    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          BUILT IN AMERICA: JOBS AND GROWTH IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-167

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-617                       WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, po@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina

            Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            TONY CARDENAS, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina      DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana                   Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           GENE GREEN, Texas
    MIMI WALTERS, California             FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania           officio)
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     4
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Illinois, prepared statement..........................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Nikki Moyers, Vice President, Operations, Jerl Machine, Inc......    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Edward Paradowski, President, Apache Stainless Equipment
      Corporation....................................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Andrew Stettner, Senior Fellow, Century Foundation...............    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
    Eric Anderberg, Vice President, Dial Machine, Inc................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    37

                               Submitted material

    Blog entitled, ``How do we know the tax cut isn't working to
      boost wages? Investment, investment, investment,'' Economic
      Policy Institute, August 3, 2018...............................    73
    Report entitled, ``A Federal Agenda for Revitalizing America's
      Manufacturing Communities,'' Andrew Stettner and Joel S. Yudken    78

         BUILT IN AMERICA: JOBS AND GROWTH IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
                                            Protection,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Latta, Kinzinger, Burgess,
    Lance, Guthrie, McKinley, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Mullin, Costello,
    Duncan, Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky, Cardenas, Welch,
    Kennedy, Green, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel, Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection; Ali Fulling, Legislative
    Clerk, Oversight and Investigations, Digital Commerce and
    Consumer Protection; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul
    Jackson, Professional Staff, Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and
    Consumer Protection; Tim Kurth, Senior Professional Staff,
    Communications and Technology; Austin Stonebraker, Press
    Assistant; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, Digital Commerce
    and Consumer Protection; Greg Zerzan, Counsel, Digital Commerce
    and Consumer Protection; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel,
    Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Lisa Goldman,
    Minority Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff
    Director and Chief Health Advisor; Carolyn Hann, Minority FTC
    Detailee; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew
    Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and
    Member Services; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Latta [presiding]. Good morning. I would like to call
    the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to
    order this morning.
        At this time I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.
        Good morning again. I would like to welcome everyone to
    today's Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee
    examination of the state of manufacturing in America.
        Thanks to policies designed to spur manufacturing in our
    country, we are seeing a revival of the Made in America brand.
    Factories are expanding, workers are being hired and rehired,
    and wages are rising. A recent survey of small business owners
    found optimism at an all-time high.
        Small businesses are responsible for creating two out of
    three new jobs. So, when they are raising wages, growing their
    businesses, and investing in equipment, it is helpful to the
    entire economy.
        In my own congressional district, the 5th District of Ohio,
    we are definitely seeing a resurgence of optimism. My district
    stretches from densely populated urban centers like downtown
    Toledo to small villages on the state line of Indiana, and we
    probably have over 60,000 manufacturing jobs. In the over 900-
    plus district meetings I have had since August of 2012,
    overregulation is one of the most mentioned issues. I never
    hear that regulation isn't necessary, but I always hear people
    ask for regulations they can live with and comply with. It is
    burdensome for businesses to navigate regulatory regimes when
    they are busy improving operations and products for customers
    or working to grow to reach more people.
        Through policies this Congress and the administration
    advanced, we are witnessing the rebirth of a healthy, strong,
    and growing manufacturing sector. This includes one of our
    witnesses today who comes to us representing Jerl Machine,
    Inc., from Perrysburg. Welcome.
        And again, we thank you all for being with us today. I look
    forward to the hearing and hearing from you all.
        According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S.
    is the world's second largest manufacturing nation, having been
    overtaken by China in 2010. But the competition to regain the
    crown is very much alive. In recent years, American
    manufacturing output has risen steadily, this year reaching its
    highest level in nearly 10 years.
        Growing production also means growing jobs. Since 2017,
    over 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been created in America.
    This is a sharp reversal over the previous 2 years when the
    Bureau of Labor Statistics was regularly reporting job losses.
        The increasing demand for workers is creating new
    opportunities across our country. Importantly, for the first
    time in a long time, prosperity and opportunity are reaching
    into rural areas that have long been left out of the recovery.
    As a recent report by Brookings Institute notes, the growth of
    the employment rate in small and rural communities has outpaced
    that of large cities and other larger metropolitan areas. A
    large part of the success is due to the return of manufacturing
    jobs.
        Restoring America's manufacturing sector has been a
    priority of this Congress. Tax reform focused on lowering the
    burdens for employers which they face in order to spur
    production and job creation has helped fuel the manufacturing
    boom. Perhaps that is why the National Association of
    Manufacturers' Outlook Survey reports an all-time high in
    manufacturer optimism for the second quarter of this year. They
    also reported record or near-record highs when it came to their
    expectations about hiring workers, raising wages, and making
    investments. Our manufacturers know that opportunity is greater
    now than it has been in many years.
        Again, I look forward to hearing more about these trends
    from our witnesses, as well as any ideas you have for how
    policymakers can help remove barriers and further promote
    manufacturing in America. We are grateful for the time that you
    are here with us today, and we appreciate your testimony.
        At this time, I would like to recognize the vice chairman
    of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
        And I thank all of you for being here today. I especially
    want to welcome Mr. Anderberg. He is my constituent. He is the
    vice president and co-owner of Dial Machine, which is a great
    American manufacturing company located in Rockford, Illinois.
    Mr. Anderberg helps run this family-owned business that has
    been around for more than a half a century. He has a wealth of
    experience in the industry and is a student of the history of
    manufacturing and trade. It is not his first rodeo, either. He
    was here back in 2003 in front of the Small Business Committee
    talking about the state of manufacturing then.
        Mr. Anderberg, thank you for making the trip to Washington
    to give us all your unique perspective on the manufacturing
    sector. It is definitely an honor to represent you in Congress.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

        Good morning, I'd like to welcome everyone to the Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee's examination of
    the State of Manufacturing in America.
        Thanks to policies designed to spur manufacturing in our
    country we are seeing a revival of the Made in America brand.
    Factories are expanding, workers are being re-hired and wages
    are rising. A recent survey of small business owners found
    optimism at an all-time high. Small businesses are responsible
    for creating 2 out of every 3 new jobs so when they are raising
    wages, growing their businesses, and investing in equipment,
    it's helpful to the entire economy \1\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/11/small-business-optimism-surges-
    to-highest-ever.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In my own congressional district, the 5th District of Ohio,
    we are definitely seeing a resurgence of optimism. My district
    stretches from densely populated urban centers like downtown
    Toledo to small villages on the state-line of Indiana and we
    proudly have over 60,000 manufacturing jobs. In the over 900
    district meetings I've had since August 2012, overregulation is
    the most mentioned issue. I never hear that regulation isn't
    necessary, but I always hear people ask for soft- touch,
    minimal regulation. It is burdensome for businesses to navigate
    regulatory regimes when they are busy improving operations and
    products for customers or working to grow to reach more people.
    Through policies this Congress and Administration have
    advanced, we are witnessing the rebirth of a healthy, strong
    and growing manufacturing sector. This includes one of our
    witnesses today, who comes to us representing Jerl Marchine
    Inc. from Perrysburg. Welcome Ms. Moyers, and thank you very
    much for joining us today, I look forward to hearing from you
    and our other witnesses today.
        According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S.
    is the world's second-largest manufacturing nation, having been
    over-taken by China in 2010. But the competition to regain the
    crown is very much alive. In recent years American
    manufacturing output has risen steadily, this year reaching its
    highest level in nearly 10 years.
        Growing production also means growing jobs. Since January
    2017, over 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been created in
    America; this is a sharp reversal over the previous two years,
    when the Bureau of Labor Statistics was regularly reporting job
    losses.
        The increasing demand for workers is creating new
    opportunities across our country. Importantly, for the first
    time in a long time prosperity and opportunity are reaching
    into rural areas that have long been left-out of recovery.
        As a recent report by the Brookings Institute notes, the
    growth of the employment rate in small and rural communities
    has outpaced that of big cities and other larger metro areas. A
    large part of this success is due to the return of
    manufacturing jobs.
        Restoring America's manufacturing sector has been a
    priority of this Congress. Tax reform, focused on lowering the
    burdens employers face in order to spur production and job
    creation, has helped fuel the manufacturing boom.
        Perhaps that's why the National Association of
    Manufacturer's Outlook Survey reported an all-time high in
    manufacturer optimism for the second quarter of this year. They
    also reported record or near record highs when it came to their
    expectations about hiring workers, raising wages and making
    investments.
        Our manufacturers know that opportunity is greater now than
    it has been in many years.
        I look forward to hearing more about these trends from our
    witnesses, as well as any ideas you have for how policymakers
    can remove barriers and further promote manufacturing in
    America. We are grateful for your time today and appreciate
    your testimony.

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        And I will yield back the balance of my time, and at this
    time I will recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for an
    opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A strong manufacturing sector is vital to our identity as a
    nation, is the source of countless scientific and technological
    breakthroughs, and it is essential to maintaining our national
    defense capabilities. Manufacturing serves as an important
    building block for a strong and stable middle class in this
    country. Manufacturing jobs have historically paid more on
    average than jobs in other sectors, and they tend to bring with
    them strong spillover effects for local and regional economies.
        In my home State of New Jersey, we have nearly 10,000
    manufacturers from large pharmaceutical firms to small machine
    shops, and these manufacturers employ almost 250,000 people and
    contribute more than $30.1 billion to New Jersey's economy.
        And I am pleased we are holding a hearing on the state of
    U.S. manufacturing. Our communities are stronger when we can
    develop well-paying and stable jobs. But the Republican
    majority for two years now has repeatedly prioritized the needs
    of large corporate interests and the wealthiest few. The
    American people have not been fooled by Republicans' claims
    about their giant tax scam. The American people know that the
    benefits of the tax law overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest
    few. And congressional Republicans also continue to push
    harmful regulatory rollbacks that undermine innovation and job
    growth.
        Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Republicans are
    likely to tout the successes of their tax scam today. Yet,
    repeatedly, we have seen that most companies have not and do
    not intend to use the money for capital investment. In fact, we
    remember all too well watching President Trump's former lead
    economic advisor Gary Cohn's distress when a group of CEOs were
    asked if they intended to increase their investments when the
    tax cuts become law, and almost none of them raised their
    hands. Gary Cohn sent shockwaves asking, and I quote, ``Why
    aren't the other hands up?'' Their hands did not go up because
    they intended for most profits from the tax cuts to go to
    shareholders, and that is exactly what has happened.
        Contrary to the majority's claims, deregulation has also
    caused substantial uncertainty and angst for manufacturers. For
    example, eight years ago the CAFE standards were put into place
    to increase fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks by
    model year 2025. U.S. manufacturers and their suppliers
    innovated and invested in advanced technologies. CAFE provided
    certainty to these firms, allowing them to invest in a pipeline
    of jobs for the long term. And all of that investment and
    innovation was upended in August when the Trump administration
    announced a proposal to roll back CAFE. This announcement threw
    into disarray well-laid plans for innovation and job growth.
        The Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the Clean
    Power Act have also created even more uncertainty for the
    manufacturing sector. And this administration's efforts to
    abuse emergency authorities to subsidize the coal and nuclear
    industries threaten to hurt national gas-fired electricity
    producers and the renewables industry while raising costs for
    U.S. manufacturers at the same time.
