[Senate Hearing 117-251]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        S. Hrg. 117-251
 
 MADE IN AMERICA: EFFECT OF THE U.S. TAX CODE ON DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 16, 2021

                               __________
                               
                               
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                

                                     
                                     

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance
            
            
                         ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-492-PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022      
 
 
            
            


                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

                      RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      BEN SASSE, Nebraska
                                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming

                    Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director

                Gregg Richard, Republican Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                                  
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee 
  on Finance.....................................................     1
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho......................     3
Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from Ohio....................     4

                               WITNESSES

Davis, George S., executive vice president and chief financial 
  officer, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA....................     5
Jennings, Jonathan, vice president, global commodity purchasing 
  and supplier technical assistance, Ford Motor Company, 
  Dearborn, MI...................................................     6
Timmons, Jay, president and CEO, National Association of 
  Manufacturers, Washington, DC..................................     8
Hanlon, Michelle, Ph.D., Howard W. Johnson professor, Sloan 
  School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
  Cambridge, MA..................................................    10
Blatt, Donnie, District 1 director, United Steel, Paper and 
  Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and 
  Service Workers International Union (USW), Columbus, OH........    12

               ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Blatt, Donnie:
    Testimony....................................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
    Responses to questions from committee members................    53
Brown, Hon. Sherrod:
    Opening statement............................................     4
Crapo, Hon. Mike:
    Opening statement............................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................    55
Davis, George S.:
    Testimony....................................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Responses to questions from committee members................    58
Hanlon, Michelle, Ph.D.:
    Testimony....................................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    60
    Responses to questions from committee members................    67
Jennings, Jonathan:
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    69
    Responses to questions from committee members................    70
Timmons Jay:
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    72
    Responses to questions from committee members................    78
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening statement............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................   103
Young, Hon. Todd:
    Letters submitted from Bosch and Cook Group..................   104

                             Communications

alliantgroup.....................................................   111
American Chemistry Council.......................................   113
Association for Accessible Medicines.............................   114
Center for Fiscal Equity.........................................   116
Health Industry Distributors Association.........................   122
Huntsman Building Solutions......................................   123
National Taxpayers Union.........................................   125
Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association............................   132
Policy and Taxation Group........................................   134
Solar Energy Industries Association..............................   135
Suniva...........................................................   137


 MADE IN AMERICA: EFFECT OF THE U.S. TAX CODE ON DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                                      Committee on Finance,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 
a.m., via Webex, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. 
Ron Wyden (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Stabenow, Cantwell, Menendez, Carper, 
Cardin, Brown, Bennet, Casey, Warner, Whitehouse, Hassan, 
Cortez Masto, Crapo, Grassley, Cornyn, Thune, Portman, Cassidy, 
Lankford, Daines, Young, and Sasse.
    Also present: Democratic staff: Robert Andres, Professional 
Staff Member; and Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director. Republican 
staff: Gregg Richard, Staff Director; and Andre Barnett, Senior 
Tax Counsel.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
             OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

    The Chairman. Well, thank you all. And this is the first of 
three hearings this week in the Senate Finance Committee, and 
we are now going to--I will have an opening statement, and then 
Senator Crapo will have an opening statement, and then, as part 
of the introduction of our five witnesses, we would like to 
turn to our colleague Senator Brown to introduce his friend and 
Ohioan, Mr. Blatt.
    The Finance Committee has worked hard over the last year to 
tackle the public health and jobs crises brought on by COVID-
19. Today, the committee meets to discuss another challenge the 
pandemic exposed: the fragility of our supply chains, and the 
need to boost manufacturing in America.
    Now when COVID-19 exploded, factories around the globe shut 
down, and supply chains were cut. Most Americans would 
recognize the effect of the supply chain crisis as something 
that I call ``a toilet paper problem.'' It seemed like the 
supply ran out in the blink of an eye, and overnight nobody 
could get their hands on a package of toilet paper. Some 
sellers raised prices. Others restricted the marketplace to 
compensate for the shortages, but the shelves still emptied and 
Americans were facing a panic.
    Now, household paper products are one thing, but the 
reality is, huge and vitally important parts of the economy are 
suffering from their own version of a toilet paper problem. For 
example, over the last year there have been concerns about the 
supply of batteries and medicines and minerals that are used in 
electronics. There are still shortages of protective equipment 
that doctors and nurses need.
    Domestic producers, including one in Oregon, have been 
making high-quality respirators and other PPE, but it is still 
a market dominated by producers in China.
    The supply chain crisis set off the most alarm bells 
particularly as it related to semiconductors. They are 
obviously an important component of cars, medical devices, 
appliances, phones and computers, defense technologies, you 
name it. Americans do not roll out of bed in the morning 
without flipping some switch or checking some device that 
relies on semiconductors.
    Disruptions at a single Taiwanese producer of 
semiconductors has caused major headaches for manufacturers 
across the country, as well as our consumers. Factories here in 
the United States have gone quiet as a result of the shortage. 
The shock waves of this blow to the modern global economy 
continue to ripple out.
    It is a recipe for trouble when one single pandemic, 
natural disaster, or terrorist attack can sever brittle supply 
chains, hobble the economy, threaten our jobs, as well as put 
at risk our national security.
    So I will close by saying, we do have bipartisan interest 
now in addressing this issue: building up our domestic 
manufacturing to bolster the supply of semiconductors and other 
critical components and products. The President ordered a 
comprehensive review of supply chains in several different 
areas of our economy and national defense. The Biden 
administration has made it clear that nothing is off the table 
when it comes to strengthening our supply chains and our 
economy.
    In addition to America's national and economic security, 
fundamentally--and we will come back to this again and again--
this is about high-skill and high-wage jobs for American 
workers. A lot of communities across the country endured a 
steady decline in manufacturing decades ago. Our manufacturing 
economy never fully recovered from the Great Recession before 
the pandemic hit.
    So we have a big opportunity to turn this around. This is 
an area where my home State of Oregon is a national leader. 
Intel is one of our biggest employers. Our State is known for 
innovation that comes out of the Silicon Forest. Oregonians 
know that investments in R&D and advanced manufacturing bring 
those high-skill, high-wage jobs that are going to be the 
lodestar for this committee. Those are exactly the kind of jobs 
we want more of.
    The committee has a host of economic tools in the kit that 
can help shore up domestic manufacturing. For example, Senator 
Stabenow and Senator Daines are working with Senator Manchin on 
the advanced manufacturing credit. Senators Warner and Cornyn 
and others are working on the issue of chips. In my view, it is 
going to be critically important to look at the changes to the 
2017 Trump tax law, which in fact created a disincentive for 
research and development. Fixing that issue and creating strong 
and reliable incentives is going to be key. Because the United 
States must out-compete China and other countries, and you 
cannot do it with short-term legislation and uncertainty.
    So I look forward to working with all the members on the 
committee, on both sides of the aisle, because this is a 
premiere economic challenge and, as stated, a job-creation 
opportunity.
    I am happy we are joined by a panel of witnesses who can 
examine the issue from just about every angle. We are now going 
to turn to Senator Crapo, and then we will have Senator Brown 
introduce Mr. Blatt.
    Our friend and our neighbor, Senator Crapo.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the 
appendix.]

