
would happen to it? You discover it at the border.
Mr. Baskin. Luckily it's not. So that is a good thing in
that----
Mr. Stupak. But if it did, what would happen.
Mr. Baskin. If it did, it could be detained at the border.
Mr. Stupak. It sits there, right.
Mr. Baskin. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. Why don't we shove it back to the shipper?
Mr. Morgan. The authorities allow that eventually.
Mr. Stupak. They do?
Mr. Baskin. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. Well, then we had the inferior steel coming in
from China, we had a couple of schools collapse in California
because of inferior steel, they are telling us they have no
authority to return it. In other words, it comes in, if they
test the steel, it doesn't have the proper strength, they set
it aside, tag it, set it aside, and it sits there, or whoever
ordered it comes, picks it up, they are told they can't use it,
say, for construction of a school, but it sits there or they
take it use it for some other use in theory. So while you have
authority to detain it, do you have specific authority to send
it back to China.
Mr. Baskin. I don't know about the steel situation.
Mr. Stupak. How about drywall? Right now if bad drywall
came in, you had the right to detain it at the border I agree
with you, but do you have a right to send it back to China? And
if so, who pays for it.
Mr. Baskin. Good questions all. I would have to defer an
answer to that, get that question in writing and we can get
back to you on that.
Mr. Stupak. Ms. Gadhia, you indicated, and Mr. Sarbanes,
that the registered agent could help in a recall. How would a
registered agent help in a recall underneath this legislation.
Ms. Gadhia. The border would help is that you have got an
entity here in the U.S. that should the agency need to get
information from the agency about the scope of the product and
when it was manufactured, the dates that they believe the
defective product was manufactured, where the product went, how
it was distributed, you have got an actual agent here that is,
as the agent for service, of process, a contact domestically
for the agency so they aren't trying to chase an entity
overseas.
Mr. Stupak. But sure but 4647 just requires you to have a
registered agent here to accept process. You don't have to know
anything about the product. You just have to be able to accept
process so you don't have to send it to China and try to chase
someone down where the central government holds it for 6 months
before they give it to the manufacturer. How would a registered
agent help? There would have to be more in the legislation
wouldn't there to be able to really help in a recall.
Ms. Gadhia. I think what it would do is it gives the agency
one more option, one more entity to try to get that information
from rather than sending it to China and having it sent back.
Mr. Stupak. I agree if you're going to bring a lawsuit, you
have a person or individual or entity you serve the process to
and that manufacturer in this case is drywall would be
considered served, but I don't know if I have a registered
agent how that would help in a recall because they are not
required to know manufacturing location, physical location,
they just have to be a registered agent for a company, right?
Ms. Gadhia. I might defer on the details of what the CPSC
would be looking for as far as information the recall process
to the agency. But I think it would depend on the case. It
would depend on in some situations the agent for service of
process might be an entity that has that information. In some
cases you're right it could be simply and agent that accepts
the paperwork.
Mr. Stupak. So in this legislation shouldn't we expand the
role of the registered agent more than just a person or entity
that accepts service? Shouldn't they have greater knowledge of
at least, if it's going to help in a recall.
Ms. Gadhia. I think it could certainly help to do that, to
expand it.
Mr. Stupak. So do you suggest we put that in this
legislation.
Ms. Gadhia. I would respectfully take a minute to, I would
respectfully respond that I would think about that a bit and
get back to you on the record, if that's all right.
Mr. Stupak. Please do. Mr. Chair, when we are in Oversight
and Investigations, we see this all the time, whether it's
melamine or whatever it might be, and a registered agent
doesn't do anything to help you. In fact, all it is is a point
of contact here in the United States.
Ms. Rowden, why doesn't the American Association of
Exporters and Importers just volunteer to be the registered
agent for all these importers?
Ms. Rowden. Oh, gosh.
Mr. Stupak. Oh, gosh? I mean----
Ms. Rowden. Our members are importers and exporters of
goods. Often it is the U.S. importer who has the legal
responsibility under U.S. customs law to deal with product
safety and also will ensure----
Mr. Stupak. Are you saying that the importers are
certifying that the product is safe when they bring it in this
country.
Ms. Rowden. They have the obligation to make sure that that
product meets all U.S. laws.
Mr. Stupak. Really? Under what law is that.
Ms. Rowden. All laws, not only U.S. Customs law, the FDA--
--
Mr. Stupak. So Mr. Morgan should just sue the importer.
Ms. Rowden. He can. The question is I'm not a trial
attorney, but whether that would, the causation would be there
for the U.S. importer to be liable. I just don't know.
Mr. Stupak. So the fact that they may have it, it's not
real liability that Mr. Morgan could look to the importer of
this drywall and say aha, you imported this, you had a
responsibility and duty to make sure it met U.S. standards and
if not, therefore, Mr. or Ms. Importer, you are subject to our
courts and jurisdiction.
Ms. Rowden. Certainly, the U.S. importer is subject to U.S.
law as a U.S. entity. They are subject to all the regulatory
requirements.
Mr. Stupak. But doesn't the law require them to knowingly
know that they imported a defective product, and the burden of
proof is really on Mr. Morgan, not on that importer to show
that.