        So, what American manufacturers need is for the federal
    government to prepare and implement a coordinated long-term
    strategy for manufacturing success and job growth. Our key
    competitors have figured this out already. Since 2015, the
    Chinese government has invested billions of dollars into the
    Made in China 2025 campaign, which is their 10-year plan for
    transforming their economy from commodities to advanced
    manufacturing.
        And the Obama administration recognized this need and
    established the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation,
    now known as Manufacturing USA. This is a network of industry,
    academic, and government partners working to increase U.S.
    manufacturing competitiveness and spur innovation. To date,
    this network has 14 institutes specializing in a variety of
    advanced manufacturing sectors such as advanced robotics and
    lightweight metals. The plan was to open three times as many
    institutes, and I encourage the current administration to
    follow through with this initiative.
        It's time to stop making manufacturing policy on a whim
    and, instead, to think strategically about the future needs of
    this country. Mr. Chairman, American manufacturing also needs
    companies to step up and invest, and not just in their plants,
    but in their workers as well. Too often, good manufacturing
    jobs become part-time jobs without benefits, and workers are
    increasing losing their power to negotiate for better
    conditions and higher wages. So, the federal government needs
    the industry to be a partner in creating a vibrant
    manufacturing economy. And I hope this hearing can explore that
    partnership.
        So, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now will recognize the chairman of the full
    Committee of Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Oregon,
    for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    your leadership on this issue and the hearing that we are
    having today.
        As our witnesses will know, we have got a couple of these
    going on today. So, some of us will have to bounce back and
    forth.
        I would just say at the beginning, I am glad to stack the
    Trump economy up against the Obama economy any day of the week.
    We actually have provided, as a result of Republican
    majorities, the biggest tax relief since Ronald Reagan. We have
    had significant regulatory relief, taking the dead hand of
    overexcessive government regulation off the throats of
    America's entrepreneurs, and they have responded at record pace
    to create jobs in America, and to give us the best economy
    nearly anybody in the working world has seen in their time. And
    so, optimism is up. Jobs are up. There are more openings than
    there are people to fill them, and we are moving forward with a
    robust economy.
        And this notion from the last President that we should get
    used to a 1.5 or 2 percent GDP, and that is the new normal, the
    best America could do, is just garbage. And so, we are seeing
    it move forward at 4.2 percent GDP growth, and a very, very
    strong economy, and it is because of the Republican policies we
    have passed out of this committee and others, and down to the
    President for signature.
        But today we are going to hear about manufacturing. It is
    essential and it is coming back in America. From car parts to
    industrial equipment, to semiconductors, America's
    manufacturing sector keeps us on the cutting edge of technology
    and world leadership.
        Thanks to historic achievements in tax and regulatory
    reform, our country is undergoing a manufacturing revival
    unlike we have seen in a very long time. The latest
    manufacturing index from the Institute for Supply Management
    has reached its highest level in 14 years. This number
    translates into surging growth and increased production of
    goods made in America.
        With the resurgence comes the return of manufacturing jobs.
    And in fact, The Washington Post recently reported, and I
    quote, ``Jobs in goods-producing industries, mining,
    construction, and manufacturing, grew 3.3 percent in the year
    preceding July, the best rate since 1984.''
        And with this increase in manufacturing jobs has come
    rising wages. According to the August Bureau of Labor
    Statistics quarterly release, compensation for workers has
    risen to a nearly 10-year high. These are the facts.
        The latest GDP report shows that our economy has grown at a
    rate of 4.2 percent, and we anticipate this week's GDP report
    will show similarly strong results. Further, earlier this
    month, the National Federation of Independent Business--and my
    wife and I were small business owners for 21 years--it reported
    that its small business optimism index has surged to 108.8
    percent, the highest level ever recorded in the survey's 45-
    year history. These are the facts.
        Of course, all these numbers can seem abstract, but what
    they represent is not. Our economy is strong and growing. This
    surge of American manufacturing has come from business, both
    large and small. Jobs are being created. New products,
    technologies, and medicines are being invented. And consumers
    have more money in their pockets to spend, to put away for
    their children's education, or save toward retirement. Workers
    are once again able to find solid, dependable jobs with good
    pay.
        And it is all the result of this Congress, the Republican
    Congress, investing in America by reducing the burdens and
    taxes and unnecessary regulations imposed on job creators. You
    know America has always been a nation of doers and makers. It
    has always been a place where anyone with dedication and
    ambition can start their own enterprise and take the future
    into their own hands. By any measure, we are witnessing a
    reinvigoration of that great and proud tradition as Americans.
        So, I am proud of this committee's work. Most of it has
    actually been bipartisan. And we are getting pro-growth, pro-
    innovation policies and we are helping our entrepreneurs do
    what they do best.
        That includes we really appreciate our witnesses here
    today. Thank you all for the help you are doing to grow jobs in
    America. We know there is a lot more work to be done. We know
    there are unsettled parts and challenges in the economy. But we
    are here to be your partner, to help American workers succeed
    and American businesses grow, and manufacturing get even
    stronger.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for appearing
    before us today to discuss the state of a quintessential
    American industry: manufacturing. From car parts, to industrial
    equipment, to semiconductors, America's manufacturing sector
    keeps us on the cutting edge of technology and world
    leadership.
        Thanks to historic achievements in tax and regulatory
    reform, our country is undergoing a manufacturing revival
    unlike any we've seen in a long time. The latest manufacturing
    index from the Institute for Supply Management has reached its
    highest level in 14 years. This number translates to surging
    growth and increased production of goods made in America.
        With this resurgence comes the return of manufacturing
    jobs. The Washington Post recently reported, ``Jobs in goods-
    producing industries--mining, construction and manufacturing--
    grew 3.3 percent in the year preceding July, the best rate
    since 1984. . .'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ''Under Trump, the jobs boom has finally reached blue-collar
    workers. Will it last?'' (September 9, 2018)https://
    www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/09/under-trump-jobs-boom-has-
    finally-reached-blue-collar-workers-will-it-last/?noredirect=on&utm--
    term=.9c7b28e2a87f
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And with this increase in manufacturing jobs has come
    rising wages. According to the August Bureau of Labor
    Statistics quarterly release, compensation for workers has
    risen to a nearly 10-year high.
        The latest U.S. GDP report shows that our economy has grown
    at a rate of 4.2 percent, and we anticipate this week's GDP
    report will show similarly strong results.
        And further, earlier this month, the National Federation of
    Independent Business reported that its ``Small Business
    Optimism Index'' had surged to 108.8 percent, the highest level
    ever recorded in the survey's 45-year history.
        Of course, all these numbers can seem abstract, but what
    they represent is not. Oureconomy is strong and growing. This
    surge of American manufacturing has come from businesses both
    large and small. Jobs are being created. New products,
    technologies, and medicines are being invented. Consumers have
    more money in their pockets to spend, to put away for their
    children's education, or save towards retirement. Workers are
    once again able to find solid, dependable jobs with good pay.
        And it is all the result of this Congress investing in
    America by reducing the burdens that taxes and unnecessary
    regulations impose on job creators.
        America has always been a nation of doers and makers. It
    has always been a place where anyone with dedication and
    ambition can start their own enterprise and take the future
    into their own hands. By any measure we are witnessing a
    reinvigoration of that proud tradition.
        I am proud that this committee's dedication to pro-growth,
    pro-innovation policies has contributed to this moment. I am
    even more proud of America's workers and business leaders.
        That includes our witnesses for today's hearing. Thank you
    for all you do to help create jobs and keep America a place
    where we make things that improve lives and change the world.
    Please let us know what we in Congress should do to continue
    supporting American manufacturing and the remarkable economic
    growth we see today. It's our job to make it easier for you to
    succeed.
        Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, the gentlelady from Illinois, for 5 minutes.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to
    you, to our witnesses, and my colleagues for being late.
        I want to thank you, and Mr. Stettner, Mr. Paradowski, Ms.
    Moyers, and Mr. Anderberg for being here today.
        Manufacturing helped build the American middle class.
    Strong wages helped build products that Americans were proud
    of. And unfortunately, too many misguided policies over the
    last 30 years have allowed our manufacturing sector to slowly
    whither away.
        I am pleased to see that my colleagues invited as witnesses
    executives from businesses that used the most recent Republican
    tax cut to invest in their businesses by increasing wages and
    better training for their workers. However, closer examination
    of macro-level data, a very different story than the one that
    we will be told today can be heard.
        I would like to submit for the record this blog by Josh
    Bivens from the Economic Policy Institute for the record. I ask
    unanimous consent.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Schakowsky. What this will show is that, despite the
    Republican rhetoric, we haven't seen anything close to an
    explosion in investment. Examination of the Census Bureau's
    Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventory, and Orders Data from 1992
    until today shows current investment levels far below that of
    even 2009.
        We shouldn't be surprised. At the end of the last year,
    Republicans' political consultants connected business with
    public relations firms before the tax bill was even signed into
    law. They touted one-time bonuses as evidence that the tax bill
    would lead to higher wages in the long term for workers. Today
    is the next step in that well-orchestrated public relations
    campaign, and I don't mean in any way to denigrate our great
    witnesses that are here today.
        So, where have the $2 trillion gone? Since the tax bill
    passed, we have seen an explosion of stock buybacks. When
    companies invest in buybacks, they juice their stock prices in
    the short term, creating what Senator Warren described as a
    sugar high, that leads companies to neglect investment in
    equipment, wages, and worker training.
        According to a recent report by the Roosevelt Institute and
    the National Employment Law Center, in the 3 years prior to the
    enactment of the tax law, public companies across the American
    economy spent roughly three-fifths of their profits on
    buybacks. So, what happens when Congress and the Trump
    administration give corporate Americans more cash? Examining
    the first half of this year, it is clear corporate America
    likes to spend on buybacks. Share repurchases surged 43 percent
    in the first half of this year versus a far less inspiring
    increase of 27 percent for capital expenditures.
        Consider Walmart, the Nation's largest employer. Walmart
    supported the tax bill and claimed it would help workers, but
    it is not clear how much of that $2.2 billion in annual tax
    cuts actually helped its more than 1.4 million Americans.
    Shortly after enactment, the Walmart board authorizes $20
    billion in stock buybacks. The Roosevelt Institute released a
    separate report estimating that, if Walmart had directed half
    of that toward wages, hours worked compensation could have been
    increased by more than $5 per hour, which would transform the
    lives of many of those workers and help provide a living wage.
        As Members of Congress, wI am looking at the time--as
    Members of Congress, we are approached by employers all the
    time who say they can't find qualified workers, that there is a
    skills gap. I would argue that America's skills gap is really
    more of a wage gap. The declines in union density and a focus
    on core competence and executive salaries, instead of training
    and capital investment, have dried up the private sector's role
    in workforce development.
        So, I am going to skip to the end and submit the whole
    thing for the record.
        I just want to say that what my Republican friends won't
    tell you is how the administration's deregulatory agenda,
    again, makes the wallets of the wealthy fatter while risking
    health and safety of the middle class and working poor.
        I hope that we will hear some of the good news today and
    that what we are going to hear from all of you is that we can
    do better in this country.
        Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        And that will conclude with our members' opening
    statements.
        The Chair would like to remind members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made
    part of the record.
        And as the gentleman from Oregon stated, the chairman of
    the full committee, we do have two subcommittees running
    simultaneously today. So, members will be coming back and forth
    during each committee hearing.
        Once again, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us
    today. We greatly appreciate your taking the time to testify
    before our subcommittee today. And today's witnesses will have
    the opportunity to give a 5-minute opening statement, followed
    by a round of questions from our members.
        Our witness panel for today's hearing will include Ms.
    Nikki Moyers, who is Vice President of Operations at Jerl
    Machine in Perrysburg, Ohio, right up the road from where I
    live; Mr. Edward Paradowski, the President of Apache Stainless
    Equipment Corporation in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin; Mr. Andrew
    Stettner, the Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation, and Mr.
    Eric Anderberg, the Vice President of Dial Machine in Rockford,
    Illinois.
        Again, we want to thank you all for being with us today.
    And if you would, pull that microphone up close and just press
    the button. You will see the little red light go on there.
        And you are recognized, Ms. Moyers, for your opening 5-
    minute statement. Thank you very much for being with us.

     STATEMENTS OF NIKKI MOYERS, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS, JERL
     MACHINE, INC.; EDWARD PARADOWSKI, PRESIDENT, APACHE STAINLESS
    EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; ANDREW STETTNER, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTURY
     FOUNDATION; AND ERIC ANDERBERG, VICE PRESIDENT, DIAL MACHINE,
                                  INC.

                       STATEMENT OF NIKKI MOYERS

        Ms. Moyers. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman
    Latta, and subcommittee members, for inviting me here on behalf
    of my company.
        My name is Nikki Moyers. I am Vice President of Operations
    at Jerl Machine, Inc., in Perrysburg, Ohio. The company was
    started by my grandfather, Bob Brossia, out of his garage in
    1973. Today, Jerl boasts 67 employees and caters a variety of
    industries. The state of American manufacturing is, obviously,
    near and dear to us because it is our jobs, but also because it
    is our family legacy.
        In the past year, Jerl has seen a production resurgence
    unprecedented in its 45-year history. Our core customers are
    sending in more purchase orders than ever. We are hearing from
    companies that haven't done work with us for over a decade, and
    more and more new opportunities are surfacing.
        Our suppliers are just as busy, proving that our good
    fortune is not unique in this industry. And I attribute much of
    the upswing to the passing of the tax cuts and JOBS Act late
    last year, specifically its provision to cut corporate taxes.
        We are on the right track to have our highest sales and
    highest profit of year on record for 2018. Jerl has been able
    to give much-deserved wage raises to our employees, has already
    paid out two separate bonuses to all of our employees, and has
    another plan for late November. We have also added three
    machines to our shop floor to keep up with our orders.
        But our growth is hindered. We are currently running at 60
    percent capacity, despite the fact that our phones are ringing
    more than ever. We are forced to turn away work because we do
    not have the skilled labor to meet our deadlines. We cannot
    fill our open positions, and the looming retirement of 15
    percent of our workforce will only worsen this problem. I am
    confident that the current manufacturing boom is not a fluke,
    but unless strides are made to fill the skilled manufacturing
    jobs that nearly every company like ours has, we cannot sustain
    the growth.
        It is no coincidence that I am here today as the lone
    female up here representing my field. In my time at Jerl, we
    have employed a single female machinist. Our workforce is over
    90 percent Caucasian. Not only are we lacking in skilled
    workers, we are suffering from a lack of diversity in
    manufacturing.
        And I think the answer lies in our schools. It is time to
    fund the industrial arts and practical life skills as part of a
    core curriculum. Fine arts education can't be allowed to cease
    either, as so much of what we do requires the craft of an
    artist's eye. Trade and technical schools must be touted by
    counselors, teachers, and parents as options equal to
    traditional 4-year colleges. Students need to know our field
    and that we offer high-paying careers.
        We are on the right track. The current administration has
    shown that it values the manufacturing field and it recognizes
    its impact on our country as a whole. As long as it continues
    to facilitate open discussions such as this hearing,
    manufacturing will endure with continued hard work. We have
    never feared hard work. Bring on the future.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Moyers follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your opening statement.
        And, Mr. Paradowski, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF EDWARD PARADOWSKI

        Mr. Paradowski. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Latta,
    Ranking Member Schakowsky, members of the subcommittee, for the
    opportunity to testify before you today.
        My name is Ed Paradowski. I am President of Apache
    Stainless Equipment Corporation in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.
    Apache Stainless Equipment is a manufacturer of capital
    equipment from high alloys, primarily stainless steel, with
    annual revenues of approximately $43 million and 171 employees,
    most of which are skilled trades people.
        I also have responsibility for a second business, which is
    a company called Dalton Ag in Lenox, Iowa. We are a
    manufacturer of agricultural equipment; annual revenues of
    about $9 million and 43 employees. Both businesses rely heavily
    on the skilled trades, and that is the pacing item for both of
    our businesses to grow.
        Both Apache Stainless and Dalton Ag are part of a holding
    company, Dexter Apache Holdings, which we have six companies
    within our holding company, five of which are manufacturing
    located in Wisconsin and Iowa. The five manufacturing
    businesses operate in unrelated business segments. We are a 100
    percent S corp ESOP. On a daily basis, as an S corp ESOP, we
    are fulfilling the American dream for our current 897 employee/
    owners. That number would be higher if we could find more
    skilled trades people.
        My testimony today will reflect my personal perspective on
    the effects of current economic policy on the health of the
    U.S. economy with a specific focus on the manufacturing sector.
    To provide some backdrop for the testimony, I will give a
    little bit of my personal background.
        First, I would like to recognize Mr. Walden for
    acknowledging entrepreneurs and opportunity.
        I was born on the south side of Milwaukee, raised the
    youngest of six kids, and I started a manufacturing company at
    the age of 28 with no money and no real business experience.
    So, I love the opportunity that this country provides. And the
    root of my perspective is really based on the experience I have
    had since then.
        In the last 10 years, I have really focused heavily on
    advocacy activities. I work very closely with local and state
    government, national politicians, events such as this today. We
    host politicians and anybody who is willing to come visit our
    facility to educate them on what manufacturing is all about.
        Our state chamber of commerce, Wisconsin Manufacturers &
    Commerce, I work closely with them. They are an ally/partner to
    our business. To work, government needs to be an ally/partner
    to manufacturing and commerce in general. And they are a great
    leader in the State of Wisconsin.
        Most of you, I would suspect, are familiar with the MEP
    Network nationwide. In the state of Wisconsin, our governing
    overarching body for the MEP Network is the WCMP, Wisconsin
    Center for Manufacturing & Productivity. I sit on that board
    and, actually, I'm chairman of that board. So, the public-
    private partnerships that the MEP Network provides, I am
    familiar with that as well.
        We all talk about education, education reform, and the
    skills gap. The skills gap is definitely not a wage gap. We
    could speak later to that.
        Our Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, which are
    the K-12, they are the core of how our children are educated. I
    have been a member at the very ground level of what we call the
    Regional Career Pathways Project in the State of Wisconsin.
    Actually, I was asked by our state superintendent to present
    for the State of Wisconsin in the grant competition three years
    ago, which the State of Wisconsin won a $2 million grant for
    education reform. So, I am deeply involved in education reform.
    It is one thing to talk about the problem; it is another thing
    to get in there and to also help solve it.
        And then, the National Association of Manufacturers was
    mentioned. Actually, I am out here today for a board meeting,
    which, unless I say something completely wrong, I will be
    elected to their board tomorrow.
        In summary, my perspectives are not just of a manufacturer,
    but a manufacturer that works closely with other manufacturers,
    with government, and with education. As I am running out of
    time here, I will hit just a couple of the high points, and
    really maybe just one philosophical perspective.
        I use this as an analogy quite often, the role of
    government in manufacturing. In a manufacturing business, we
    make our money on the shop floor. We add value to raw materials
    and we make goods and services. And myself and others in my
    office, we are corporate overhead. Our corporate overhead needs
    to do two fundamental things. We need to make our shop floor
    more productive, maximize output/efficiency, and there are also
    some compliance issues, safety and things of that nature. And
    the second thing is there has to be a sustainable economic
    balance between the cost of corporate overhead and how much
    activity is going on on the shop floor.
        In a soft year where manufacturing might soften a little
    bit, I don't just put more burden on my shop floor in terms of
    dollars; I actually have to downsize my corporate overhead. And
    that is the role of government to the private sector, not just
    manufacturing.
        The private sector is really four fundamental things. You
    mine it; you grow it; you make it; you invent it. And
    government needs to be an allied partner to that process, so
    that the private sector can grow. And tax reform is a piece of
    that, as are tariffs, and there has to be a sustainable
    economic balance between the cost of government and the size of
    the private sector.
        I will make one statement, as I am running out of time
    here, very quickly. There was a comment that was made--oh,
    where did it go?--there was a comment that was made regarding
    Mr. Walden said that the government--no, I'm sorry, I already
    acknowledged Mr. Walden. There was a statement that was made by
    Mr. Pallone, actually, that industry needs to be a partner to
    government. And that exactly is the problem; government needs
    to be a partner to industry. I think we have got this a little
    bit reversed.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Paradowski follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Stettner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ANDREW STETTNER

        Mr. Stettner. Good morning, Chairman Latta and Ranking
    Member Schakowsky. First, let me commend the committee for
    holding this hearing.
        Over the past year, the Century Foundation and its Bernard
    L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative sponsored the
    High Wage American Project, researching and touring the
    industrial Midwest to understand the future of manufacturing as
    a provider of good jobs and economic growth. Representative
    Schakowsky, several of the community leaders involved in the
    tour had a chance to meet you 2 weeks ago today when they came
    to Washington to present our findings, which I have submitted
    for the record.
        While no one in the Midwest has such rose-colored glass as
    to believe manufacturing will ever provide 30 percent of the
    jobs, like it used to, the message was loud and clear.
    Manufacturing matters to communities. Our research finds that
    in small towns in industrial states from Michigan to
    Mississippi, manufacturing still accounts for one in four
    private sector jobs. Manufacturing brings high-tech jobs to
    these firms into small towns like Phillips, Wisconsin, where
    Phillips Medisize has developed from a manufacturer of action
    figures to a worldwide provider of advanced molding and
    engineering services.
        The time is right for Congress to take action to build a
    proactive national manufacturing strategy. Resilient
    manufacturers have added back 1.26 million of the 5.7 million
    jobs lost from 2000 to 2010. But there are serious concerns.
    Our diminished production capacity has kneecapped our ability
    to innovate, as America had ceded its edge in high-tech
    manufacturing to advanced East Asian nations and Germany. And
    while manufacturing still pays 10 percent more than other jobs,
    that wage advantage has eroded. Low-paid, temporary help
    workers represent 11 percent of the manufacturing workforce
    today, up from just 2.3 percent in 1989.
        But a national manufacturing strategy must go beyond
    international trade and tax issues. Rather, Federal policies
    should focus on investments to create the conditions for
    manufacturers to compete and thrive in a global marketplace and
    for the manufacturing workforce to prosper.