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 
                   A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. And thank you to 
all of our witnesses for being here with us today. And, Mr. 
Chairman, thank you and your staff for collaborating with us on 
this bipartisan hearing. There are many areas within the 
Finance Committee's jurisdiction that are ripe for bipartisan 
support in this Congress, and I look forward to working with 
you on those through regular order.
    Today's hearing will focus on the role of tax incentives 
for domestic manufacturing. The manufacturing sector is 
critical to the U.S. economy. In 2019, the manufacturing sector 
accounted for 11 percent of our GDP.
    The United States has experienced a net loss of 
manufacturing plants in every year from 1998 through 2018. The 
decline in domestic manufacturing jobs may be attributable to a 
number of factors, including increased automation and 
productivity, labor costs, and taxes. Taxes can play a 
significant role in a company's site selection process.
    Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the United 
States had one of the highest corporate income tax rates among 
developed countries. Also, before TCJA, the U.S. confronted 
pressures for domestic firms to invert or be acquired by 
foreign companies, leading to U.S. headquarters and jobs going 
abroad.
    Today, as a result of the TCJA, the United States now has a 
flat 21-percent corporate income tax rate. Pressures for 
inversions and acquisitions have abated. Yet, despite the 
decreased rate, the U.S. still holds the 11th highest corporate 
tax rate among developed countries. The statutory corporate 
income tax rate is critical to the U.S.'s competitiveness in 
the global markets.
    Another key aspect to our competitiveness is capital 
investment. The Internal Revenue Code has a number of tax 
incentives for capital investment which, when paired with a 
competitive corporate tax rate, are essential to promote 
domestic manufacturing.
    This is an area of bipartisan interest, and I welcome the 
opportunity to work with Chairman Wyden on this. For example, 
last year Senators Cornyn and Warner introduced S. 3933, the 
Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for 
America Act, known as the CHIPS Act, which would create a 40-
percent refundable investment tax credit for qualified 
semiconductor equipment or any qualified semiconductor 
manufacturing facility investment expenditures. This bill had 
seven Republicans and five Democrats as co-sponsors.
    Another example: just this month, Senators Manchin, 
Stabenow, and Daines introduced S. 622, the Creating Helpful 
Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America Act, which 
offers an $8-billion increase to the section 48C Advanced 
Manufacturing Tax Credit available to manufacturers and other 
industrial users to retool, expand, or build new facilities 
that make or recycle energy-related products.
    Micron, Intel, and other American semiconductor 
manufacturers are operating in an increasingly competitive and 
sometimes unscrupulous market. Only a couple of years ago, 
Chinese state-owned companies stole trade secrets from Micron 
in an effort to gain an advantage against leading producers of 
a sought-after technology.
    Helping U.S. companies strengthen their supply chains to 
better protect these critical technologies is vital to 
safeguarding our national security and the health of our 
economy.
    Chairman Wyden, we have a great panel here, representing a 
comprehensive range of perspectives from the business 
community, academia, as well as labor. I look forward to 
hearing their thoughts as we consider various tax proposals 
that can help to address the global semiconductor shortage, 
supply chain issues, and encourage domestic manufacturing 
activity.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Crapo appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Crapo. This is obviously a 
premiere issue for bringing both sides together: creating more 
American jobs and manufacturing. We thank you for it.
    Senator Brown is juggling a tight schedule, and what we are 
going to do is have him give an introduction for his 
constituent, and then we will start our witnesses with George 
Davis.
    Senator Brown?

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, 
                    A U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

    Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Senator 
Crapo. Thanks for getting to continue with you, not just on the 
Banking and Housing Committee, but also in Finance. I am 
thrilled you are doing this hearing. It is really important.
    It is a privilege to introduce my long-time friend, Donnie 
Blatt, who is director of United Steelworkers District 1 and a 
member of the USW international executive board out of 
Pittsburgh.
    Donnie is from Hannibal, OH. He has been a member of USW 
Local 5724 for 40 years. He worked in the aluminum plant for 22 
years in eastern Ohio before it closed. He knows what it is 
like to lose a good job with a good wage and good benefits to 
unfair foreign competition, and to a trade policy and tax 
policy that, putting it bluntly, sold out American workers.
    He knows what those job losses do to an entire community in 
a place like Hannibal. Donnie never gave up. He spent his life 
fighting for the dignity of work in Ohio and across the 
country, serving the members of Local 5724 in many roles, 
including two terms as its chair. And together we have worked 
to make progress to build and level the playing field for Ohio 
steelworkers.
    In his current role as director of USW District 1, he was 
instrumental in establishing the free college benefit. Donnie 
Blatt has been a member of the Ohio AFL-CIO, or on the 
executive board, since 2006. He became chairman of the 
legislative committee in 2019. We are lucky to have him here 
today. I am proud and lucky to have him as a constituent.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Donnie, welcome.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Brown. We look forward to 
working with you on these issues.
    Let me now give the background on the other witnesses in 
their order. Our first witness will be Mr. George Davis, 
executive vice president and chief financial officer at Intel.
    Our next witness will be Jonathan Jennings, vice president 
of global commodity purchasing and supplier technical 
assistance at the Ford Motor Company.
    Our third witness will be Jay Timmons, president and CEO of 
the National Association of Manufacturers.
    Our fourth witness will be Dr. Michelle Hanlon, who is the 
Howard W. Johnson professor at the Sloan School of Management 
at MIT.
    And our final witness has just been introduced by our 
friend Senator Brown, Donnie Blatt, who is the director for the 
United Steelworkers District 1.
    We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Davis.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. You are on mute.
    Mr. Davis. How about now?
    The Chairman. Perfect.

  STATEMENT OF GEORGE S. DAVIS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND 
  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, INTEL CORPORATION, SANTA CLARA, CA

    Mr. Davis. Perfect. Too many mute buttons, apparently.
    Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, thank you for the 
opportunity to address the committee today.
    Semiconductor technology and Intel's domestic R&D and 
manufacturing operations provide a critical foundation for U.S. 
economic and national security. More than 50 years ago, Intel 
invented the world's first commercial microprocessor. This 
fueled job growth and development of new technologies, with 
major economic benefits.
    Today, Intel remains the only American semiconductor 
company that still designs and manufacturers the most advanced 
logic chips, and is the only company that has built leading-
edge logic fabs in the U.S. in the past 5 years. I am proud 
that the majority of our manufacturing is conducted in Oregon, 
Arizona, and New Mexico, and that the majority of Intel's 
intellectual property still resides here at home.
    Unfortunately, U.S. leadership in semiconductor 
manufacturing is at risk. Global demand for semiconductors has 
increased dramatically and is projected to grow 5 percent 
annually until 2030. However, only 12 percent of global 
semiconductor manufacturing is in the U.S., and just 9 percent 
is from American companies. Currently, 80 percent of the 
world's semiconductor manufacturing is concentrated in Asia.
    U.S. manufacturing must regain its competitiveness. 
President Biden's executive order reinforces the urgency of 
funding the bipartisan CHIPS for America Act led by Senators 
Cornyn and Warner. Their legislation recognizes the importance 
of using Federal grants to support American workers and to 
strengthen the domestic semiconductor industry.
    Congress must now work to fully fund the grant program and 
enact its proposed investment tax credit. An investment tax 
credit would encourage long-term domestic semiconductor 
manufacturing. A single advanced logic manufacturing facility 
cost tens of billions of dollars to build and operate. Every 
advancement in chip design requires retooling and reinvesting 
in new equipment.
    Over the last decade, the average rate of chip 
manufacturing has grown five times faster overseas than in the 
U.S., due to robust incentive programs offered by other 
countries. In fact, U.S. companies face up to a 40-percent cost 
disadvantage compared to Asian competitors, due largely to 
government incentives. Investment in research and development 
is critical to advanced manufacturing.
    As President Biden acknowledged in his executive order, R&D 
is essential to sustain leadership in the development of 
critical goods and materials. However, without congressional 
action, 67 years of pro-R&D growth policy is about to be 
reversed.
    Starting next year, businesses will be required to amortize 
their R&D expenses over several years. Removing this deduction 
will make the U.S. virtually the only developed country in the 
world with this policy. This change will significantly increase 
the cost to perform R&D in the U.S. We applaud the bipartisan 
work of Senators Hassan, Young, Cortez Masto, Portman, and 
Sasse, whose bill, the American Innovation and Jobs Act, would 
prevent this regressive policy from taking place.
    Right now, the U.S. is uncompetitive in attracting new 
semiconductor investment. Semiconductors are the building 
blocks of technology, and producers must continually invest in 
R&D to enable chips to run faster and use less power. This is 
why Intel reinvests, on average, nearly 20 percent of its 
revenue into R&D, or about $13 billion annually. The CHIPS Act, 
along with the ability to fully deduct R&D expenses, will 
enable American companies to better compete with heavily 
subsidized foreign companies.
    The U.S. is the birthplace of the semiconductor and has 
always been a leader in semiconductor development. Investments 
in our industry will bolster manufacturing capabilities needed 
to strengthen the U.S. economy and national security.
    Thank you for your time, and we look forward to working 
with you to advance these solutions and U.S. technological 
leadership.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Davis appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Davis, thank you.
    Our next witness will be Jonathan Jennings.