Ms. Rowden. That would be a normal trial law.
Mr. Stupak. So it's really useless. But going back to my
question. Why wouldn't you just be the registered agent? All
you're doing accepting process, so therefore you could cut down
on all the expenses, the fear of Congress putting forth
regulations that you fear in your statement here, it could be
resolved by your agency, just being the registered agent. All
you're doing is accepting process and we could short circuit
this, get right to the court and see who has liability here.
Ms. Rowden. But our association has no commercial
relationship with foreign manufacturers.
Mr. Stupak. You don't have to have a commercial
relationship. All you have to be is a person who is present in
the United States over usually the age of 21 and be willing to
accept the process. You don't have to be an attorney or
anything. All you have to be is a person, you are a point of
contact to begin that process so Mr. Morgan doesn't have to run
all over China to find his manufacturer.
Ms. Rowden. It is not our role as a trade association to
serve as that function, because that is a legal function.
Mr. Stupak. Well, if you're trying to promote trade, why
wouldn't you do that? Because you're promoting trade, you're
providing a service for people importing or exporting in. I
would think that would be the service you would want to do.
Ms. Rowden. I doubt that our membership would support that.
Mr. Stupak. I doubt that too, but good argument. I yield
back, thank you.
Mr. Ross. The chair thanks the members, and also the chair
thanks the witnesses for your outstanding and extraordinary
contribution to this hearing. And with that in mind, again we
thank you for the valuable time, you allowed us to utilize your
valuable time.
This first panel now is dismissed. Thank you very much for
coming. And Godspeed to each and every one of you.
Mr. Morgan, this committee does stand in support of you and
your family. Thank you very much.
Will the second panel please be seated.
We certainly want to welcome members of the second panel to
this subcommittee hearing. And again, I want you to reemphasize
to you how extraordinarily grateful we are for your sacrifice
of your time and energy to be here to help make a contribution
to the hearings that the subcommittee has to deliberate on the
important matters. And I want to recognize each and every one
of you by name.
And to the members of the subcommittee on my left, is Mary
Saunders. She is the assistant Secretary for manufacturing and
services for the international trade administration. Seated
next to Ms. Saunders is Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith. She is
president and CEO of the council on competitiveness.
And next to Ms. Wince-Smith is Mr. Owen E. Herrnstadt. Mr.
Herrnstadt is the director of trade and globalization for the
international association of machinists and aerospace workers.
And then next to Mr. Herrnstadt is Mr. Jack Crawford
Junior. He is the chief executive officer of Jadoo Power.
And Mr. Anthony Kim is seated next to Mr. Crawford. He is
the policy analyst for Heritage Foundation.
Again, welcome to each and every one of you. It is the
customary tradition of this committee to swear in the
witnesses. So would you please stand and raise your right hand.
Mr. Rush. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
We will begin with you, Ms. Saunders. You have 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY SAUNDERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
MANUFACTURING AND SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE; DEBORAH WINCE-SMITH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS; OWEN E. HERRNSTADT,
DIRECTOR OF TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS; JACK CRAWFORD, JR., CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JADOO POWER; ANTHONY KIM, POLICY ANALYST,
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF MARY SAUNDERS
Ms. Saunders. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield,
thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the
important topic of clean energy technology and export
assistance.
As you are well aware, clean energy is one of the greatest
economic opportunities of the 21st century, and promoting the
development, production and energy efficiency technologies and
services is the highest priority for the Department of
Commerce. These technologies are important to economic growth
in the United States and locally.
At the International Trade Administration or ITA, we have
identified significant overseas market opportunities for U.S.
firms in these technologies surfaces areas.
For the record, I will not be commenting on H.R. 5156, but
rather, my testimony will provide a prospective on the issues,
challenges and opportunities within the clean energy technology
and services sector today, as well as highlight some of the
many programs that ITA has put in place to support U.S.
industry competitiveness on this front.
ITA is the lead export promotion agency in the Federal
Government. Our mission is to create prosperity by
strengthening the competitiveness of the U.S. industry,
promoting trade and investment, and ensuring fair trade
compliance with trade laws and agreements that enhance the
ability of U.S. firms and workers to compete in the global
marketplace on a level playing field.
At his State of the Union Address this year, President
Obama announced the National Export Initiative, or NEI, with
the goal to double U.S. exports in years in support 2 million
jobs. The President also emphasized that the Nation that leads
the clean energy economy will be the Nation that leads the
global economy.
Clean energy technologies are a key way to meet global and
economic development needs, mitigate climate change and capture
the high value of innovation of jobs that this sector offers.
Within ITA, we are responding to the NEI and to the President's
emphasis on clean energy by hiring trade specialists in
emerging growth markets, supporting small and medium size
enterprises to broaden their exposure to international markets
and developing outreach and trade mission programs to improve
exports in high growth replacement clean energy.
U.S. clean energy technologies and services companies face
fierce competition in international markets. I want to
highlight three factors that have a strong effect on
international competitors: The strength of the domestic
industry, the availability of international markets that offer
U.S. companies a fair opportunity to compete, and the ability
of U.S. companies to access the resources and master the skills
required to export.