        Communities are taking action. The Federal Government can
    help by helping them build public-private partnerships and spur
    high-tech manufacturing, reinvest in the workforce, retain and
    restore good jobs, and mobilize capital.
        The future of U.S. manufacturing lies in being the most
    high-tech, not the lowest cost. In Cleveland, we visited the
    ArcelorMittal steel mill, the first in the world to create a
    ton of steel with a single hour of labor, which sees a
    strategic advantage in environmental regulations that increase
    demand for high-grade, lightweight steel. Indeed, our ability
    to be a global leader in the clean economy depends on a robust
    manufacturing sector to create the next generation of green
    products.
        Look at our competitors. The Made in China 2025 campaign is
    a multibillion dollar effort to take China from a commodity
    producer to a leader in major advanced manufacturing exports
    from alternative energy to rail equipment.
        Manufacturing USA is our response. There are 14 applied
    research institutes targeting technologies like 3D printing in
    Youngstown, robotics in Pittsburgh, and super-strong,
    lightweight metals in Detroit. But, to truly compete, we have
    to step up Manufacturing USA into its full plan of 45
    institutes and provide permanent Federal funding matched by the
    private sector.
        Now manufacturing can only grow if it has a workforce for
    the future. In Chicago, our research found there are nearly
    twice as many jobs open as workers hired. But manufacturing
    workforce pipelines, apprenticeship, and vocational education
    have withered. And a generation who experienced industrial
    decline tell their children to shun factory jobs.
        Congress can help by devoting resources that incentivize
    employers to double the number of apprenticeships in
    manufacturing in 5 years and provide new, focused resources at
    the K-12 level. These programs need resources for mentoring and
    support services to help women and people of color to break
    into the trades.
        That is the approach of Manufacturing Renaissance in
    Chicago to help some of the young people in some of the most
    violence-prone neighborhoods in the Nation to get industry-
    recognized credentials they need for high-paying jobs. And
    surely manufacturers will have more success recruiting when
    they pay decent wages, respect collective bargaining, and
    provide safe workplaces.
        Communities are developing innovative ways to work with
    local manufacturers to save and grow jobs, relying on smart,
    more sustainable approaches than simply offering tax giveaways.
    Pennsylvania Strategic Early Warning Network saves thousands of
    jobs by providing targeted business turnaround assistance to
    small and medium-sized companies at risk of closure.
        Federal policies should give these communities stronger
    tools by strengthening bedrock programs like the MEP, new
    initiatives like layoff aversion in WIOA, and the recently-
    authorized Defense Manufacturing Community Partnership Support
    Program.
        Lastly, the Federal Government should incentivize further
    private investment in manufacturing through an industrial bank
    focused on national needs and a clearinghouse that mobilizes
    impact investors to bring sustainable manufacturing jobs back
    into distressed communities.
        In conclusion, manufacturing is regaining its footing, but
    there is much more to be done. I urge the committee to continue
    its focus on boosting the manufacturing sector, and I welcome
    the opportunity to work with you in the future.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stettner follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Stettner, for your testimony.
        Mr. Anderberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF ERIC ANDERBERG

        Mr. Anderberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Schakowsky, and thank you, Congressman
    Kinzinger, for allowing me the opportunity to be here today.
        Dial Machine, we are family-owned for 52 years, a precision
    contract manufacturer. We make parts for various industries,
    mining, oil and gas, a lot of fossil fuel. We do work for the
    government, defense, the national laboratories.
        And I can tell you today, I don't want to sound like a
    broken record, but our backlogs are way out and the work is
    tremendous today. In my 25 years, I have never seen such
    optimism. My father has been in this industry for 61 years and
    never seen the optimism and the rate at which we are growing
    here today.
        Currently, to give you an idea, our sales, as of the third
    week of September, we are 30 percent over all of last year,
    over 50 percent over all of 2016. So, things are on the right
    track.
        I think three things have happened in Washington that have
    helped the manufacturing sector. That is the tax, the
    regulatory, and the trade policy changes that have been coming
    forward.
        Tax, the C corp and the last tax legislation, the C corps
    got an income tax reduction to 21 percent. That has created
    incentive for the large corporations to bring work back. And I
    can tell you personally it has happened; we are benefiting from
    it. I have been told from companies like Caterpillar that more
    is coming. Large corporations are also investing in their plant
    and equipment with that money.
        S corps, such as ourselves, we didn't get the tax cut that
    the C corps got. Hopefully, that could be changed. But that
    extra cash and capital is being put to use. We are putting it
    to use.
        And also, along with that is the increase in the expensing
    in the 179. And, then, increasing the accelerated depreciation
    back to 100 percent has been a big boost, and it is an
    extremely useful and important tool for manufacturers such as
    ourselves to be able to afford to invest in capital equipment.
        Because of all the increased activity, there is a scarcity
    of labor. And because of tax--I credit the tax policy--the
    wages have increased. We have been increasing the wages of our
    people, in part, because it is a defensive mechanism to keep
    other people from stealing our people. And also, we are
    offering higher wages for people to start as applicants at our
    place.
        The regulatory environment. Rolling back regulations that
    were hurting the fossil fuel industry, I will give you an
    example, coal. We do a lot of work for Caterpillar, and all the
    large mining bulldozers, we have parts in each machine.
    Starting in 2013, we went from 2011-2012 we were making about
    six to eight sets of bulldozers a day. In 2013, one model
    dropped from 400 a year to 56 per year, and by 2016, we were
    down to about a half bulldozer shipping a day. We are back to
    five or six, but we are constrained because of capacity or
    people.
        So, the regulatory pushback has been terrific. My family,
    we also farm. And so, you cannot have a regulatory environment
    out here that is suggesting we are going to regulate puddles of
    water on your farm or we are going to tax every head of cattle
    for flatulence. That sends a terrible message to industry,
    farming, and ranchers; we are not going to invest. You can't do
    it.
        And then, trade. This is probably the most important part
    and probably the most significant change in 40 to 50 years. It
    is the first time an administration has acknowledge the problem
    we have with trade, international subsidized work coming into
    this country or subsidized product. The Chinese steel industry,
    the Chinese have been huge offenders, and we just cannot
    compete. That change and the talk of subsidy, if you come to
    Rockford, for example, I can point out many industries we have
    lost over the past several decades. When people talk about we
    are starting a trade war, well, I am here to tell you we have
    been in a trade war in this country for over 40 years, and it
    is the first time it has been acknowledged. It is the first
    time we are doing something about it. And this has created a
    level of confidence, too, that has helped to invest in your
    plant and equipment.
        The most significant challenge that manufacturing has, you
    have already heard it, people. We can't get them. We need 10 to
    15 more skilled individuals on our floor right now. And I am
    here to tell you that we are turning work away. If I had the
    capability, I could double the size of my plant if I had the
    capacity of people, and we just can't get them.
        Fingers can be pointed every direction. I think industry
    didn't do a good enough job marketing ourselves to the
    students, to parents, to educators, and the vo-tech schools
    closed years ago, but they are reopening again, and that is
    promising.
        Apprenticeship programs. The small guys are training; the
    large companies are not. And I think we need to enlarge the
    pool of labor that everybody can work from, and we need to do
    something to incentivize the large corporations to do so again,
    because they just won't because it doesn't look good on
    quarterly numbers, quite frankly. So, anything that could be
    done with that would be tremendous.
        There is just too much to talk about to do it in 5 minutes.
    I hope I get some good questions, that we have good
    conversation today.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderberg follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony and what
    you say about can't find workers and other folks. I have heard
    across my district it is the No. 1 issue out there.
        This is going to conclude our opening statements from our
    witnesses. And again, we appreciate you all being with us
    today. We will start the questions from our members, and I will
    start with my questions for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Moyers, if I could start with you, Jerl Machine
    provides precision metalworking products and services in
    Perrysburg, Ohio. Could you tell the subcommittee what trends
    you have seen in the marketplace for your products and
    services, and how that has changed over the last couple of
    years?
        Ms. Moyers. Yes. Thank you very much.
        Up is what we are seeing. In the last 2 years, we have been
    steadily growing. We actually had, in 2016, one of our lower
    sales, lower profit margins. It was a little bit, I think, of a
    trend from the recession. We had gone up a little bit, and
    then, it went back down. But, since the end of 2017, we have
    seen nothing but up. We have grown our sales. We have grown our
    profits. Our profits are nearly 20 percent so far for this
    year, when we were seeing only single digits back into 2014.
    And we have also increased our staff as much as we can. Of
    course, we need to increase it more. But we have our phones
    ringing off the hook and we are turning down work.
        Mr. Latta. One of the things I know that has been mentioned
    already--and I just brought up again--as I have seen across my
    district, people just can't find folks to work. That is a big
    issue out there, and it is a very competitive job market out
    there.
        What has been your experience with the wage competition in
    the last couple of years?
        Ms. Moyers. Well, I think there are two issues. We can't
    find people to work and we can't find people that are skilled.
    What we are finding are unskilled who don't necessarily want to
    come to work every day, who don't want to work as hard as we
    need them to work.
        And the other issue is our skilled workers, there are so
    few workers for the jobs that we need to fill that our
    competitors, and also our manufacturing that we are friendly
    with, are stealing our workers, or attempting to. We have had,
    I believe, three or four in the past year that have said they
    have gotten offers from companies that we are actually friendly
    with and do business back and forth, because no one can find
    the workers. So, they have had to resort to poaching them from
    other manufacturers.
        We have raised wages because we have to. So, talk that
    corporations are not using the tax cuts and the money to raise
    wages is just simply not true, because we have to. If we don't,
    someone else is going to and we will lose our workers.
        Mr. Latta. You bring up the point about finding folks that
    are skilled out there and bringing them in. I know in some
    companies they have said, look, if you are willing to work, we
    will train you. With the legislation that was recently passed
    on career and technical education here, do you see that is
    going to be a help? I know in our area, and across Ohio with
    our high school career centers, and also working with our 2-
    year institutions out there--are you seeing something we should
    be doing or do you see something that is bright on the horizon?
        Ms. Moyers. It is a start. I think that investing in the
    vocational schools and the trade schools, we are very fortunate
    to have one in our backyard in Perrysburg, Penta Community
    College, and they cater to kids for everything from
    manufacturing to veterinary programs and culinary arts. They do
    a little bit of everything and it is wonderful, and we get a
    lot of our young employees from Penta. But it is a single
    facility and they can only cater to so many people, and we need
    more.
        We also need the vocational skills and trade skills exposed
    to students in regular K-through-12 schools. I think that we
    need to divert funding to bring back the industrial arts, to
    keep up fine arts. Even practical life skills, job interviews,
    balancing budgets, financial things, they need this. We have
    students who come in to job shadow and some of them we have
    hired. And our young employees don't know how to fill out forms
    for health insurance, don't know how to fill out the tax forms.
    These are vital life skills that they need to have and we need
    to be teaching them.
        Mr. Latta. Also, you reference in your testimony the
    innovation. What is the climate out there and the regulatory
    changes that could help drive innovations for companies like
    yours?
        Ms. Moyers. My grandfather has taught me a lot of things.