    STATEMENT OF JONATHAN JENNINGS, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL 
 COMMODITY PURCHASING AND SUPPLIER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, FORD 
                  MOTOR COMPANY, DEARBORN, MI

    Mr. Jennings. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 
Crapo, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to 
speak to you today.
    I am honored to be representing the U.S. auto industry, 
which accounts for 18 million U.S. jobs. The manufacturers, 
suppliers, and dealers that make up this complex system pump 
$953 billion into the U.S. economy each year.
    It is especially meaningful to be testifying in front of 
not one, but both of my home State Senators, Portman and Brown, 
and Ford's home State Senator Stabenow. Our 53,000 Ford 
employees and more than 330,000 supplier and community partners 
are so fortunate to have you champion auto manufacturing in 
Washington.
    My career at Ford started in 1993 as a manufacturing 
engineer in Cleveland, OH. Since then, I have worked around the 
world for Ford, focusing on developing a well-tuned global 
supply chain. I am speaking to you today as Ford's vice 
president of global commodity purchasing and supplier technical 
assistance, which purchased more than $48 billion in goods and 
services from more than 5,000 U.S. suppliers in 46 States in 
2019.
    At Ford, we see ourselves as America's automaker. We employ 
the most hourly U.S. autoworkers, assemble more vehicles in the 
U.S., and export more vehicles from here than any other 
automaker. So we feel uniquely positioned to speak to the 
business environment needed to continue our winning strategy.
    We have supported communities and families across this 
country for 117 years. When America has needed us to step up 
and aid the safety and security of the Nation, we have 
responded. From World War II to this global pandemic, we have 
been on the front lines. Starting last year, Ford, along with 
our UAW partners, produced masks, reusable gowns, test 
collection kits, face shields, and ventilators to meet the 
COVID-19 emergency.
    Our ability to quickly shift from manufacturing vehicles to 
manufacturing personal protective equipment was largely because 
of our unique manufacturing footprint. Many of the suppliers we 
use to make face masks, respirators, and ventilators were 
already in our U.S. plants and warehouses. It is a case study 
in how powerful and responsive our industry can be, if the 
materials and parts we need to build a new generation of 
vehicles are easily attainable.
    And that brings us to today. The global industry is driving 
a transportation revolution. The shift to electric vehicles 
will reduce our carbon footprint and change how auto 
manufacturers assemble vehicles.
    By 2040, more than half of the world's vehicles will be 
electric, and the vast majority of new cars sold will be 
electric. Right now, China is home to 73 percent of the 
worldwide capacity for lithium-ion batteries, followed by the 
U.S., far behind in second place with 12 percent. This is 
simply unacceptable.
    Over the next few years, the growth in new manufacturing 
will be faster in Asia than in the U.S., further reducing our 
share of global battery manufacturing.
    Recently, we have seen a semiconductor shortage force 
production cutbacks throughout the industry. Every auto company 
manufacturing in the U.S. has had production impacted. Ford 
workers have seen weeks of suspended production at plants in 
Louisville, Chicago, and Dearborn, MI.
    The semiconductor situation underscores our supply chain 
risk. There are dangerous parallels to the way that electric 
vehicle batteries are sourced and developed. In short, we must 
collectively do more to protect the future of manufacturing in 
America. Ford has committed $22 billion to develop a new 
generation of electric vehicles and to reach carbon neutrality 
by 2050.
    Last year, we spent more than $5 billion in research and 
development in the U.S., representing 15,000 engineers and 
software developers, vehicle and powertrain prototypes, test 
labs, and equipment. That investment is reflected in the safety 
and connected vehicle technology you will see in an all-
electric version of our best-selling Transit commercial van, 
which is built in our Kansas City plant, and an all-electric 
version of our best-selling F-150 pickup, which is built in 
Dearborn.
    We have been clear and committed. The future is electric, 
and the future must include America.
    For the U.S. auto sector to succeed, we will need Congress 
and the administration to support market-based consumer and 
manufacturing incentives, innovative new technology, labor and 
plant transitions, and supply chain security.
    We appreciate Senator Stabenow's leadership, and not just 
as a champion for expanding the electric vehicle consumer tax 
credit, but for her recent introduction of the American Jobs in 
Energy Manufacturing Act. We embrace the proposal by President 
Biden that would provide a 10-percent advanceable tax credit 
for companies creating U.S. manufacturing jobs. We also support 
increasing existing R&D incentives for advanced battery and 
electric vehicle development, and continued immediate expensing 
of R&D.
    Together, public and private support of electrification 
will ensure America not only competes as a leader globally, but 
wins. This is particularly important as Europe and China are 
already moving forward with robust electric vehicle adoption 
strategies and policies.
    We at Ford stand ready to work with this committee, 
Congress, and the administration on efforts to not only deliver 
world-class electric vehicles, but transition the supply chain 
and infrastructure to assure future economic and transportation 
stability and security for America.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Jennings appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings.
    Our next witness will be Mr. Jay Timmons.

     STATEMENT OF JAY TIMMONS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL 
          ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Timmons. Well, good morning. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Of course, I am joining you virtually because of the 
pandemic that this country has endured for more than a year 
now. But this pandemic is really far more than a story of 
economic hardship and painful loss. It is also a story of 
communities and companies rising to the challenge.
    America's manufacturing workers mobilized in ways 
reminiscent of their resolve during World War II, when 
manufacturers became the arsenal of democracy. And the 
companies joining me today are part of this effort.
    We have already heard from Ford and how they remade shop 
floors to make ventilators and face shields. You have heard 
from Intel that they accelerated access to technology to combat 
this pandemic.
    From iconic global brands to family-owned shops, 
manufacturers answered the call. Today, 1 year after health 
restrictions began, the light at the end of the tunnel is 
growing brighter by the second, thanks to the innovation of 
pharmaceutical manufacturers. Their heroic work, combined with 
the previous administration's Operation War Speed and this 
Congress and this administration's focus on and investment in 
vaccine distribution, is now saving about 2 million American 
lives every single day.
    Manufacturing worker achievements are all the more 
impressive when you consider the disruption that they had to 
overcome. The pandemic exposed and exacerbated, as you noted, 
Mr. Chairman, serious supply chain issues that we must now 
address as we work to build the next post-pandemic world.
    In the spring of 2020, the National Association of 
Manufacturers released our plan for strengthening manufacturing 
supply chains. And I have had the opportunity to discuss it 
directly with some of you. Our goal is your goal: ensuring that 
the next dollar invested in manufacturing is invested right 
here in America.
    This plan is comprehensive, from taxes to workforce. The 
central premise is that incentives, not punitive measures, will 
allow us to achieve our shared goal. But let me call out three 
key recommendations.
    Number one, we must recognize the importance of 
predictability and stability in the tax code. Tax reform made 
manufacturers more competitive, driving historic job creation, 
wage growth, and productivity in its immediate aftermath. So 
let us not undo that progress.
    Number two, manufacturers in America can only remain at the 
cutting edge if our tax code supports innovation. You have 
already heard this from two of the other panelists. 
Unfortunately, it will do just the opposite starting next year. 
And that looming change to the tax treatment of research costs 
will make it more expensive to perform research and 
development, potentially costing America its innovative edge.
    And number three, let us recognize a simple truth: policies 
that are successful in growing manufacturing will require 
significant capital expenditures by the small and medium-sized 
firms that are truly the backbone of the domestic supply chain. 
But two other looming changes to the tax code will make those 
expenditures difficult. More stringent limitations on interest 
deductions and the phase-out of immediate expenses will take 
effect in the years ahead. And if not revised, these changes 
will make it hard to grow manufacturing here at home.
    Ultimately, ensuring that the next manufacturing dollar is 
invested right here in America requires looking at the entire 
business climate. And that means that this Congress will have 
to address other pressing questions as well.
    Will tax rates for businesses of all sizes remain 
competitive, or better yet, become more competitive, so that we 
can keep attracting investment?
    Will the regulatory system provide certainty and clarity? 
Will health care become more affordable without compromising 
free-market principles?
    Will this Nation finally make bold investments in 
infrastructure that are long overdue? Will energy be abundant, 
affordable, and reliable? Will export opportunities increase 
while we enforce our existing trade agreements to protect 
American workers?
    And will we achieve comprehensive immigration reform to 
ensure that those hidden in the shadows who were brought here 
as children can become permanent, productive members of our 
society?
    Now if the answer to those questions is ``yes,'' if we 
tackle these fundamental issues, then I am certain that this 
next world that we are building in the aftermath of the 
pandemic will be built by American workers in American 
factories, restoring American leadership in the world.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Timmons appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Our next witness is Dr. Michelle Hanlon.