The United States currently has a relatively small share of
manufacturing capacity for clean energy-related industries.
Nevertheless, there are clear opportunities for the U.S. To
lead the world in high technology for clean energy
manufacturing. We can leverage the R&D and innovation being
pursued by companies, universities, and the Department of
Energy national labs.
Just turned on the microphone. Sorry.
U.S. clean energy exports cannot increase if protection and
rules and policies prevent open competition. Many countries
have adopted policies that make it more difficult for foreign
firms to compete in their markets. These include favoring their
domestic industry through preferential tendering criteria and
burdensome certification requirements.
In addition, concerns regarding adequate protection of
intellectual property rights hamper some firms from entering
foreign markets.
Intense foreign competition from State-owned enterprises
poses another challenge for U.S. companies, particularly in the
civil nuclear sector.
And the final challenge to increasing clean energy
technology exports that must be addressed is the willingness of
U.S. firms to export. In the clean energy sector in particular,
companies face challenges to exporting that are not market or
policy based but are internal to that particular company's
knowledge and comfort with the export process. Issues include a
shortage of available capital or financing, complex domestic
and foreign regulatory requirements, lack of knowledge, and
comfort in local financial institutions to finance innovative
clean energy products and difficulty in finding a local partner
or distributor.
ITA has multiple clean energy initiatives to support the
President's NEI and works in close collaboration with other
agency partners. We have initiatives focusing on sustainable
manufacturing energy efficiency for U.S. companies as well as a
civil nuclear trade initiative that identifies the sector's
most pressing trade challenges and opportunities and
coordinates public and private sector efforts to address them.
We are leading a trade promotion coordinated committee
effort to develop an export strategy for renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies and Secretary Locke recently
established a renewable energy and energy efficiency advisory
committee for industry to advise the Department directly on
pressing trade promotion activities.
ITA is actively promoting U.S. Clean energy solutions in
overseas markets through trade events, foreign buyer programs
at major renewable energy trade shows. We have brought
delegations from all over the world to these events. We have
organized numerous trade missions focused on clean energy.
Most recently, the Secretary led a clean energy business
development mission to Hong Kong, other cities in China and
Indonesia. We have a number of reports and helpful resources,
and I have brought copies of several of them. They provide a
useful resource for small and medium-sized enterprises in the
clean energy technology industry.
And we recently released a small renewable energy
assessment report on Indonesia and have continued to hold
informational webinars on diverse topics.
Lastly, I wanted to highlight the market development
cooperative program which allows nonprofit groups or
universities to propose projects to develop global markets for
specific technologies. Last year, we awarded three awards in
the clean energy sector. This year we have received numerous
applications for MDCP rewards and are currently reviewing them.
In closing, I would like to thank you, Chairman Rush,
Ranking Member Whitfield, and members of the subcommittee for
the opportunity to highlight what ITA is doing to help U.S.
Companies compete in markets for clean emergency technologies
and for all kinds of U.S. goods and services around the world.
Expanding opportunities to export clean energy technologies
will not only maintain the competitiveness of U.S. companies,
but will create jobs and generate economic growth. In addition,
it will increase the reliability of our energy supply.
American businesses have the technology, the expertise and
the experience to help countries around the world reach their
climate and energy goals and this an extraordinary opportunity
and a win-win for everyone.
I welcome any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes Ms. Wince-Smith for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH WINCE-SMITH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
Ms. Wince-Smith. Chairman Rush, thank you for inviting me
to testify today on the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing
and Export Assistance Act. This legislation acknowledges the
pivotal role that the emerging clean energy industry will play
in ensuring America's economic competitiveness and in our
national security going forward.
The growth and vitality of this industry depends upon the
development of a robust domestic market coupled to access to a
burgeoning global market for these essential technologies and
services that will take us to a low carbon economy, energy
security, and addressing climate change.
Since 1986, the Council on Competitiveness has brought
forth creative solutions to America's most pressing
competitiveness challenges. Comprised of leaders from industry,
academia and organized labor, the Council is unique in its
abilities to build synergies and consensus across a wide span
of organizations and interests.
Next week on June 23rd, our chairman, Samuel Allen, the CEO
and chairman of John Deere Corporation, will be launching with
our members a new flagship initiative on U.S. manufacturing
competitiveness in the 21st century. I submit for the record a
summary of this initiative.
The Council, with our partners in government and the
private sector, will deliver a national manufacturing strategy
to the administration and Congress at a national summit in
2011. And energy and the clean energy revolution will be at the
heart of this agenda.
Our energy security innovation and sustainability
initiative where we outlined a very robust plan last September,
clearly supports an alliance with the objectives of the Clean
Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act.
As the 20th century drew to a close, rising global
competition, the opening of global markets, challenged U.S.
manufacturers raising concern about the export of U.S.-made
goods, offshoring of our manufacturing production, the loss of
skilled U.S. manufacturing jobs, and a rising account deficit,
currency manipulation and distortion. With the growing strength
and consumer demand of the emerging economies, competitors such
as China, India, South Korea, and Brazil, now there are many
that feel that U.S. manufacturing will spiral into further
decline.