    And one of the things that he told me in the past couple of
    years, when we were scaling back some of those overhead costs
    that my colleague here was talking here, one thing he told me
    we are never able to cut is going to trade shows, going to
    machine shows, to learn about what they are doing, to see what
    the new technology is, because that is what is going to keep us
    in business. He has never been afraid to do that.
        He started his business with some hand tools and a drill
    press, and now we are mostly CNC machining. We are breaking
    into new industries all the time, and I think that is so
    important. And that is the way that manufacturing is going to
    survive. We can't be stuck in our old ways. We can't be stuck
    with old technology. That is why we need new, young blood into
    the manufacturing, to encourage it.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        My time has expired. At this time, I will recognize the
    gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        So, how many employees do you have, Mr. Anderberg?
        Mr. Anderberg. We have about 60 right now.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, the three of you are small businesses.
    And so, I think this is a problem, some of the issues of the
    failure to close the wage gap or to invest in employees. It is
    probably different, and I think that you referred to that, that
    the private sector, large businesses, could do more to get
    involved in training, in being a public-private partnership.
        And you said, Mr. Paradowski, that your effort was to go to
    the government and say that there had to be improvements in
    education, and that it is really about government helping
    businesses rather than the other way around. I would suggest
    that your going and saying more tax dollars should be spent in
    some ways is a copout in what industry ought to do in order to
    help. Like we have in Germany, there are programs, public-
    private partnerships with business to invest in the training of
    workers. I am not really asking a question here. That is my
    take and you can answer that. You can talk about that later.
        But I wanted to ask Mr. Stettner on the research that has
    been done. We have heard promises that the Trump tax cut would
    lead to increased worker pay and investment in manufacturing.
    However, we know that in the vast majority of cases--and I
    think this refers mostly to the larger corporations--that did
    not happen. In fact, economists analyzing the effect of the tax
    cuts found no significant sign of boosting investment or
    increasing wages.
        So, Mr. Stettner, was there a boom in manufacturing
    investment after the tax cut went into effect?
        Mr. Stettner. Manufacturing has been on a rebound, I would
    say a consistent rebound for the last 6 or 7 years. And the
    challenge going forward is to increase those investments and
    for companies to look at the workers as partners.
        I think a great example that comes to mind is at the
    ArcelorMittal steel mill they have authorized a strike because
    the company is doing very well and workers are just asking for
    their fair share of those profits in terms of wages and
    healthcare benefits. And so, the move is going to have to be to
    make sure that workers are treated as partners, so we keep our
    skilled manufacturing workforce.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, is there some way that the tax breaks
    could have been drafted in a way that would incentivize
    investment and what might that look like?
        Mr. Stettner. I am not going to say that I am a tax expert.
    So, I don't want to get into the details. I do think there are
    ways in which, in fact, the tax bill made it cheaper for
    companies to outsource jobs overseas, and we need to really
    close those gaps, so it is not cheaper to put production and
    corporate headquarters overseas.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        I just want to go back to Mr. Paradowski. Other countries
    have invested in long-term strategies for their manufacturers.
    China has been mentioned, the Made in China 2025 campaign. But
    Germany has what is called the Fraunhofer Society. And both of
    these countries have retained more production and more jobs
    than we have. The German plan is a public-private effort.
        And I am just wondering what you think the private sector
    could do, the manufacturing sector? Because everyone is talking
    about we can't find the skilled workers. And if you want to
    comment on this, and there is time, Ms. Moyers, I would be
    happy to hear that.
        Mr. Paradowski. I would love to comment. The way I look at
    education, and I have stated this many times within the State
    of Wisconsin, education is the supply chain, the commerce. I
    don't know of anybody who goes to school to get an
    accreditation just to have it hang on their wall. They are
    doing it to ideally get a job.
        So, within the K-12 space in Wisconsin, I think there is a
    variety of things that need to happen. Awareness, nobody
    aspires to----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, but I am not asking about what the
    State of Wisconsin can do. I am asking what the employers can
    do.
        Mr. Paradowski. The employers can certainly provide the
    data as to what jobs are out there, what the makeup of commerce
    is. There are a lot of kids going through school to get
    accreditations where there is not a job, and there are a lot of
    jobs where we don't have workers. Thus, we call that the
    ``skills gap''.
        I don't refer to what we offer at Apache Stainless
    Equipment as jobs. I refer to them as careers. We want people
    to come in, and it is market-based wages. We will take
    unskilled people who we offer what we call the welding
    bootcamp. If you have never welded in your life, if you can
    come in and meet some basic requirements, passing a drug test,
    have some work ethic, we will teach you how to weld and we will
    pay you a market-based wage, which is far north of the minimum
    wage. We have a hard time finding people to do that.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Do you mind if I continue for a while?
        Mr. Latta. Go ahead.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Before I go to Ms. Moyers, I wanted to ask Mr. Anderberg,
    you mentioned that large corporations could be doing more. What
    did you have in mind?
        Mr. Anderberg. Well, I think there is a lot of short-term
    thinking. And unfortunately for them, I think it is catching up
    to them; they are realizing it.
        I go back in the past. Thirty years ago, a lot of large
    corporations and large manufacturers shuttered their credential
    programs. They got rid of them. And now, a lot of those people
    are retiring that went through those programs and there is a
    big gap. And shame on them, I think.
        Today, for example, in Rockford, we are fortunate; we have
    the Rock Valley College, and we have an apprenticeship program
    through our local Tooling and Machining Association that I am
    on the board of. We have a very successful apprenticeship
    program. It wasn't so some years back, but now we have over 120
    apprentices for skilled machinists, tool and die trade in the
    program just in Rockford today.
        And we are the only ones training. The small manufacturers
    are really the only ones training. And I think at some point
    the larger manufacturers will have to train again. It might
    take some time. But I think if there is something that could be
    incentivized for them to start apprenticeship programs again--I
    don't know if it is a tax credit. We talked about this.
    Actually, I talked about this last week, and we had a board
    meeting of our Tooling and Machining Association. Maybe a tax
    credit or something like that.
        I don't think we need to have taxpayer dollars going to the
    benefit of companies, but maybe let them keep some of their
    capital in the form of a tax credit, or something like that, if
    they have an apprenticeship that is an accredited program. Our
    apprenticeship program, it is accredited by the Department of
    Labor. Everyone gets a Department of Labor certificate at the
    end of their training. And so, maybe something like that could
    be done, but I just think the only way you are going to get
    them off the porch now is to incentivize them some way or
    another.
        Ms. Schakowsky. If I could? There is hardly anyone here
    today. So, I wonder if Ms. Moyers could just say a few words?
        Mr. Latta. Yes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Ms. Moyers. Thank you.
        To speak to your question to Mr. Paradowski, I think that
    what corporations can do is we need to make ourselves seen. One
    of the things that we are doing at our corporation is, with
    part of our charitable contributions, we donate to a place
    called Imagination Station in Toledo, Ohio, which is a science-
    based museum and activity center that is geared toward
    children. We have done several activities with them. We have
    donated for the past 5 years, and we have also been a part of
    their outreach programs. They do a great STEM for girls
    program, and we have done that.
        I was lucky enough to be a participant one year. And so
    many girls--and I think the ages were 8 to 13--so many girls
    came up and said, ``I didn't realize a girl could be a
    scientist. I didn't know I could do this. I didn't know that
    there were these jobs.'' And that is one of the important
    things, is we need to just get ourselves out in front of
    people, so that they can see us and see what we do.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        And just to follow up on Mr. Paradowski, what you said
    about welders, that is the No. 1 job out in my district, that
    if you have got that skill coming out of high school, you are
    hired immediately.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, the vice chairman
    of the subcommittee, from Illinois, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, thank you all for being here today.
        Mr. Anderberg, should the government mandate wages that you
    pay?
        Mr. Anderberg. No. No.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Give me, if you can, like generally, what is
    kind of the average, if you kind of put all your employees
    together, what is kind of an average hourly wage?
        Mr. Anderberg. I would say the average hourly wage is up
    into the mid-twenties.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And has that, you said that is----
        Mr. Anderberg. Not including benefits. Not including
    benefits.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And you said that has increased over the
    last few years?
        Mr. Anderberg. It is increasing, yes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And that is because of?
        Mr. Anderberg. Scarcity.
        Mr. Kinzinger. What would have happened if, say, 3 years
    ago, Washington would have mandated the wage you are paying now
    back when the economy was hurting?
        Mr. Anderberg. Well, I will tell you, Congressman, as a
    small manufacturer, we made the decision in the 4-year slump we
    had between 2013 and 2017 to hold onto our people. We had built
    enough cash reserves up that we held onto them, gave them 40-
    hour weeks. And we made it; we ate up all our cash reserves in
    those years. If we would have come out of that or had that come
    down, I would have laid off more people. It is just you can't
    do that.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And can you think of----
        Mr. Anderberg. Go ahead. Go ahead.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Oh, no, please.
        Mr. Anderberg. We talked about Germany. I have been in
    German machine tool plants. I have been in German manufacturing
    companies, and I don't want any mandates from the government.
    One thing the Germans have done is they have mandated that, if
    you are a manufacturing company, you have to have 10 percent of
    your workforce in an apprenticeship program. That is pretty
    good, but I think that is incumbent upon the manufacturer to
    make that decision, not government.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, and I think there are some things to
    learn from the German system. I like, in fact, they introduce
    kids in high school, put them on different tracks, career
    tracks, past opportunities, show them options. And I think that
    is something, frankly, we can learn from. Germany has actually
    been criticized significantly in the EU for what they call
    keeping wages low. And so, I think to kind of look at the
    German system and say that is the answer, I don't think it is,
    even though, again, there are some things we can learn from
    them. They are very obviously technologically advanced and
    everything else.
        But I do think it is important that, since the enactment of
    the tax cut and the repealing of a lot of the regulations that
    you talked about that have been stifling, 1.7 million jobs have
    been created. Wages are up 2.7 percent. More than $4 billion
    has been paid to employees in terms of bonuses.
        Just 2 short years ago, three-quarters of manufacturers
    were saying that the biggest business challenges were our tax
    and regulatory environment. But, as of June this year, less
    than 20 percent say that that is a top concern.
        You look at it, and we should have these good arguments in
    D.C. That is the point of this place. But, if you look at it
    and you say, who are we asking, when you ask the people that
    are actually making the jobs, that are manufacturing, what is
    it you need and what is it you have seen, and they are telling
    us I think, by and large, that we are creating a better
    environment, and you look at the economic numbers, it becomes
    pretty obvious that it is working. Unemployment is at an 18-
    year low. It is not perfect. We still have a lot of work to do.
    We have a lot of issues with training.
        You said you employ about 60 people, 45 of whom are skilled
    tradesmen, machinists, and assemblers, but you have a need for
    another 10 or 15, and you can't fill it. You also mentioned
    that this is a pervasive problem, not only in the manufacturing
    sector, but everywhere. Can you give us a couple of examples of
    other industries? And also, do you attribute the shortfalls to
    the same factors that have led to the shortfalls in
    manufacturing?