    STATEMENT OF MICHELLE HANLON, Ph.D., HOWARD W. JOHNSON 
PROFESSOR, SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE 
                  OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MA

    Dr. Hanlon. Thank you, and good morning. Chairman Wyden, 
Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished members of the 
committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this 
hearing. It is an honor to be here.
    I have three points I would like to make, and then I look 
forward to any questions that you might have.
    First, maintaining a competitive corporate statutory income 
tax rate is an important tax policy objective. As Ranking 
Member Crapo said in his opening remarks, prior to the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, the U.S. had a 35-percent 
corporate income tax rate. It was one of the highest rates in 
the world. That high corporate income tax rate, along with our 
international tax regime that we had prior to the TCJA, led to 
many negative economic outcomes.
    For example, there were incentives to move profits to 
foreign locations. There were incentives to retain high-tech 
holdings in foreign subsidiaries. And in particular for this 
hearing, in some cases our prior tax system led to strong 
incentives to manufacture outside of the U.S.
    Currently, our Federal corporate statutory income tax rate 
is 21 percent. According to the OECD data, our rate, including 
State and local income taxes, is estimated to be 25.8 percent. 
The OECD average is 23.3 percent, and the G20 average is 26.9 
percent. Thus, we now have a competitive domestic corporate 
income tax rate, but we are by no means a tax haven.
    My co-workers and I recently surveyed some U.S. companies 
about the TCJA. We find that almost 90 percent of the key 
corporations that responded to the survey said that the lower 
corporate tax rate was important to their company. Indeed, the 
corporate rate reduction was the provision of the TCJA that 
received the highest importance rating in our survey. 
Furthermore, of the companies that said that they increased 
investment in response to the TCJA, many said they did so 
because of the reduction in the corporate tax rate.
    There are certainly tax and non-tax factors that go into 
company decisions. In terms of tax policy, in my opinion it is 
very important that we endeavor to maintain a competitive 
corporate tax rate in order to incentivize economic activity 
here at home, and to avoid the negative economic consequences 
from the pre-TCJA era.
    My second point is that, in addition to competitive tax 
rates, targeted tax incentives are often desirable--for 
example, the R&D tax credit and the immediate expensing of R&D 
costs, as we just heard. R&D is vitally important in the 
manufacturing sector.
    The latest data from the IRS are for 2014, and those data 
show that the manufacturing industry claimed nearly 60 percent 
of the research credits claimed by corporations. The academic 
research consistently finds evidence that the R&D credit 
worked, meaning that it increased research and development 
spending. And moreover, the evidence is consistent with the 
increased spending being greater than the cost to the Treasury.
    There are also other situations where there might be 
societal or strategic reasons to provide targeted tax 
incentives for certain activities or industries--for example, 
green energy tax incentives. Another example are tax incentives 
to address concerns about the lack of supply in manufacturing 
of certain goods in the U.S., in particular semiconductors. An 
investment tax credit has been proposed, as we have heard from 
other witnesses, as part of the CHIPS Act. It is a sizeable 
credit: 40 percent in the first year. And based on the academic 
research of other investment tax credits, it would likely help 
to incentivize investment in that activity.
    However, I want to point out that it is important to remain 
cognizant that the overall tax system needs to remain 
competitive for these temporary incentives to be most 
effective.
    Third, and related to what I just mentioned, is that 
looking forward it is important to consider the entire U.S. tax 
system in terms of our rescheduled tax changes and proposed tax 
changes that will affect, and possibly offset, some of the 
investment incentives that we have in the code.
    For example, in terms of changes that are scheduled to 
occur in the TCJA legislation, foreign depreciation will soon 
start phasing out, and R&D expenditures will be required to be 
capitalized and amortized rather than expensed. Both of these 
changes will weaken the investment incentive in the current tax 
code.
    In terms of proposed tax changes, President Biden's tax 
plans include raising the corporate tax rate and the 
resurrection of an alternative minimum tax, this time based on 
a company's accounting earnings.
    I have already discussed some of the risks of an 
uncompetitive corporate tax rate. The proposed AMT is 
concerning for several reasons, but most importantly for this 
hearing is that such a policy can offset the targeted tax 
incentives.
    The investment incentives are not present in financial 
accounting income because financial accounting income is 
intended for a different purpose. Thus, enacting an AMT, and 
beginning an AMT base using financial accounting income, will 
serve to weaken the investment incentives in the tax code.
    Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this 
hearing. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hanlon appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Hanlon.
    Our final witness will be Mr. Donnie Blatt.

 STATEMENT OF DONNIE BLATT, DISTRICT 1 DIRECTOR, UNITED STEEL, 
   PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED 
  INDUSTRIAL, AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (USW), 
                          COLUMBUS, OH