The Council believes that no Nation can be a technology and
economic leader without a robust multi-sector manufacturing
capacity. And the stakes are extremely high. Our roadmap for
energy security sustainability and competitiveness highlighted
that revenue in just three clean energy sectors--wind, solar
and biofuels--is projected to nearly triple over the next
decade and markets for clean technologies and their attendant
services will expand exponentially.
These markets and the jobs and economic growth that will
bring our country to the forefront require a set of enabling
policies and programs in research and development, in
manufacturing and commercial deployment here in America. So we
believe that H.R. 5156 is an important policy step in
addressing this challenge, and I am pleased to be here today to
voice our support for this proposal and legislation.
But there are many more policy steps required to ensure a
vibrant ecosystem that supports America's capacity. For next
generation R&D, and battery storage, carbon capture
sequestration, and nuclear reactors, to increasing energy
productivity and efficiency. We must engage in this intense
global competition in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the
Americas.
As an example of what is at stake, within the past decade,
the United States has fallen from first to fifth among top
solar manufacturing companies and now imports solar cells from
the EU and Asia. China now is doing assembly work for solar
cells in the United States.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of taking a
systems approach to our energy sustainability and economic
policies. We have to understand the linkage between policies
and how we integrate them into a holistic strategy, everything
from domestic tasks and fiscal policies to regulatory issues
to, of course, global standards and trade policy.
Let me highlight quickly four areas in our energy
sustainability report that captures the essence of what you are
trying to accomplish in this legislation with respect to
expanding U.S. exports.
The first is that we must remove tariffs and non-tariff
barriers for sustainable energy products and services while not
creating a dual track for preferential trade liberalization. We
have to ensure that tariff reduction and removal of barriers
are transparent, reciprocal, and provide access to all national
markets where strong worker and consumer protections are
provided.
Two, we have to ensure intellectual property rights for all
industrial products and services, copyrights and sustainable
energy solutions are protected. This is a huge issue with
China, India, and Brazil and other parts of the world.
Three, we must ensure our continued U.S. technological
leadership for the breakthroughs and commercializations. The
Council has proposed that we need a long-term stable source of
funding. And in the future, we argue that 30 percent of any
revenue from carbon pricing should be allocated to R&D
including the demonstration of clean energy technologies.
And four, to insure that the technologies of tomorrow will
be manufactured in the United States, we should allocate 40
percent of revenues derived from any future carbon pricing
program to manufacturing initiatives, Federal, State or local
clean manufacturing zones, pilot projects as well as immediate
expensing and depreciation of the costs of retooling for
production and qualified products, and dedicating high-
performance computing assets to the clean energy manufacturing
revolution.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Council believes that the
transformation to a low-carbon economy will unleash American
innovation, it will create new industries, revitalize and
rebuild manufacturing jobs across our Nation and keep and grow
high-skilled jobs for this generation and the next. But we have
to come together around an integrated manufacturing policy and
to accelerate this growth, stewardship, and security for all.
Thank you, and I am welcome to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wince-Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Mr. Herrnstadt.
STATEMENT OF OWEN E. HERRNSTADT, DIRECTOR OF TRADE AND
GLOBALIZATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS &
AEROSPACE WORKERS
Mr. Herrnstadt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers is one of the largest manufacturing unions in the
United States representing thousands of workers who produce
goods for exports every day. We strongly believe in the
importance of the clean energy industry and we welcome the
opportunity to appear before you today.
Support for domestic manufacturing goods related to clean
energy is a critical component for our economic recovery, and
it is urgently needed. U.S. workers continue to be mired in the
economic crisis while the official unemployment rate hovers at
around 10 percent, the unofficial unemployment rate is
approaching 20 percent. Some 8\1/2\ million workers have lost
their jobs since December 2007 with a significant number
directly working in manufacturing.
Today, there are over 15 million workers who are
unemployed. Almost half of all of those who are unemployed have
been without work for over 6 months.
The IEM continues to argue for the adoption of
comprehensive policies that will address this jobs crisis. In
order to be effective, we urge that these policies establish a
framework for rebuilding our manufacturing base and ensuring
its sustainability for the future.
H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and
Export Assistance Act of 2010 represents one element of an
overall program that is so desperately needed. If enacted, the
bill would assist U.S. companies in exporting clean energy
products and services. The bill would also require the
Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to Congress which
would assess the extent to which the program has been
successful in creating jobs in the United States.
While H.R. 5156 represents an incredibly important step
towards addressing the need to support manufacturing jobs in
the clean energy sector, we urge an even more aggressive
approach to ensure that Federal support for companies to export
clean energy technology and services does, in fact, result in
the creation or maintenance of jobs here at home.
A direct verifiable requirement that Federal support for
clean energy exports results in the creation of U.S. jobs is
essential. It appears that some companies are only too willing
to produce clean energy goods and equipment in other countries.
For example, as reported in The Washington Post, BP announced
this spring that it would be laying off 320 workers and closing
its solar panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, Maryland, the
final step in moving its solar business out of the United
States to facilities in China, India and other countries. In
making the announcement, BP's CEO stated that BP was ``moving
to where we can manufacture cheaply.''