        Mr. Anderberg. Yes, I could talk about the construction
    industry. I know people who are building contractors,
    excavators; their people are retiring, too, in the next couple
    of years. I talked to one owner, Northern Illinois Service in
    Rockford. They can't get anybody. He is really concerned about
    his business.
        There are other service industries, everybody, everybody
    you talk to is having a problem getting people, specifically
    young people. And this is something I want to speak to. I
    touched on it a little bit in my writeup. This is a societal
    issue we are facing. We just can't seem to get young people
    into the trades.
        And what I have also found, it is a global issue. Just
    recently, we had a serviceman over from Germany to work on one
    of our machines. We have gotten to know these people pretty
    well. And we had another gentleman in earlier this year. We get
    into this conversation, and they say--ythese guys fly all over
    the world. They are in plants in Russia, China, India,
    everywhere. And they have told me, both of them, that you go to
    a plant in China or India, they tell us the same thing; they
    can't get young people into this trade, into this type of work.
    You walk into the plants; they are all older people.
        So, it is a unique situation. It is a unique challenge. I
    don't know if it is because manufacturing is not seen as a
    technological industry. It is. And maybe it is more of a
    marketing effort toward, like I said, the students, the
    parents, the educators.
        If you were at the IMTS show last week, there was a display
    where they showed voice-activated commands for making machine
    tools move. It is fascinating. My father and I were there, and
    we happened to see a lot of students there that day, and they
    had lounge couches there; you could sit and watch. It was the
    only booth that I saw where students sat and were extremely
    attentive to watching the demonstration. Maybe that is part of
    the answer. Maybe it is increasing the technology, making it
    more work like an app on your iPhone or your iPad. I think that
    has something to do with it.
        But I don't know. It is strange. I think everybody is
    experiencing the same thing. You can't get young people in.
    They last maybe a day and they don't come back.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. I have a thousand more questions,
    but I will just leave it by saying I think this is an area
    where, frankly, there can be a lot of bipartisan cooperation.
    We have these deep debates, but, ultimately, how can the
    government restructure our programs that exist, not new
    programs, but restructure them to make sure we are turning
    people onto these opportunities?
        So, thank you again for being here, all four of you.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the
    ranking member for having this hearing.
        And I want to welcome our witnesses.
        Manufacturing--I come from the Houston area, the industrial
    part--my companies that are hiring are refiners, chemical
    plants, service industry, and the oil industry. What we have
    seen, and I have worked for a number of years because the way I
    got into college was I also was an apprentice at a newspaper. I
    learned to print a newspaper in the 1960s. And I asked the
    owner of the newspaper, I said, ``You hired me as an
    apprentice. Why didn't you go to the high school we had in the
    Houston area that had a printing vocational program?`` And he
    said, ``Their technology is so far behind, we couldn't do it.''
        So, over the last decades, we have taken vocational ed out
    of high schools. And our community colleges have been the one
    that should be taking it up. I have had a really good community
    college in my area where we have refineries, chemical plants,
    essentially, in a college who actually partners with the human
    resources of these, Shell, LyondellBasell, you name it, and
    say, what do we need to teach and get these students to have
    also a 2-year degree? But, then, they can walk onto your plant
    and work.
        That has been really successful, and I have been trying to
    get our other urban areas in Houston, community colleges, to
    talk with the people who hire the folks. And I have been to the
    locations and seen the training, and with these manufacturers
    who are doing that. Is that commonplace, that community
    colleges have taken over most of the vocational public?
        The apprenticeship I went through just was not a public
    one. It was a union, but I ended up being able to manage that
    newspaper after I got my apprenticeship because I had also
    gotten my undergraduate degree in business. I was just lucky to
    be able to have that kind of situation; whereas, so many of our
    young people coming out of high school, they may want to go to
    college because that is where everybody says they should, but
    they don't know how they can afford to get there. And that is
    why an apprentice program in a community college, where you can
    earn a living and you can also still go back and get you a 4-
    year degree in whatever you want to do.
        Each of you stated you don't have enough younger employees
    to replace older employees who plan to retire. I have heard
    that for a number of years. As you said, even nationally,
    internationally, it is a problem.
        How can individuals enter the manufacturing industry right
    now if they don't have access to the educational programs like
    a community college or Manufacturing USA, or in my case just
    because the company wanted to hire me, and lightning strikes?
    What kind of program could do it? And I am real familiar with
    the German program. I have been to BMW and seen that. I don't
    know if that structure would fit in our country, but I do know
    we need to have an apprentice program that is viable, so
    employers could count on the skills that they are learning
    there, that they can come on the job and work.
        Mr. Paradowski?
        Mr. Paradowski. I would say that it is the awareness. There
    is certainly a stigma around manufacturing. I know when I was
    in high school in the early eighties, I went through a
    technical high school, market trade and technical high school,
    learned the trade. In school, we were all being told that, if
    you don't have a 4-year degree, at some point soon you are not
    going to have a job. So, I think maybe kids have been
    brainwashed into thinking that they have to go to a 4-year
    institution.
        It is the awareness of what manufacturing is about. Our
    facilities have become very technology-driven. It is not dark,
    dirty, and dangerous like maybe some people believe.
        Every single school teacher at the Beaver Dam High School
    in our community has been through our facility, and most of
    them have never been through a manufacturing facility prior to
    coming through. That is our role as the private sector, is we
    need to really drive the awareness that these careers; they are
    not just jobs. It is very technology-driven. It is the future.
    There will always be a sizable place in the economy for
    manufacturing. It is not going away in its entirety. Anybody
    who believes that is somewhat naive, I believe, and no
    disrespect to anybody who might believe that.
        But we certainly have a role to work as partners with
    education and K-12 and the tech college system, and any of the
    institutions out there that are educating our kids. Wisconsin
    Tech College System is one of the best tech college systems in
    the country. The average age of a tech college student in
    Wisconsin is 27 years of age, which would lead me to believe
    that they were out figuring out other things first before they
    realized maybe I want to go down the path of a tech school. I
    would rather that the average age be 18 or 19. That means that
    the supply chain speeds to the workforce.
        Mr. Green. Any other response? I thought I had 4 seconds.
        Mr. Stettner. I just wanted to, when we talked about
    existing programs, what it made me think of is community
    colleges don't have an incentive to do technical training. A
    lot of the Federal student aid programs will not pay for that
    training, and the companies have to cover all the tuition. So,
    we have to kind of level that playing field. I think it is one
    kind of thing that we could do and I certainly support.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know because my first
    two terms I was on Education and the Workforce, and that
    committee has prime jurisdiction. But I would sure like to see
    programs in our Department of Labor that would actually look
    for those skills training that they can go out and walk onto
    that job. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
    Virginia for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And you on the panel, you saw an opportunity or you saw
    earlier today in this hearing why Congress is considered to be
    so dysfunctional when you saw the attacks that went underway
    over the tax cut. When we are talking about manufacturing,
    people want to go back on the other side and talk about the tax
    cuts and that they haven't been productive. And the fact that
    one person referenced the fact that they were all used for
    buybacks, and I am sure there were some. I am sure there were
    some. But just keep in mind that, according to Fortune
    magazine, of the Fortune 500, the top S&P 500, they only
    represent 17--and I shouldn't say ``only''--but they represent
    just 17 percent of the workforce, the publicly-traded
    companies.
        So, we are dealing with 117 million jobs that are in these
    small and medium-sized companies. They are not doing buybacks.
    It is just a distraction of what this fight is about.
        Because we have seen in West Virginia, as a result of the
    tax cut, what it has done is strengthened our manufacturing. We
    have had manufacturers that make truck parts, truck bodies, are
    now going to triple the size of their operation in West
    Virginia. Toyota that makes engine blocks is going to put $120
    million more into it, thanks to the tax cuts, down in Buffalo,
    West Virginia. ATK was bought by Northrop Grumman, and they are
    going to expand their operation in manufacturing in West
    Virginia. Boeing just bought Aurora Space Flight, making
    aerospace parts, as a result of the tax cuts.
        So, I am seeing some positive. It is larger companies, but
    also I just had an opportunity this last weekend to talk with a
    small manufacturing company, Panhandle, with Bob Contraguerro,
    out of Wheeling. He didn't use it for buybacks or increased
    dividends. He hired more people. He has expanded his operation.
    He is buying more trucks. He is doing all the things he can,
    but he is facing the same problem that you all have talked
    about; he can't find qualified people for that.
        So, my question has to do with the workforce. I think
    across the country we have gone away from vocational education.
    We are not making the incentives anymore for apprenticeship
    programs in our trades.
        I am chairman of the Building Trades Caucus, and we know
    desperately we need plumbers, pipefitters, carpenters, and
    electricians to be able to that. We have got to be able to get
    that base back again.
        So, I am curious to see, from your incentives or what you
    are seeing, how would you suggest that we renew our interest in
    vocational training and apprenticeship programs? What can we do
    from Congress to make sure that we have a workforce? What would
    you suggest, please? Any of you?
        Mr. Anderberg. I think, for example, in Rockford, I think
    every district or every area that has manufacturing recognizes
    that shutting down the vo-tech schools was a big mistake. In
    Rockford alone, we have had one high school, Jefferson High
    School, start up their vo-tech training programs; it has been
    over 5 years ago now. And it has been very successful. There is
    another high school in Rockford that is starting their vo-tech
    program again. Across the border in Beloit, Wisconsin, in
    fact----
        Mr. McKinley. We have to overcome a stigma.
        Mr. Anderberg. Right.
        Mr. McKinley. Someplace back in the seventies or eighties,
    there was a stigma about, well, they are in a shop; they are
    autobodies. How do we get that back and remove that stigma with
    that?
        Mr. Anderberg. I think we have to show that, if you are
    going--I went to college and I have a master's degree--but I
    think you have to show, if you go to a 4-year school and you
    come out with a bachelor's degree, you are in debt, and that
    the wages you are going to make aren't as much as somebody that
    comes out of high school with math and an aptitude and goes to
    work in a manufacturing operation, the amount of money they are
    going to make.
        The wages that we have in our manufacturing companies today
    just in Rockford are tremendous. And then, because of the
    scarcity, they have risen, and it is an attractive wage and it
    is more than a living wage. The people that work in
    manufacturing make more than the majority of the middle-class,
    working individuals.
        I can't put it all on manufacturing. You can point fingers
    at everybody. We have to do a better job of marketing and
    educating the public of what manufacturing is today. I don't
    know how; maybe that is something Congress can step in and do.
        Mr. McKinley. I am sensitive to it because my first job was
    in manufacturing. I was on an assembly line in an ice plant, in
    a neighborhood ice plant. So, I understand that we worked seven
    days a week.
        But, nevertheless, I appreciate your effort with it. I am
    sorry that some people got distracted in trying to make this an
    issue over the tax cut program. But, you see, there is a reason
    they are doing that, and I am sorry.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. It is nice to be here.
    Sorry, there are a couple of other hearings going on, so I have
    been in and out. I apologize.
        But this first question is for Mr. Anderberg and Ms.
    Moyers. As nearly everyone has mentioned this morning, the
    workforce challenges you are facing are significant. This issue
    is important to all of us and our districts.