    Mr. Blatt. Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 
Crapo, and members of the committee. I was very honored to be 
introduced by my good friend, Senator Sherrod Brown. He has 
spent his career supporting workers of the United States in 
support of U.S. manufacturing, and also for trying to repeal 
provisions of the current tax law that would reward offshoring 
of good-paying manufacturing jobs. So, I appreciated his 
introduction.
    As a member of the largest industrial union in North 
America, and representing workers across our Nation's economy, 
manufacturing jobs are important to a local tax base and to 
building strong communities. For these reasons, the Congress 
and the administration should use all the tools available to 
retain and grow manufacturing jobs and domestic supply chains, 
including U.S. tax policy.
    As the committee considers the effects of the U.S. tax code 
on manufacturing, we need to make sure the domestic 
manufacturers and the workers are able to compete globally, and 
able to make products for our important supply chain. This 
starts with a better understanding of our supply chains and 
improving our procurement policies. The tax code can be used 
strategically to drive investment in industrial facilities. 
Capital investments in facilities are expensive and are 
expected to last for decades, but that up-front capital is hard 
to come by, especially during a recession.
    Our union certainly has had success stories where our 
employers have taken advantage of tax credits to ensure that 
our members' jobs continue. One example is a company named 
Rotek in Aurora, OH, which upgraded its facility from the 2009 
48C tax credit. Our members there continue to make large-
diameter slewing bearings and seamless forged rings for the 
oil, gas, mining, and wind energy industries. We support the 
revival and expansion of the 48C tax credit, with an emphasis 
on the communities with significant job loss.
    It is also important that we put our tax code in 
perspective with the globe, and that we protect against 
unnecessary tax base erosion. We need to ensure that tax 
revenues allow the government to rebuild our infrastructure, 
invest in our workers, and provide for our security.
    Meanwhile, we need to improve our tax code to discourage 
outsourcing and profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions. We 
should also increase transparency. The quest to build out 
domestic supply chains for critical technology will only be 
successful if we also use policy levers to ensure that domestic 
manufacturers have customers who make long-term commitments to 
source domestically.
    Our union can provide many examples of U.S. companies whose 
prices are illegally undercut by foreign competitors. Our trade 
laws need reform, but so do our industrial policies that have 
not successfully created markets for domestic manufacturers on 
a large enough scale.
    For example, the bulk components of new energy technologies 
come from overseas. Yet companies like USW-represented Sharon 
Tube and Thomas Strip Steel can make components for solar and 
battery technology, despite both being nearly 100 years old.
    I am confident that U.S. manufacturers can and would 
innovate as long as they have customers.
    As we look at the expansion of these new technologies, the 
Federal Government has a big role to play in the build-out of 
supply chains, and making sure that we retain existing supply 
chains. For example, USW members at Warren Coke have long 
provided product to Cleveland-Cliffs, where our members make 
lightweight steel that goes into fuel-efficient automobiles. As 
car companies work to meet their climate commitments, Federal 
policy should ensure that we gain rather than lose jobs in the 
auto supply chain.
    The USW has been a long supporter of Buy America policies 
in Federal procurement or infrastructure as a way to build 
markets and to ensure that Federal money is spent to support 
American workers. It only makes sense that American workers 
benefit from projects funded by American tax dollars.
    These principles are broadly popular. We encourage Congress 
to ensure that Federal spending in the form of tax credits is 
used to benefit industries and companies that drive economic 
recovery in America and grow our manufacturing base.
    In conclusion, well-paid union, American manufacturing 
workers are critical to our economy. We can see that evidenced 
in hometowns across our country.
    I thank you for the opportunity to share how important it 
is for Congress to use many tools, including tax policy, to 
grow a globally expanding manufacturing base. And I look 
forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Blatt appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Blatt. And I want to thank all 
our panel members. I think we are going to have a good 
discussion with the committee.
    Let me start with you, if I might, Mr. Blatt. It seems to 
me you do not grow high-skill, high-wage jobs by osmosis. And 
the situation here is really urgent. If there is more kind of 
dawdling around, we are not going to see those good jobs in 
Oregon and Ohio and all the States that my colleagues 
represent.
    So the way we are looking at it is, there is a real job-
creation tool kit for reshoring and bolstering American 
manufacturing. What would be the most important step, in your 
view, that the Finance Committee could take as it tries to use 
that tool kit to shore up American jobs?
    Mr. Blatt. Well, thank you for that question, Senator 
Wyden. I believe that, in our view, one of the most important 
steps that we can do is to make sure that we create incentives 
for manufacturers to create jobs here in this country and keep 
people from moving offshore with the tax policies that we 
currently have.
    If we do not take action to bolster manufacturing in the 
U.S., that just means more jobs are going to be in China and 
not in Ohio, or in Oregon, or other parts of the country.
    The Chairman. Good. Let me go to you, Mr. Davis, if I 
might. I want to start by talking about the short-sightedness 
of American tax policy. Because if you look at the recent past, 
Congress will throw another tax extender out there. We create 
all these fiscal cliffs. But it does not make it possible for 
you, as a company, to have the certainty and predictability you 
need to grow jobs.
    And this short-sightedness includes what I consider to be a 
truly bizarre decision made by my Republic friends who nearly 4 
years ago decided to put incentives for research and innovation 
on the chopping block so they could squeeze out their 2017 tax 
bill through something called ``reconciliation.''
    So here is my question: I think the last thing we need for 
Intel, which employs so many Oregonians and other Americans, is 
more short-term tax policy. I think our competitors can really 
lap us in this competitive race if we go that route. And we 
will just keep bleeding if we keep throwing these short-term 
band-aids at it and end up in a kind of cul-de-sac where we are 
in even worse shape than we are now.
    Would it be fair to say that it is the position you are 
talking about today that our chip manufacturers need to have a 
long-term strategy if we are going to get out of this cul-de-
sac?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think 
you are spot-on, and I also thank you for your support in 
Oregon. It is a wonderful place to have so much of our activity 
based.
    You know, I think both of the issues that we are talking 
about today, both the R&D issue around deductibility and the 
investment tax credit, are very important issues for long-term 
stability and for attracting investment. R&D is about 2.8 
percent of GDP today. For every $1 billion--and there is about 
$500 billion of R&D spent in the U.S. today, over 70 percent of 
which is from the private sector--but every billion dollars 
equals about 17,000 jobs.
    So, I think the American Innovation and Jobs Act is very 
aptly named. We agree that changing R&D from deductibility to 
amortization is a very regressive step, and one we would very 
much discourage. It would also reverse 67 years of policy that 
has allowed the deductibility of R&D and, as you know, this is 
in no small part a major contributor to why the U.S. leads in 
so many areas of technology. And we cannot take for granted the 
impact this would have on both jobs and the continuing 
innovation in the country.
    On the investment tax credit, for semiconductors--but for 
so many other industries as well--the investments that we have 
to make are in the billions of dollars. And they take place 
over many years.
    So if we have a policy that encourages long-term investment 
and is stable so people can have confidence that if they make 
the decision to invest more in critical areas in the U.S.--in 
our case in semiconductors--then we can count on the same types 
of incentives that are allowing our foreign competitors to 
operate at a much lower cost.
    The Chairman. All right; thank you, Mr. Davis.
    I want to ask one other question really quickly. Mr. 
Jennings, you all and other automakers are making a transition 
to electric vehicles, a very constructive step. I do not want 
us to end up being reliant on China for batteries. And you 
know, a lot of people were looking at the big challenge, that 
as we shift to an all-electric future, what can we do to make 
sure that we are going to have those batteries? Because I think 
they are going to play an enormously important role in the 
future.
    Can you give us a quick answer?
    Mr. Jennings. Yes. So, thank you for the question, Chairman 
Wyden. I would say there are really three key steps that we 
could take, the first of which has been mentioned earlier, and 
that is, we need to ensure that we do not disincentivize 
companies from pursuing this R&D, because it is so critical, by 
taking away the ability to deduct those R&D expenses.
    The second is actually doubling down on those targeted 
areas for incentives around electrification, around advanced 
mobility.
    Thirdly, and probably most importantly in this area of 
batteries, how do we also look at cash back for the credits 
that have been identified? This especially is true for 
companies that are going through start-up, and the companies 
that actually need the money now. How can they actually get the 
cash back for those credits now to enable them to, again, 
pursue further investment in reference to R&D, again at a time 
when they need it at this point.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I am over my time.
    Senator Crapo?
    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Professor Hanlon, I will start out with you today. In your 
testimony, you noted that targeted tax credits for strategic 