We offer four specific suggestions for moving ahead and for
building on H.R. 5156.
One, detailed employment impact statements should be a
required factor in any decisionmaking process for government
assistance. The employment impact statements would contain
information pertaining to employment that would be mandated,
created, or lost if the program in question were approved. We
also suggest that capital equipment related to production as
well as goods to be exported must be domestically made and
contain domestic materials.
Strong domestic content requirements uniformly implemented
and enforced could be specifically contained in current
legislation.
Export assistance should also be sought by the U.S. Export-
Import Bank who has also developed expertise in these areas.
And last but not least, domestic production for exports
must be based on a fair and level field of global competition.
Clean energy exporters must be able to prosper, and they
can only do so if they are able and are able to compete fairly.
That means trade barriers removed when dealing with countries
like China. Those barriers must be challenged and removed.
Demands for transfer of technology and production in return for
market access must also be curtailed. Currency manipulation
must be formally recognized and addressed, and relatedly
subsidies to the industry by other countries like China should
also be challenged in a number of forums, including trade
complaints.
As mentioned at the outset, U.S. manufacturing workers are
in a crisis and not, coincidentally, so is our country's
economy. Promoting U.S. clean energy companies to export
domestically manufactured goods with U.S.-made materials and
products represents one important solution to this crisis.
Again, we very much appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today and we would obviously be happy to answer any
further questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herrnstadt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Mr. Crawford, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JACK CRAWFORD, JR., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JADOO
POWER
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Whitfield, members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for
inviting me to speak here today about ways to increase global
competitiveness of small and medium-sized clean technology
companies. I would also like to thank Representative Matsui for
her kind welcome and applaud her efforts to boost
competitiveness of clean technology companies in Sacramento, in
the Sacramento area and the Nation.
I am Jack Crawford, Jr., the CEO of Jadoo Power, a small
alternative energy technology company based in Folsom,
California. I have the experience of starting and investing in
and growing several technology companies in my career. I would
like to talk about the challenges facing a clean energy
technology startup and its efforts to market its clean products
internationally.
Jadoo Power is an industry leader in advanced power and
energy storage solutions. Jadoo has used its technology to
develop and deliver demonstration products to the military,
government and commercial sectors such as portable power for
medical devices to support wounded soldier in war zones,
emergency response communication solutions, and surveillance
and security applications.
Fuel cells such as those manufactured by Jadoo also advance
this other advancement of other clean technologies such as
solar, LED lighting and wind power solutions. Whatever the
energy source, fuel cells save energy and reduce emissions.
Jadoo's technology is being productized for military and
commercial uses and additional support to scale or
manufacturing will enable us to deliver a future large volume
order of our products.
It has been the case for many years that American science
and engineering has been pre-eminent in the world. The U.S. is
the unequivocal leader in energy innovation just as we have
been in such sectors as semiconductors, biotechnology, and the
Internet.
As we strive to become a global leader in clean technology,
one area of innovation where our advantage is most threatened
is manufacturing. While breakthrough technology occurs here in
the U.S., we are losing out to countries like China and Germany
when it comes to energy manufacturing and exporting in part
because these countries are providing hosts of tax incentives
and export financial incentives and advantages for their clean
technology companies.
Selling our clean energy companies to foreign markets will
be imperative to the future growth and sustainability of the
clean technology industry in America.
Like all other sectors of our economy, small businesses are
the cornerstone of the clean technology industry. However, when
it comes to exporting products and services, small businesses
are at a disadvantage. Unlike large U.S. companies, small- and
medium-sized clean technology companies do not have the
financial resources, the expertise, or the relationships to
navigate through and succeed in foreign markets.
According to the trade promotion coordinating committee,
about 30 percent of nonexporting small- and medium-sized
companies would consider exporting if they had more access to
international market information and assistance in pursuing
export opportunities. Jadoo Power is one of those companies.
This legislation being discussed today will help clean
energy technology place clean energy technology at the
forefront of our national export strategy and help small
businesses find new customers and markets abroad.
A greater level of support from the U.S. Federal Government
would level the playing field, particularly for small- and
medium-sized businesses and accelerate the ability of U.S.
clean technology companies to meet global demand and better
compete in the clean energy marketplace.
I commend Representative Doris Matsui of Sacramento, along
with Bobby Rush, John Dingell, and Anna Eshoo for introducing
H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing Export
Assistance Act of 2010. This bill sets out a national strategy
to assist U.S. clean energy technology companies with export
assistance to find new markets for their products and services
and to better compete in the international marketplace.
This bill also provides domestic manufacturing assistance
to find new ways to reduce production costs and increase
productivity in the clean technology sector.
For Jadoo, H.R. 5156 would provide tangible benefits as the
company works to advance its manufacturing clean technology
products and secure access and growth in the international
marketplace.
In addition to providing a robust business environment for
Jadoo Power, the Sacramento region is well positioned to be a
national leader in producing clean energy technology. Along
with Jadoo Power, there are more than 100 other Sacramento-
based small- and medium-sized clean technology companies that
would benefit from H.R. 5156, as well as other clean technology
companies in California and around the U.S.