        Mr. Anderberg, one issue, in particular, you mentioned was
    the need for increasing apprenticeship opportunities. And some
    may not be focused on that. I recently started the
    Congressional Apprenticeship Caucus with my colleague, Susan
    Davis of California, and we introduced legislation to expand
    awareness of apprenticeship opportunities by providing funds
    for the states and the Department of Labor to get the word out
    about opportunities.
        There are a lot of challenges, but could you tell us what
    are some of the biggest challenges that are specific to your
    apprenticeships or earn-and-learn opportunities?
        Mr. Anderberg. I think for us, and what we have
    experienced, what I know my fellow colleagues back in Rockford
    have experienced, it is simply finding a young individual that
    wants to come to work every day, wants to do the work. And in
    our instance, when we have someone come to the door that is
    interested in a manufacturing job, what we do is we put them
    into our apprenticeship program. And if they exhibit good
    attendance, an aptitude, they are a good worker, if we ask
    them, ``Do you want to become a machinist? Do you want to make
    a career here?'' If they say yes, we pay for their
    apprenticeship 100 percent. We pay for all their books, all
    their costs.
        And even if they are on a night shift, for instance, while
    they are at school, because there is some night school and
    night classes, we pay their wage while they are at school. I
    don't want to penalize them. So, we bend over backwards to get
    somebody into our apprenticeship program. The problem is
    finding individuals to come in that want to do it. That is the
    biggest problem.
        Mr. Guthrie. Ms. Moyers, do you have any followup?
        Ms. Moyers. Yes. We actually at Jerl also offer an
    apprenticeship through the State of Ohio. We have not completed
    an apprentice since 2014. We have had a lot of people enrolled.
    We have put people through programs. And like Mr. Anderberg has
    said, the young people are either not focused enough to want to
    continue it--it is a 4-year program with us. And after a year,
    they drop off, they start missing classes, failing classes.
        The other issue, I think, that is hindering people from
    offering apprenticeship programs is no one wants to train an
    employee that another company is going to poach. So, because
    the workforce, we have this skilled wage gap, it is really hard
    to commit to putting the investment into those employees if you
    are fearful they are going to jump ship and go somewhere else,
    because, then, you have no return on your investment.
        Mr. Guthrie. Right.
        Ms. Moyers. I don't know what the solution is to that,
    unfortunately.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, thanks. And, we are looking at other
    things and other bills and other issues about getting people
    into the workforce, and so forth. My argument is that these
    people are wanted, they are needed, and what you just said,
    wanted. In particular the farm bill we are debating that. And I
    really believe this. If somebody is on some kind of benefit and
    they don't get back into the workforce, then 5 years from now
    they are going to be in the exact same spot.
        But what you just described is what my experience is. I am
    from a manufacturing background. If somebody will come to work
    and show up every day and do their job, they are going to move
    up and improve. And I will tell you the difference. If somebody
    doesn't get back into the workforce, they are going to be in
    the exact same shape 5 years from now. If they just show up for
    work with even low skills or no skills, they are going to be
    where you are talking about 5 years from now through an
    apprenticeship or some kind of program, and be better off.
        But I want to get to one other thing. I am changing the
    subject. So, Mr. Anderberg, this is for you. My colleague Doris
    Matsui and I are looking to drop a bill to direct the
    Department of Commerce to establish a working group of Federal
    and private stakeholders to define blockchain. That is one
    thing, until we can even deal with policy, get the definition
    of blockchain and study some of the implications for spectrum
    policy in potential applications. We have a lot to learn and
    hope this is a good first step in kicking off significant
    conversations across the Federal Government.
        Do you believe innovations in blockchain could be important
    to your company and the manufacturing sector generally?
        Mr. Anderberg. Yes. I think anytime Washington wants to
    talk about manufacturing, it is a benefit. I remember coming
    out here in the late '90s when it was discussed talking about
    PNTR and some of the trade agreements. And I came out in small
    manufacturing groups. They didn't want to hear us. They didn't
    want to hear what we had to say of what was going to happen.
    And I think the reality has become reality.
        Anytime Washington has talked about manufacturing, I think
    that is important. And we have talked here on the panel before
    we started. You know, the is the Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection Subcommittee. Yet, we have a USDA. I am not opining
    for another bureaucracy. But how important manufacturing is to
    our national defense, our economy. Shouldn't there be some type
    of subcommittee or committee on manufacturing to keep watch on
    some of these things? Maybe that is something. But I fully
    appreciate anytime Washington wants to discuss, to talk about
    manufacturing, because it is extremely important to our
    country.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        My time is expired and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired and he yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much.
        I appreciate the opportunity to talk to some of the
    practitioners out there in the real world. So, thank you very
    much for being here.
        Ms. Moyers, thank you for pointing out in your opening
    statement about the lack of diversity, even in your own
    company. And it is good to hear that it sounds like you would
    love to welcome more diversity.
        Is diversity good for business, for your business, for your
    bottom line?
        Ms. Moyers. Absolutely. It is good for every business. I
    can't tell you how many times just myself, as a family member,
    completely accepted in my business, walking in and I can
    present an idea that I can tell no one at the table has thought
    of before. And I don't know if it is because I am a woman. I
    don't know if it is because I didn't stay in my industry; I
    didn't start there. I have previous experience in other
    industries.
        But any time you get someone who is different, they offer a
    unique perspective. If they have grown up in a different place,
    if they have experienced different prejudices, experienced
    different benefits from their race, their religion, their
    sexual orientation, their gender, it is important because we
    cannot continue--we have talked about manufacturing as needing
    to be innovative and needing to progress, and we can't progress
    if we have the same people making the decisions and deciding
    to--excuse me; I lost my train of thought--making the same
    decisions.
        Mr. Cardenas. Well, Ms. Moyers, you just mentioned
    something very interesting. That is, you mentioned a whole
    breadth of different communities. Your product, is it
    consumed--or who participates in that product? Is it across the
    board or it is only one kind of community?
        Ms. Moyers. No, we have a----
        Mr. Cardenas. The ones that you just described?
        Ms. Moyers. Our business is metalworking. Basically, we are
    not an end product. We provide for other companies that produce
    other things.
        Mr. Cardenas. So, all communities that you just described
    benefit from your product in some way or another?
        Ms. Moyers. Absolutely. Absolutely. We work in multiple
    industries, food packaging, automotive, elevator, energy. It is
    nationwide.
        Mr. Cardenas. There is another form of diversity----
        Ms. Moyers. Right.
        Mr. Cardenas [continuing]. Diversity of consumers, right?
        Ms. Moyers. Yes.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK. In some of the testimony, some of you
    were talking about how young folks, it is hard to attract them
    and get them involved in manufacturing, or what have you. My
    office, my district office, we participate in manufacturing
    day. We really make it a manufacturing week.
        And one of the things that I came up with, and we are still
    trying to tackle this issue--I happen to represent part of Los
    Angeles. So, it is not uncommon to see an A-list star walking
    down the street or somewhere in town, and you are like, whoa,
    that is so-and-so. On that point, I think it is important for
    everybody, whether it is you, the practitioners, us as
    policymakers, or what have you, we have got to try to get
    really cool spokespeople to encourage that manufacturing is
    cool.
        Another thing as well that I think is important, I think
    that, on balance, manufacturing actually pays more on quasi-
    entry-level skill set jobs than does other quasi-entry-level,
    not-so-much-skill required jobs, like, say, working at a fast
    food restaurant, or what have you, where many of our young
    people end up, if they are determined to actually work, and
    say, well, that is the only thing I have got. So, I have got to
    put on this funny, little hat and I have got to punch that cash
    register.
        I think it is really important that your industry pay
    attention to that. I think that you have a higher likelihood of
    attracting a young person who already went out in the workforce
    and got tired of working for minimum wage and tired working for
    a job that requires almost no skills other than showing up for
    work. I think that you have a higher likelihood that they will
    actually be more attracted to trying to apply themselves for
    one of your businesses and in manufacturing in general. That is
    my take.
        Since I was 13, I had one, two, three jobs at a time, or
    what have you. That was my immigrant parent inculcation into my
    life. So, I think I was a little lucky. So, by the time I got
    out of high school, I was like it is just natural; I have one,
    two, or three jobs at any given time. Today's younger folk,
    they don't seem to have that kind of want for that kind of
    effort.
        So, I am just saying that I think that it is important,
    especially for you practitioners, to just pay attention to what
    is going on out there in the community. And instead of,
    unfortunately, seeing them be not attracted for you, maybe
    after they have already been in the workforce and realize that
    you do have a better paying, better opportunity, career type of
    opportunity for them, then maybe you will have a little bit
    more stick to it from some of these younger folk.
        I am looking at the clock; I am running out of time--but
    one thing I definitely want to ask Mr. Stettner is, how can
    manufacturers better attract and retain their next generations
    of diverse employees and leaders?
        Mr. Stettner. One thing I would say in interviewing
    workforce practitioners who place people in manufacturing, many
    of the programs only focus on getting the person the first day
    of the job. They need more resources to help with concrete
    things like child care and transportation, but also just
    mentoring and coaching, especially if you have a first Latino
    kid or the first Black kid going into an all-white workforce.
        And it is also an educational piece on the manufacturers to
    learn how are we going to make that person comfortable, how are
    things people are saying on the floor making that person
    uncomfortable, how do we change our culture to be more
    welcoming to women and people of color? And what I have seen is
    manufacturers are listening and they are working, and look at
    those programs as a way to learn how to do that a little bit
    better.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I would like to point to an example in my home district, in
    Berks County, in fact, that highlights the success resulting
    from many of the pro-growth policies such as the tax cuts and
    JOBS Act. Carpenter Technologies, founded in Redding in 1889,
    employing 2,000 people at its Berks County facility, produces
    special alloy-based materials for aerospace, energy,
    transportation, defense, and consumer electronics markets.
    Carpenter Technologies recently announced a $100 million
    investment in its mill in Redding because of the tax savings
    they recently have found themselves having as a result of the
    tax bill.
        Capital investment is a strong signal of entrepreneurs'
    confidence about the future. We need to focus on marrying those
    free-market policies with workforce development, training to
    help minimize the skills gap through apprenticeships, on-the-
    job training for job seekers, and emphasizing curriculum in
    schools that can be translated to the 21st century economy.
        Can all of you talk about some of the training options your
    potential employees need to be certified and if there are any
    barriers for them to receive the proper training? The second
    question, how can the Federal Government be a better partner in
    fostering more workforce development opportunities to get folks
    off the sidelines and into good-paying jobs in the
    manufacturing sector?
        Ms. Moyers. I think that, with my company specifically, we
    are offering quite a bit. We offer tuition assistance for
    anyone that is continuing education. Our apprenticeship is
    fully paid. And basically, if you are willing to come to work
    and work hard, we will invest in you and we will make sure that
    you move up. Just like it has already been said, if you can
    find someone who is unskilled who will show up to work every
    day, we are going to train you and we are going to move you up
    in our fields.
        I am sorry, what was the second part?
        Mr. Costello. Federal Government partnering.
        Ms. Moyers. Yes.
        Mr. Costello. How do they? How might they do it better?
        Ms. Moyers. I think we have already covered it a little
    bit.
        Mr. Costello. I think so, but----
        Ms. Moyers. I think education funding into vocational
    schools and trade skills and life skills is vital. I think that
    is the way that the government can help us.