industries can be effective, and that we should protect them. 
But you made a very strong case, I think, that using a 
relatively high corporate tax rate to offset them would not be 
good policy.
    Could you elaborate on that?
    Dr. Hanlon. Sure. And thank you for the question.
    The corporate income tax is generally thought to be an 
inefficient tax in the sense that it causes a lot of 
distortion. In fact, the OECD has called the corporate income 
tax the most harmful form of taxation for economic growth, 
because it discourages job creation and investment.
    So, having a competitive corporate tax rate is important so 
those distortionary effects are not too large or too 
detrimental. And I think, you know, we already ran the 
experiment to some degree of having the highest tax rate in the 
world, and the outcomes were not good.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Davis, let me move to you on the same question. 
You have noted very effectively the power of targeted 
industries' specific tax incentives and the dangers that we see 
of some of those expiring soon. And my chairman, Senator Wyden, 
correctly noted that they are expiring because of the 
reconciliation act, which has a 10-year limitation on it, or 
other provisions that were required in order to meet the 
requirements of the reconciliation act.
    I think there is bipartisan agreement that we should not 
see those expire. In fact, some of the legislation I referenced 
in my opening statement does exactly that, on a very bipartisan 
basis.
    But could you comment on the notion that we are hearing 
that making those tax credits permanent, and adding maybe even 
additional tax credits that are needed and important on an 
industry-specific basis, could be offset, or should be offset 
by increasing the general corporate tax rate?
    Mr. Davis. Senator Crapo, first off, thank you for your 
leadership for many years in the semi-industry; and certainly 
the success of Micron is in no small part due to your 
leadership, and we appreciate that.
    You know, the idea of having an incentive to create 
outcomes that you want is a pretty accepted concept. And we 
certainly want to ensure that we have incentives for R&D in the 
U.S. to be competitive with R&D anywhere else in the world. And 
we have, for 67 years. We have assured that in the way we have 
approached it. And I think it is very encouraging to see 
bipartisan support for not ending that--and for getting that in 
the areas that we are talking about.
    For investment tax credits, I can speak to the 
semiconductor industry--and I know you have seen it as well 
over the years--we have not had a stable incentive for 
manufacturing semiconductors in the U.S. for a very long time. 
Whereas, it has been a significant focus of a number of 
countries, particularly in Asia, who view semiconductors as a 
foundational technology, both for economic expansion and their 
own national security.
    So in 1990, semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. was 
about 37 percent of the worldwide manufacturing. Today, it is 
12 percent, and it is on a path by 2030 to be 10 percent.
    At the same time, you have seen a massive expansion in 
Asia, and China has gone from 1 percent to 15 percent of the 
world's semiconductor manufacturing over that same period. And 
they are on a track to be at roughly 25 percent by 2030. And 
these trends really reflect the difference of having stable, 
long-term incentives to grow capability in the foreign 
locations that create a significant cost advantage for 
semiconductor expansion in Asia, as opposed to in the U.S.
    So I think, as we think about investment tax credits, it 
would be great to be able to have a sustainable strategy to 
reverse the trend.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. And you make a strong 
case for having sustainable, long-term tax policy in the tax 
credit system.
    Mr. Timmons, we are running short on time, but could you 
just respond to the notion that as we seek to have that stable, 
long-term investment policy in our tax credit system, that we 
not make the mistake of thinking that we should raise the 
corporate tax rates at the same time?
    Mr. Timmons. Well, Senator, I can tell you that one of the 
strongest actions that Congress has taken in the last few years 
has been to reduce the corporate tax rate, as well as pass-
through rates for S corps. And what I hear when I talk to 
manufacturers all around the country is that that tax reform 
actually supercharged these companies' ability to invest in 
America, hire American workers, and raise wages and benefits.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
    Senator Stabenow?
    Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
for hosting what I consider to be an incredibly important 
hearing. And I do not believe that we have an economy unless 
somebody makes something and somebody grows something, and that 
is what we are talking about here: our capacity to make things 
in America. And there is no reason, if we have the right set of 
policies, that we cannot do that.
    That is incredibly important in Michigan, as you can 
imagine, as well as the whole country. And it is an area where 
it is a very, very high priority for me, what we are talking 
about today.
    I also want to thank all of the wonderful witnesses who are 
testifying today, and particularly Jonathan Jennings from 
Michigan's own Ford Motor Company, known for their commitment 
to U.S. manufacturing. And a big thank you, Jonathan, for the 
incredible work when Ford stepped up to really help us deal 
with the medical supply chain needs, PPE and so on, during the 
pandemic. Really, really extraordinary.
    The U.S. is a global clean-energy country that is in a race 
right now. We are in a race. We know $100 billion has already 
been put in that race by China for electrification. We know the 
investments that are going on around the world.
    We have already talked about, today, the capacity of China 
now around lithium-ion batteries, as well as solar panels and 
other things, because of the investment that they have made. 
And also, our U.S. supply chain vulnerabilities really are 
happening right now, today. In Michigan, there are layoffs 
right now as a result of this semiconductor chip that comes 
from one plant in Taiwan. And we certainly cannot allow that to 
continue. So I appreciate all of my colleagues' and, Mr. 
Chairman, your comments.
    We have a lot to do together, and I just want to, before 
asking a question, throw out the 48C, which I was proud to 
author a number of years ago. So pleased to see everyone 
embracing the bipartisan effort we have to reconstitute the 3-
percent tax credit for clean energy manufacturing in the United 
States. I appreciate Senator Manchin and Senator Daines 
partnering on this.
    Also, Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to work with you and all 
of our colleagues on the bipartisan efforts for other 
incentives to invest in U.S. manufacturing of semiconductor 
components, batteries, solar panels. There is just no reason 
that we cannot have those things made in America.
    And finally, I do have to put in a plug, when we are 
talking about electrification, that we need to be passing new 
legislation to expand and reform the consumer tax credit 30D, 
which is based on what Senator Alexander and I did in a 
bipartisan bill last Congress. So we have to be doing that as 
well.
    So, Mr. Jennings, two questions. With EVs only accounting 
for about 2 percent of the vehicle market today, can you talk 
about why it is so important to continue and expand the 
consumer tax credit?
    And also, secondly, how does that work in tandem with 
domestic manufacturing incentives like 48C to increase the 
component parts we need here in the U.S.?
    Mr. Jennings. First, Senator Stabenow, it is again a 
pleasure to see you, especially in this forum. Specific to the 
question around the reference to the 2 percent, we know that 
Americans are taking advantage of the EV consumer tax credit 
today. And we believe, in order for us to keep that momentum, 
that we have to look at that additional 400,000 units that I 
believe your 2019 legislation had proposed.
    So for us, that is a key item that we need to continue on 
to continue to grow on that 2 percent that you have mentioned.
    In reference to the consumer tax credit and the 
manufacturing credit, we actually see that as a one-two punch, 
right? In order to enable us to really continue on with the 
innovation, with the investment that we have in the 
infrastructure, that again, aligned with those other 
incentives, really puts us in a position to be more competitive 
globally.
    Senator Stabenow. Great. Thank you so much for all your 
leadership.
    And then quickly, before my time runs out, Mr. Blatt, thank 
you. Mr. Blatt, you are a wonderful leader of our steelworkers, 
so I am so grateful for your endorsement of our 48C bill, and 
for all that our steelworkers do in America. And we need more 
jobs, as you know, for our skilled workers--good-paying jobs. 
But I wonder if you might speak a little bit more about making 
things in America. I am pleased to have introduced a bipartisan 
bill called the Make It in America Act to close the loopholes 
in America's laws so we can be using our purchasing power to a 
great extent to help drive the market.
    Could you take just a moment to speak about why you think 
it is so important that we do that?
    Mr. Blatt. Absolutely, Senator Stabenow. Thank you very 
much for your question. And by the way, we support that Make It 
in America Act as a union, and we appreciate your work in that 
area as well.
    Look, investing in America and investing in American 
manufacturing creates jobs. And it allows for our manufacturers 
to not only hire more people, but expand their businesses. And 
whenever our manufacturers expand, it helps our communities. It 
creates other jobs within the community. You know, when I 
worked at Ormet, I know that for one job at Ormet, it supplied 
six other jobs out in the community and the county where that 
manufacturing was done.
    And that is true everywhere in this country. So having a 
buy America provision is--there is no sector that cannot be 
touched by that and cannot be made better because we have these 
jobs here.
    Senator Stabenow. Thanks so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
    Senator Grassley?
    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to 
ask one question of Dr. Hanlon and Mr. Timmons, but I want to 
say something.
    First of all, I appreciate your holding our hearing. It is 
very important that we have strong domestic manufacturing, and 
that is very important for our economy. It is very important 