Representatives Matsui and Lungren, Governor Schwarzenegger
and Sacramento's mayor, Kevin Johnson, have been actively
supportive of clean technology companies both locally,
Statewide and their continued support will be important to this
emerging industry along with new support of government
policies.
The emerging global market for clean energy products is
ever growing, and it is now time we look to market and sell our
U.S. made clean energy products to foreign markets. With a
clear opportunity of clean energy technology, the United States
can catch up and be a leader of the world with technology in
American-manufactured products.
As we look at innovation and entrepreneurship in our
country, it is time for us to go green and go global.
Thank you for inviting me to today's legislative hearing
and allowing me to present my perspective.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Kim for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY KIM, POLICY ANALYST, HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Kim. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield and
members of the committee. It is my privilege to testify today
concerning the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing Export
Assistance Act of 2010. My name is Anthony Kim. I am a policy
analyst at the Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this
testimony are my own and should not be construed as
representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation.
In recent years, clean energy has become a shorthand sum
for the bold policy today on how to achieve green growth and
enhance our energy security. The proposed legislation offers a
timely opportunity to discuss better ways to trigger innovation
in our clean energy technology sector.
Recognizing the urgency of developing a more competitive
American clean energy technology sector, the proposed
legislation intends to encourage innovation, investment and
productivity, particularly via Federal subsidies. However, for
the United States to regain economic leadership in the global
clean energy industry, our strategy must be driven by real
market conditions--not by government financial assistance that
may serve as a temporary feel good action and delay more
meaningful advancement of the clean energy sector.
Government-mandated funding has often resulted in
unbalanced development and lasting government interference in
the private sector which dampen dynamic growth and innovation.
It also invites the question as to whether government has the
expertise to effectively help private companies navigate
through rapidly evolving clean energy markets.
The proposed bill also fails to acknowledge that there are
existing government resources and market incentives to increase
production of efficient or tentative clean energy.
In advancing the competitiveness of our clean energy
sector, there are more practical policy alternatives that can
and should be implemented. At the top of the list should be
further globalization of international trade. Free trade
fosters economic efficiency, and economic efficiency is the
basis for innovation, growth, and competitiveness.
Over the past decades, the most practical improvements in
energy efficiency and protecting environment have not come from
government mandate funding. As chairman of the analysis of the
Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom, most progress
has been driven by advances in freer trade and economic
freedom. These unleash greater economic opportunity generating
a purchase cycle of investment, innovation, and dynamic growth.
Comprehensive globalization provides the most efficient
export promotion strategy. Such trade globalization can be
achieved by advancing freer trade through multilateral as well
as bilateral trade pacts. Free trade agreements have spurred
competition and economic growth. In recent years, the FTAs
currently enforced accounted for more than one trillion in two-
way merchandise trade. FTAs also include provisions that
safeguard American businesses from discrimination and protect
and enforce intellectual property rights for U.S. firms.
The pending FTA with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea will
result in significant new market access and lower types for
American businesses, including our clean energy producers.
There is no doubt that accelerating innovation and
production of clean energy technology has become an economic
necessity for our future. The best strategy to make this happen
is not through special subsidies, but rather through dynamic
leadership in opening markets and spurring innovation
technology.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that we need a strategy
that conforms to conditions in the international marketplace,
not one that struggles against it by subsidizing technologies
that cannot stand on their own. We know one sure way of doing
this, and that is through open markets, not closing them with
protectionist measures.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
committee today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kim follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks all of the witnesses for your
testimony, and the chair recognizes himself now for 5 minutes
for the purposes of asking questions.
And I am going to ask all of the witnesses to answer
``yes'' and ``no'' to the following questions. I only have 5
minutes. If you could please restrict your answer to ``yes'' or
``no,'' that would be appreciated.
Seizing clean energy export opportunities accelerate U.S.
Recovery and become an engine of growth.
You answer ``yes,'' or ``no.''
Beginning with the first witness, Ms. Saunders.
Ms. Saunders. Yes.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Yes.
Mr. Herrnstadt. Yes.
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Mr. Kim. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Dollar for dollar, clean energy investment will
create more jobs than investments in conventional energy
sector.
Ms. Saunders. I can't answer that officially.
Ms. Wince-Smith. It depends on how you define ``clean
energy.'' I am on the edge.
Mr. Herrnstadt. I don't know.
Mr. Crawford. Can you ask the question one more time?
Mr. Rush. Dollar for dollar, clean energy investment will
create more jobs than investments in conventional energy
sector.
Mr. Crawford. I agree it is difficult to answer without
specifically defining ``clean energy.''
Mr. Kim. It depends. Potentially yes.
Mr. Rush. With new jobs created in the clean energy sector
will create new jobs and provide good wages. Yes or no.
Ms. Saunders. Yes, in particular to export-related jobs
which pay more than the average job.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Yes, because they take new skills and new
capabilities.
Mr. Herrnstadt. I hope so.
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Mr. Kim. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Outside the U.S. borders, there is a promising
market for U.S. green products.
Ms. Saunders. Absolutely.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Yes.
Mr. Herrnstadt. Yes.
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Mr. Kim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. Trade barriers are not the only obstacles to
increasing exports of American products.