        Mr. Costello. That second part, maybe add where you may be
    working with your local or regional workforce development
    organization and how the Federal Government's role is or is not
    involved in that, for the next folks. And we can go back to it
    in a second.
        Mr. Paradowski. I think the role of government, the K-12
    space, we put too much incentive on SAT scores and truancy. I
    have got four daughters, three in college, one in high school.
    The mindset is, if you do well on the ACT, there is the center
    lane that, if you are in it, you are a winner and everything
    else is kind of a fallback. So, if you find yourself in a
    skilled trade, it is because you couldn't make it on the main
    lane. I think that is a challenge where it creates the stigma.
        I think the things that will help is the awareness of what
    is out there. I said it earlier; nobody aspires to be that
    which they don't know exists. So, data in the K-12 space, here
    are the opportunities that lay out there in the workforce. And
    they are all equal valued. So that kids aren't conditioned to
    think I have got to go to a 4-year school and take on that
    debt, just to find out that what I got trained in isn't
    something that either (a) has any market demand or (b) is
    anything I enjoy doing.
        Getting people off the sidelines is a tricky thing. I have
    some data. It is a little bit dated. In the State of
    Wisconsin--this was late last year actually--are unemployment
    rate at the time was a little bit over 3 percent, which equated
    to 109,000 people. Right now, the unemployment rate is below 3
    percent. At that same point in time--and as everybody would
    know, unemployment is those out of work looking for work--at
    that same point in time, there was 1.4 million people in the
    state of Wisconsin that were out of work not looking for work.
    Some of those, in all fairness, might be people who don't need
    to work. But I think it would be naive for us to think that
    that is all of them.
        There are a lot of people who are able-bodied that could be
    additive to the workforce that aren't. Some of that might be a
    fact that the K-12 system. Current gradation rate of Milwaukee
    public schools is about 60 percent. So, four out of ten kids,
    where are they going? I am a graduate of Milwaukee public
    schools.
        So, those things concern me deeply because, if they are not
    going into the workforce, how do we get them into the
    workforce? Maybe if there are more pathways equal valued, that
    a 4-year degree is great; trade is great; military is great.
    They are all equally great. Maybe less people opt out at an
    early age. There is, obviously, a lot of other complicated
    parts with opioid addictions and things of that nature. But
    that is our opportunity to me, the people that are on the
    sidelines. We have got to find a way to keep them in the game,
    keep them on a pathway to be added up to the economy.
        Mr. Stettner. There is obviously formula funding for career
    technical programs, but they kind of fund the same programs
    year after year. In the same way some of the programs like the
    TAACCCT grants incentivize some really innovative activities
    that led to the current boom in apprenticeship, I think we need
    a focused program that would spur school districts to do
    something innovative about the trades, not a big program, but
    something, a competitive grant program that really got the
    juices going and kind of show the Nation we can do more.
        Mr. Anderberg. As far as barriers to training, again, I
    think it has to do with an educational effort of the educators,
    the parents, the students, and, obviously, opening the vo-tech
    schools, which we are seeing in Rockford. In one instance, I
    have talked to the program administrator in Rockford, and they
    are looking at, for juniors and seniors that are going through
    the program. This used to happen years ago, where you have a
    half-day at a workplace and half-day in class. And so, then,
    when they are ready to graduate from high school, they are in.
    And then, from there on, there could be training.
        As far as what can the Federal Government do, I guess maybe
    helping create awareness. I don't want to repeat what they
    said, but it is just helping the community colleges. If there
    are vo-tech programs--I will step back. Years ago, I was told
    that part of the problem with Congress is, of the 435
    districts, only 35 districts have manufacturing in them of any
    significance. I think that has been an issue over the years.
    That is why things have fallen through.
        So, the recognition here today, having us here today and
    talking about this is a start, but I think there has to be more
    awareness. If funding for some of the tech schools or for some
    of the community colleges, like we have in Rockford, could
    help, that would be terrific.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you all very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        For Mr. Anderberg, Mr. Paradowski, and Ms. Moyers, I heard
    from my local manufacturers, the stakeholders in Tampa and the
    Tampa Bay area, that workforce development is one of the
    biggest problems in this sector. I know many of my colleagues
    have already highlighted this. And we have the vocational
    training, the schools there. We have career academies, which I
    worked on in the legislature. So, in other words, if there's an
    area of need in the community, we focus on that particular area
    of need through the career academies and the high schools. And,
    of course, we have AMSKILLS. We have P-TECH, and we have
    Marchman, and all the community colleges. They do an
    outstanding job, but we need more. This is everywhere I go I
    hear this.
        But can you tell me about some of the other impediments,
    because we did cover this, to growth in the manufacturing
    sector? So, this is for Mr. Anderberg; you can go first,
    please.
        Mr. Anderberg. You said impediments to growth in the
    manufacturing sector?
         Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, yes. Well, besides the workforce.
        Mr. Anderberg. Well, that is our biggest impediment at the
    moment.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Mr. Anderberg. But I think right now it is tough to say
    there are impediments because of what is taking place the last
    year and a half, quite frankly, the change in tax policy, the
    change in regulatory, the trade situation. We are going full
    blast right now, and I don't see where there is an impediment
    for manufacturing now solely, except for the lack of people.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Good. So, you recommend we focus on the
    workforce issue?
        Mr. Anderberg. I think the workforce is probably the most
    important thing that Congress could work on to help us. Again,
    allowing us to keep our capital, the money we earn--I don't
    wake up in the morning and think how I am going to spend my
    money on a boat or something else. I think about how I am going
    to improve my operation, what I am going to do to help my
    people, grow my business. That is what we do with our money.
        And I just want to thank you, thank Congress and this
    administration for allowing that to happen. Everyone is
    investing again. It is incredible.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
        Mr. Paradowski, any more besides the workforce issue? Any
    other impediments?
        Mr. Paradowski. Absolutely. I often give my four legs of
    the stool that drive private sector growth speech. So, maybe I
    will inject it right now. Logistics, energy, workforce,
    although I wasn't supposed to say that word, and commerce-
    friendly government. So, it is really the economic, how
    friendly an environment as far as the government.
        So, I will use a real-life, real-time example, Foxconn
    making its investment in the southeastern part of Wisconsin.
    Their focal points were those three things: logistics, being in
    proximity to Milwaukee and Chicago, two international airports;
    energy; workforce is certainly a thing, but the economic
    environment that the government created in the State of
    Wisconsin specifically for them to come there and compete.
        Really, the argument, or maybe the fundamental difference
    in a lot of the folks in this room is, the sun rises in the
    East and free markets do what they do. If you can't compete--I
    will cite something that Mr. Stettner said--highest tech, not
    the lowest cost. Maybe there are some markets where you can be
    that, but I know that if I wanted to go into the 4K LED TV
    market, if I can't find a way to make one for $350 for a 50-
    inch, I don't have a product. Markets do what markets do.
        And as a global economy and the U.S. role in that, we have
    to compete on a cost and performance basis or else we go out of
    business. Companies go out of business every day. And those are
    the four key things.
        The impact of tax reform is a real impact. Look at GDP
    growth. Anybody who says that tax reform didn't have an impact
    is denying a key factor of GDP growth.
        But one of the things that is a parachute on the car right
    now is certainly workforce, but you asked me not to talk about
    that. The regulatory environment, government needs to be an
    allied partner. If government is really focused on helping the
    private sector, changing the educational system in K-12, so
    that many pathways are equally valued, that will go a long way.
    I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but legalized
    immigration I think is a big piece. Half of our workforce is in
    the last trimester of their career, between 50 and 65. And we
    need to add bodies. GDP is a function of output and efficiency,
    GDP growth, and we need to add workforce. We need to add
    efficiency.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
        Ms. Moyers?
        Ms. Moyers. I think I am going to sound like a broken
    record, but I think that the bottom line is just that the
    workforce is our biggest issue. Of course, personally, in our
    company we have had cash flow issues in the past. We are not
    having them right now because of the current climate, because
    of the tax reform, because of deregulation. And I think more of
    that is going to be helpful.
        I guess the only thing that I can think of is making it
    cheaper for businesses to run and do the things they do, so
    anything that is cost saving to us. One of the biggest expenses
    we have had in the past few years has been healthcare costs. We
    cover healthcare for our employees. They pay a very small
    percentage, and we don't want to make them pay more. And we
    have no intention of taking it away, no matter what it costs
    us, because we feel it is very value-added to our employees and
    it is part of the reason they stay with us. So, that is one of
    the things, that that rising cost is a big burden for small
    business owners.
        Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you.
        I have a couple more questions, but I will yield back. But
    thank you very much for that information. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        And looking down the dias here, there are no other members
    wishing to ask questions.
        First of all, I want to thank all of the witnesses for
    being with us today, for giving your testimony, taking your
    time away from your businesses to be with us. And it is great
    to know that it is not just an issue in northwest Ohio or Ohio;
    that the No. 1 issue out there is employees. And all the work
    that you all are trying to do, from benefits to making sure
    that you are investing in people out there for 2 to 3 months to
    get them out there. So, I really appreciate you all being here.
        Before we do conclude, I want to make sure that the
    following documents are submitted for the record by unanimous
    consent: the report by Mr. Stettner; also, the earlier document
    that the gentlelady from Illinois submitted that was accepted.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Latta. And pursuant to committee rules, I remind
    members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
    questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit those
    responses within 10 business days from the receipt of the
    questions.
        And so, without objection----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Chairman, if I could say just
    something?
        Mr. Latta. Oh, the gentlelady.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, Mr. Stettner, in your written statement
    you talked about apprenticeship and vocational training and how
    that has dwindled a bit. But you also said--and I think this
    came up--that there is a generation who experienced industrial
    decline, who are telling their children to shun factory work.
    And I agree that, in part, it is a marketing approach to young
    people.
        Mr. Paradowski, you talked about careers, that these really
    are careers. And I also think that we need to encourage women
    to understand that this is a great opportunity for women to
    participate and get more money; that more diversity in every
    way is important. And so, I think that we need to help with the
    marketing.
        And maybe, Mr. Stettner, this is part of a manufacturing
    strategy, that the Federal Government, along with the private
    sector, can participate in, to make sure. I think some people
    of a generation ago think about dirty factory floors and kind
    of nasty work, and we have to help change that image, so people
    see this as a lifelong career choice.
        So, I just wanted to add that.
        Mr. Latta. And again, as we have been hearing from all the
    members here on the committee and from our witnesses,
    manufacturing has changed out there. And I know that I was in a
    plant not too long ago and asked a gentleman running a CNC
    machine how long it took him to learn it. He said, ``I'm still
    learning it.'' He had been there a year. A lot of folks don't
    realize how much computerization is in plants today, and it is.
    It is looking at everything from guidance counselors to
    principals----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Right.
        Mr. Latta [coninuing]. To making sure that economic
    development directors, going right down the entire line, right
    down to the student, getting them out there to see what is
    there and making that investment.
        So, again, we really appreciate you all being here today
    because this is really important to this economy. It is vital
    to this nation. So, we appreciate you being here today, and
    thank you for your testimony.
        And with that, this subcommittee will stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]