for our national security. This was a significant motivation 
behind our pro-growth tax reforms in 2017.
    These reforms were designed to encourage business 
investment at home, and to increase our competitiveness abroad. 
The key features included reducing our corporate tax rate from 
35 percent, because it was the highest in the developed world. 
We moved that down to 21 percent. For those who like to point 
to Scandinavian economies as a model, our 21 percent is just 1 
percentage point lower than Denmark and Norway, and less than 
one-half point lower than Sweden.
    Just as important for many manufacturers that operate in 
pass-through form, the individual rates were lowered, and an 
innovative deduction for qualified business income was enacted 
to help those people.
    In the 2017 tax reductions, we also modernized America's 
international tax system to bring it more in line with other 
developed countries. These rules make U.S. companies more 
competitive in the worldwide marketplace and incentivize them 
to grow their businesses here at home.
    This means more jobs, better wages, and increased 
investment. And central to our mission to encourage greater 
investments in the United States, enhanced expensing rules were 
included. This encourages our manufacturers to invest in new 
equipment and machines that help boost productivity.
    Combined, these and other reforms have made the U.S. a more 
attractive place to locate a new facility and expand an 
existing one. As a result, in 2018 manufacturers created the 
most new jobs in over 20 years. And in 2019, manufacturing 
capital expenditures reached an all-time high. Our mission must 
be to build on the success through a continuation of our pro-
growth tax policies.
    And with that being said, I want to ask the one question 
that I said to Dr. Hanlon and to Mr. Timmons.
    The administration has proposed tax increases on U.S. 
businesses: increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, 
raising taxes on pass-through businesses through raising the 
individual rates, imposing a corporate alternative minimum tax, 
doubling the tax rates on foreign subsidiaries, and I could 
make a much longer list. But to speed things up, I want to 
refer to something that members of the Biden administration 
have said, particularly Secretary of the Treasury Yellen, to 
justify these tax increases on producers, by arguing that, when 
coupled with other parts of the administration's economic 
agenda, such as investments in infrastructure, their proposals 
will, quote, ``make our economy more productive,'' end quote.
    In your view, is spending on infrastructure a fair 
substitute for low tax rates and an overall internationally 
competitive tax system?
    Whichever of the two of you wants to start, and then when 
that person is done, just go to the other person.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. I am happy to start, Senator, and thank 
you for the question.
    As I said in my opening statement, we have seen enormous--
enormous--investment and job growth here in this country as a 
result of tax reform. It is the reason that we supported it, 
and it was the reason we were calling for it for several 
decades. In fact, after we achieved and Congress passed that 
legislation, we said that it is now on us to show that we are 
keeping our promises to invest, and hire, and grow wages and 
benefits.
    We have a document, ``Keeping Our Promises,'' that I will 
make sure you have a copy of, that outlines some of the great 
success stories of tax reform. I think of Jamison Door that 
gave their 120 employees special bonuses and invested in a new 
manufacturing space: 50,000 square feet. Marlin Steel Wire 
Products invested $1.5 million in new technology, and they 
increased their full-time workforce by 30 percent. Carpenter 
Technologies Corporation, $100 million investment.
    Those are small manufacturers. And there are larger 
manufacturers that have done some amazing things as well. A 
$400-million investment from a Midwest manufacturer. 
Significantly higher wages from manufacturers in Indiana and 
Ohio. A billion-dollar investment from a beverage manufacturer 
in a southern State. Those are the types of positive benefits 
that came from tax reform.
    Now there are some issues that have to be resolved. We are 
here today to talk about some of those on the research and 
development side, and on the investment deductibility side.
    But all in all, Senator, the work that was achieved then 
has led to some really positive results.
    Dr. Hanlon. Yes; I will just add a couple things to that. I 
think raising tax rates now would be a mistake. If we raise our 
corporate tax rates to 28 percent, then our combined rate will 
be 32 to 33 percent. That will again be the highest corporate 
tax rate in the OECD.
    And I think that would be a big mistake. It will put us at 
a competitive disadvantage in many respects, which we have 
already mentioned, many of us on this panel today. But I 
think----
    The Chairman. Okay, Dr. Hanlon, it is Senator Cantwell's 
turn next.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and 
the ranking member for holding this important hearing. I wanted 
to--it is interesting. We have just been in the Energy 
Committee having a similar conversation about electric vehicles 
and the United States' competitiveness as it relates to 
manufacturing.
    But I wanted to ask Mr. Jennings: Ford, and obviously other 
U.S. manufacturers, are trying to fight climate change and be 
competitive in a basically very international competitive 
market. But we have this issue with SK lithium-ion batteries in 
Georgia where Ford was going to do the F-150 program. And 
obviously, with the USMCA 75-percent threshold mark, that would 
mean it is practically nearly impossible to meet that without 
producing those batteries in the United States.
    So I wanted to ask you whether--well, actually ask you why 
that 4 years is not long enough to get the SK batteries 
actually built there, and what does that mean for the Ford 
program? What does it mean for your ability to do production in 
the United States?
    Mr. Jennings. Thank you for the question. And to your 
point, the F-150 is a critical product for us. And 
specifically, in reference to the 4 years--why does it take the 
4 years that was referenced?--the batteries are the fundamental 
foundation of electric vehicles. And the development of those 
battery cells and battery packs take approximately 4 years. 
Additionally, the building of a new electric vehicle facility 
also takes about 4 years.
    So we would have to be working with those suppliers, and 
simultaneously developing that battery cell, that battery pack, 
along with the building of the actual facility.
    In reference to what this is actually doing in light of not 
having other battery cell providers available in the U.S., we 
have not been able to confirm that there is capacity currently 
available.
    We will now have to resort to looking at foreign suppliers 
to potentially import--which is to your exact point--which 
would not be compliant to the USMC. So that is why we really 
feel it is critical for us to have a more competitive position 
within the U.S. footprint.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. So literally, we have to get 
this dispute resolved, really, is what it comes down to.
    Mr. Jennings. Absolutely. And to that point, what we have 
consistently stated is that we really encourage the Korean 
Government to work with these two companies to resolve this, 
even prior to the 60-day USTR timing. They need to come to an 
amicable agreement between the two.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    Mr. Timmons, I wanted to ask you about another 
transportation sector, the aviation transportation sector. We 
have seen tremendous job loss, tens of thousands of jobs, 
because of, obviously, the COVID pandemic and the decline of 
demand in the sector.
    Yet, we seem poised, if you have seen the numbers on 
aviation transportation of late, we seem to be returning to the 
aviation sector. What do we need to do to make sure that we 
keep a skilled aviation supply chain in the United States?
    Mr. Timmons. Well, I would say--Senator, I would say one 
thing that we need to do to make sure that we get the travel 
and hospitality industry up and running again overall is to 
make sure that we are all promoting vaccine acceptance.
    This pin [indicating]--you are going to actually receive 
one fairly soon--this is a red and yellow ribbon that 
encourages vaccines throughout our country. And we are very 
proud to be leading that effort.
    I will say also that tax incentives that are targeted 
toward workforce training and development are extremely 
important--it was part of our onshoring plan that we released 
last year that I referenced in my opening statements--and other 
programs that will also help to upskill and future-proof our 
workforce that can be supported by the government, but also, 
most notably, are promoted by the private sector.
    I think of actually Boeing--and I know that there is a 
connection there for you--I think of Boeing and the work that 
they do in supporting community colleges and technical schools 
where they actually have on-the-ground training for some of 
their future workforce.
    I have had a chance to see some of those programs in 
action, and they are phenomenal. We can support those types of 
programs through appropriate tax incentives and other programs.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Davis, just one last thing on this supply chain as 
it relates to you. What do we need to do on the material side 
for the shortage that we are seeing in silicon?
    I mean, one of the things we just talked about on the 
Energy Committee was why DOE needs to do more on actual 
recycling of material, that that is something the United States 
could help in the immediate supply effort.
    Mr. Davis. I think what we have seen this year, Senator 
Cantwell, is remarkable demand swings, and certainly automotive 
has been one of the most impacted--first, with a large decrease 
in demand followed by a very strong ramp-up. But we have also 
seen in the semiconductor industry a very large expansion in 
demand, as people are working from home. The way they interact 
with each other, and the way they purchase has created 
tremendous pressure on the semiconductor industy, the whole 
ecosystem, not only materials but component parts like 
substrates, Wi-Fi elements.
    So it is really about incenting the expansion of the supply 
chain ecosystem to support semiconductors. One of the things 
that we see today is, like we said, we are at about 12 percent 
manufacturing in the U.S. for semiconductors. Aerospace is 50 