Ms. Saunders. Yes, I agree.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Yes.
Mr. Herrnstadt. Yes.
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Mr. Kim. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Last question. Other countries, especially our
main competitors like China and other European countries and
Japan, have a more aggressive export policy platform.
Ms. Saunders. Typically exports account for a larger
percentage of those economies, and I would agree they strongly
support the exports.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Absolutely.
Mr. Herrnstadt. It appears so.
Mr. Crawford. Yes, and it's leading to a significant
advantage for them.
Mr. Kim. Yes. I think they are in favor of free trade.
Mr. Rush. You also have policies that protect their
domestic production.
Ms. Saunders. In specific areas, that is correct.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Yes. For instance, China's new policy on
indigenous innovation is very worrisome.
Mr. Herrnstadt. Yes.
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Mr. Kim. Yes and no.
Mr. Rush. The U.S. needs to have a more robust export
assistance policy to its manufacturing industry.
Ms. Saunders. We are operating within our current
appropriated levels.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Yes.
Mr. Herrnstadt. Yes.
Mr. Crawford. Yes, particularly for small- and medium-sized
businesses.
Mr. Kim. Yes, but to get there it is open to debate.
Mr. Rush. Compared to other countries, the U.S. pays far
less on export promotion. Yes or no.
Ms. Saunders. It is hard to take an overall average
compared to specific areas. The European Union, for example,
that is correct.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Yes.
Mr. Herrnstadt. Yes. I think particularly with some
countries. I am not an expert on the others.
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Mr. Kim. Yes, but I think it depends.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, and I thank all of you for your
testimony. We appreciate you being here today.
Ms. Saunders, I was just curious, you have been so generous
with your time today and you have testified that you didn't
testify, you said you were not going to make any comments about
this legislation. I was just curious why is that or why was
that?
Ms. Saunders. The administration has not taken a position
on H.R. 5156.
Mr. Whitfield. So you have no position.
Ms. Saunders. No position.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Crawford, I noticed in your testimony
you were talking about, particularly in clean energy companies,
particularly in manufacturing, it is very difficult to obtain
financing; is that correct?
Is that one of the reasons you support this legislation is
because of the grant program that it would establish the $75
million grant program?
Mr. Crawford. Yes. I feel like as a country between the
venture capital investments and the stimulus, we have seeded
innovation in R&D around clean technology. We have gotten to
demonstrable products. And now the next logical steps are to
scale manufacturing and begin to sell those protects both here
and abroad.
Mr. Whitfield. This legislation on page 3 says specifically
that the Secretary shall administer the funds to promote
policies that will reduce production costs. Is that--it seems
odd to me.
Mr. Crawford. That is a significant issue for small and
medium-sized companies, and here's why.
Mr. Whitfield. I thought that you said that primarily you
needed it for financing.
Mr. Crawford. Part of investing and financing in the
manufacturing process is to reduce the overall costs of
producing those products. And so as you deliver demonstration
units, they are oftentimes pretty expensive to manufacture and
the logical next step is to invest and finance the
manufacturing process to reduce the costs of those parts so you
can compete in those commercial markets.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Kim, I noticed in your testimony that
you seem to be diametrically opposed to what Mr. Crawford is
saying. Your general testimony seems to be you don't think the
government should be involved in providing funds for private
enterprise.
Mr. Kim. That is correct, sir. I think government can play
a much bigger role through free trade, through enhancing free
trade agreements via multilateral or at a bilateral level. So
there are things they can do, but not through Federal
subsidies.
Mr. Whitfield. So you think the free trade agreements will
play a vital role?
Mr. Kim. I think free trade is vital. For example, the
current pending U.S.-South Korea FTA. South Korea has a huge
market for green energy technology.
Mr. Whitfield. You said the proposed legislation fails to
identify specific policies to be pursued and risks becoming
little more than a financial subsidy grab bag for politically
connected special interests.
Mr. Kim. There is no monitoring mechanism that we can
follow. So I think we will have to see how this bill is
actually implemented and then the entire process regarding this
will be processed. But there is a political risk and then it
can invite other problems, too.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Herrnstadt, I notice that you all--
certainly your union certainly favors the intent of this
legislation, but I think you are specifically saying that it
does not go far enough. And one of the things that you
mentioned that needed to be done was to any grant that goes to
any company that there be an EIS, as you call it, an employment
impact statement, which actually I think is a pretty good idea.
Have you all been successful in getting EIS requirements in
other government programs?
Mr. Herrnstadt. Not yet. But we're still trying. I think
it's a really commonsense solution to what we're talking about.
It really started off with an idea dealing with government
procurement and the billions we spend on it. The government
should know what it is getting for its money, and if a specific
program is directed towards creating jobs, we need to calculate
that with precision and that's something I am not sure the
Commerce Department is doing yet.
Mr. Whitfield. That sounds like that would certainly
improve this bill from your perspective.
Mr. Herrnstadt. It is one area that would, but I also want
to point out that the bill itself is a real acknowledgment that
there's a link between clean energy and U.S. jobs and I think
that by itself is a real step forward.
Mr. Whitfield. I know I only have 3 seconds.
Mr. Crawford, the XM bank is very much involved in
exporting technology, environmental technological products
abroad. Has your company utilized the XM bank for----
Mr. Crawford. We haven't. My perception is the difference
here is we're talking about a focus on one particular industry
sector that's of critical importance to our country and small-
and medium-sized businesses so the combination of those two
things with this policy would not only provide us with access
to greater expertise focused on our company but also set up
relationships that could be helpful in getting traction in the
international marketplace.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the author of the bill,
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Matsui. Thank you all for being here today.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, my home town is
Sacramento, is home to 110 clean tech companies, many of them
are small. And medium-sized companies are just now supporting
ways to expand their businesses by exporting their products to
foreign markets. But as you know, like large companies, they
don't have the resources, time, and manpower to effectively
promote their products abroad. And they do need assistance, and
I do doubt that many of them have asked for help with
Department of Commerce and small business and other entities
that we can all think about.
But I particularly have a question, several questions for
Mr. Crawford with you being a small business person. Is Jadoo
Power currently looking to expand by exploring ways to explore
technology products abroad?
Mr. Crawford. We're looking at new markets. In particular,
international markets.
Ms. Matsui. What are the current barriers you face in
exporting?
Mr. Crawford. Access to expertise in how best to export
relationships and effectively resources, the time.
Ms. Matsui. So how do you go about it now?
Mr. Crawford. Right now it is independent market research.
It is trying to identify people who have expertise in
international market places. It's consultants. It's research on
the Internet. Those types of efforts.
Mr. Matsui. As you know, this legislation authorizes about
$50 million a year for 5 years. Now as a small business person
who is really concerned about expenses and resources, do you
feel that this legislation, this amount of money is a
responsible use and so that this country can actually establish
a national clean tech export strategy to boost the
competitiveness of small and medium-sized businesses?
Mr. Crawford. As a small business owner and taxpayer, I
think you can make the case that this is one of the best case
uses of taxpayer money. What we're talking about with regard to
our company and others across the country is something that can
impact our energy security, our environmental security and have
a positive impact on our economy. Those are driving issues in
our country today, and this is the type of bill that could have
a positive impact on taking small companies effectively that
are the cornerstone of our economy and growing them.
So my question actually is why aren't we, as a body,
considering 10 or 20 times the amount because this is something
that's addressing all of the relevant issues of today.
Mr. Matsui. Thank you.
Ms. Saunders, do our international competitors, like in the
EU and Asia, help their small and medium-size businesses,
particularly clean tech businesses, facilitate exports to the
U.S.?
Ms. Saunders. Yes, they do.
Mr. Matsui. How do they do that?
Ms. Saunders. They do that through export promotion
programs very similar to the ones we operate out of the
Department of Commerce and other trade agencies.
Mr. Matsui. But they have more emphasis on it?
Ms. Saunders. As I said earlier, specific countries in the
European Union and other parts of the world have exports that
are a larger part of their economy and they allocate a large
portion of their government resources to promoting those
exports.
Mr. Matsui. If this legislation were enacted, what are your
rough estimates on the amount of increased Euros clean tech
exports in dollar amount or in other measurements?
Ms. Saunders. We can always do more with more resources. We
believe we're actively servicing this industry as a current
priority of the Secretary and the administration. As far as
dollar amounts, it is difficult to speculate as technology and
services and actual products being exported have different
values assigned to them. I would say generally from the
International Trade Administration we have data that estimates
that for every dollar invested in International Trade
Administration programs, we generate $56 worth of exports.
Mr. Matsui. Ms. Wince-Smith, now the President has
repeatedly stated that he wants the U.S. to be the leader in
exporting clean tech to other Nation's. However, international
competitors like China and Germany are exporting substantially
more clean tech energy products. I know I look at solar fuel
cells and all of that.
In your opinion, would this legislation provide the tools
and resources to boost clean tech for its competitiveness in
exporting their products and services?
Ms. Wince-Smith. Like my colleagues, I believe it's a very
important first step, and many of the provisions in the
legislation in addition to the grant program that's been
mentioned are really to accelerate the tools, the practices,
the networks that small, medium-sized businesses need.
I think one of the other issues that we really have to
address still is how do we stimulate the production in the
United States on a viable scale that it can go out globally.
And you know that is a very, very serious part of this because
in order for these new clean tech innovators to have a scale,
they really have to have access to deep equity and debt capital
and that gets into a whole broader set of issues.
Ms. Matsui. Understood. And I think Mr. Crawford has been
experiencing that himself.
But as a small business person, you are excited about the
fact that we are having a focus on clean tech exporting as I
understand, because it does--it is part of the picture so to
speak, it is not the complete picture obviously, but it is part
of the picture.
Anyway. Thank you very much and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
The chair thanks all of the witnesses who have participated
in today's hearing, and the chair particularly thanks Ms.
Saunders. You have been very patient with us and you have been
very giving of your time and your contributions as it relates
to your expertise. And some of your statements are very
provocative and certainly we will take all of your statements
to heart as we proceed with this legislative process.
The chair thanks you and appreciates you very much. Thank
you and God bless.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]