percent in the U.S. And so we are highly dependent on foreign 
suppliers. And as was mentioned, the supplier in Taiwan has 
created some of the shortages as well.
    So I think incenting the expansion of the supply chain, 
expansion of manufacturing in the U.S., which I know is being 
looked at--and I think the CHIPS Act is a really positive step 
in that regard. It is a good first step.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We 
are definitely very proud of that 50 percent supply chain in 
the U.S. in aerospace, and we certainly want U.S. manufacturers 
in the chip fabrication business to have supplies and 
materials.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Thune?
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by 
saying that tax reform cut taxes for families, doubled the 
Child Tax Credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction. It 
also lowered tax rates across the board for small to medium-
sized businesses, farms, and ranches. It lowered the corporate 
tax rate, which up until January was the highest corporate rate 
in the developed world. And as a result of that, personal 
incomes are rising. And up to the pandemic, the economy was on 
solid footing.
    Tax reform also improved the business environment for U.S. 
manufacturers, in particular with the lower business rate, 
easier access to foreign cash, and more favorable expensing for 
capital acquisitions.
    So I would like to direct this question to Mr. Timmons and/
or Dr. Hanlon. The first question is, has tax reform helped 
American manufacturers and their workers, namely, when it comes 
to jobs, wages, and benefits? And then secondly, has tax reform 
helped U.S. manufacturers better compete against their global 
counterparts?
    Mr. Timmons. I went first last time, Michelle, so if you 
want to go first, you have the floor.
    Dr. Hanlon. Yes; thank you for the question. I think the 
tax reform clearly was an improvement. And I think it clearly 
made our manufacturers more competitive. It provided incentives 
to not ship manufacturing offshore, but it did help create 
incentives to maintain manufacturing here.
    So I think it is a clear improvement. I think there are 
things we can do to build upon the TCJA and improve it further. 
One of those things would be to give manufacturers some 
certainty that these provisions will stay in place.
    So for example, the FDII provisions--if we can give them 
certainty that something like that will stay in place for a 
while, and the low tax rate, I think that will help to 
strengthen these incentives going forward.
    Mr. Timmons. I would echo that sentiment, Senator, as well. 
I can give you a couple of examples where manufacturers--and 
these happen to be smaller manufacturers, small to mid-sized 
SMEs--have actually brought production back to the United 
States, or to the United States. Kentucky-based Big Ass Fans, 
for instance, they moved production jobs from Malaysia to the 
United States. They are based in Kentucky. I think I may have 
said that. Tennessee-based Bobrick Washroom Equipment, they 
moved production for their North American product lines to 
Jacksonville, TN.
    Those are just a couple of examples. But I mentioned before 
several examples of investments that small, medium, and larger 
manufacturers have made since tax reform took effect. These 
resulted in billions of dollars of investment in plants and 
equipment here in the United States--and in addition, hiring 
American workers, and raising wages and benefits.
    But I think what Dr. Hanlon mentioned is extraordinarily 
important. Businesses, manufacturers, absolutely need 
predictability and stability in the tax code. And we would ask 
this committee and your colleagues to recognize that fact.
    And quite honestly, increasing the tax burden, regardless 
of the objective, will harm the ability of manufacturers to 
grow and compete in the modern economy. We do have some issues 
to address, but those that we are talking about today can 
actually make us even more competitive.
    But to your question, Senator: those reforms were very 
important to supercharging investment and job creation here in 
the United States.
    Senator Thune. Okay. And just to give an example, I mean if 
you look at how, back in the early days there were about 40 
percent of American workers in ag, and in the beginning of the 
20th century, it was about 2 percent. The 2 percent today 
produce significantly more than the early 40 percent. The same 
thing has happened, I think, in American manufacturing, which 
peaked in 1944 at 39 percent of the labor force and has been on 
decline since then. It was about 8\1/2\ percent in 2017.
    What that means, obviously, in part at least, is that the 
United States' manufacturing activities became more productive 
and specializing in high tech. These advances have potential to 
transform fundamentally the nature of work, commerce, and 
manufacturing.
    With that in mind, what tax policies can best position 
America's manufacturers and workers to compete in the modern 
economy?
    I would ask that again to Mr. Timmons and--yes?
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. So one of the reasons, obviously, that 
we are here today, Senator, is to talk about the research cost, 
the amortization that will occur if there are not improvements 
made. We are very excited about this bill. We want to make sure 
that research and development costs remain a deduction.
    We believe that there needs to be a broad-based investment 
tax credit. We are talking about some tax credits here today as 
well. But in our strengthening the manufacturing supply chain 
proposals that we released last year, we called for a broad-
based investment tax credit to encourage new domestic 
investments in manufacturing. And then, as I mentioned in an 
earlier question that Senator Cantwell proposed, incentives to 
help companies recruit, train, and retain skilled workers in 
order to help build a pipeline of workers with the skills 
needed for a modern manufacturing facility.
    It is hard to believe, after this pandemic, that 
manufacturers today have 515,000 open jobs that we cannot fill 
because we cannot find folks with the skills necessary. What we 
want to do is, we want to train existing workers, train new 
workers, and upskill those workers to future-proof their jobs.
    The Chairman. We have 17 Senators still waiting.
    Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My home State of New Jersey has long been at the forefront 
of innovation, from telecom to electricity to the 
pharmaceutical innovations of today. Indeed, one of the three 
COVID-19 vaccines being used nationwide today comes from a New 
Jersey-based company.
    We manufacture more than $52 billion worth of products a 
year. We support 247,000 jobs with an average pay of about 
$92,000. So those are significant. But technology and 
manufacturing are changing rapidly.
    It seems to me that we need to look forward to the future 
of manufacturing and ensure that America is where that 
manufacturing occurs. Something I have been looking at is what 
role Congress can play in fostering the next generation of 
advanced manufacturing to ensure the jobs of the future are 
created here in the United States.
    And I believe we need to invest in our world-leading 
university system and develop public-private partnerships 
between universities and the private sector. I am looking 
forward to working with my Republican colleagues on the 
committee to draft legislation that would establish centers of 
excellence to incubate advanced manufacturing processes that 
would enable us to out-compete China and the rest of the world.
    So, Mr. Timmons, can you speak to the importance of 
leveraging our research university system to foster advanced 
manufacturing in order to be competitive in the years ahead?
    Mr. Timmons. Yes; thank you very much for that question, 
Senator. You are absolutely correct if you think in terms of 
the work that we can achieve at our 4-year institutions, and I 
would say that I have seen some amazing work being done at 
other schools as well. If you marry that hand-in-glove with the 
research and development tax credit, and the ability to deduct 
that on an annual basis, you continue to strengthen our 
capabilities as the leading innovative nation in the world.
    And innovation is, frankly, the lifeblood of manufacturing. 
You have already heard some statistics coming from Mr. Davis 
and others about how that research and development truly is the 
lifeblood of our economy, and that we lead the world. We want 
to continue to develop our footprint in the R&D space, and we 
can do that through partnerships with institutions of higher 
education.
    Senator Menendez. It seems to me, hearing the number of 
jobs that you say exist but, however, are going unfilled, that 
in addition to the type of training programs you are talking 
about, we should be marrying our community college and other 
institutions to look at the skill sets that are needed in this 
regard in order to fulfill the goals.
    Mr. Timmons. Yes, sir.
    Senator Menendez. Let me turn to the shortages of personal 
protective equipment that persisted throughout much of the last 
year, that revealed the vulnerability of our medical supply 
chain. States were forced into bidding wars against each other, 
and chaos ensued. The front-line heroes of the crisis are 
health-care workers who risked their lives day in and day out, 
who were compelled to use the same PPE shift after shift.
    Life-saving drugs and ventilators had to be rationed, 
creating an impossible choice between hospitals, long-term care 
facilities, and nursing homes. And so I believe we can never 
again be held hostage to foreign manufacturers. I understand we 
are going to live in a global economy and a global supply 
chain, but for such critical medical supplies, I think that 
there is a better way.
    So I have developed bipartisan legislation with Senator 
Wicker to incentivize medical supply manufacturing in Puerto 
Rico, which is part of the United States, as a Commonwealth. 
Our legislation would provide U.S. companies with a credit 
against the GILTI tax based on the amount of manufacturing and 
job creation they undertake in the territories, which would not 
be a giveaway. Rather, it is tied directly to wages and 
tangible investment in the territories.
    Mr. Blatt, can you speak to how the loss of domestic 
pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity created supply chain 
vulnerabilities that the pandemic exposed?
    Mr. Blatt. Yes; thank you, Senator Menendez.
    Actually, we are losing a pharmaceutical manufacturer that 
we represent in West Virginia, not in Ohio, that is going out 
of business. And that is 1,000 jobs that are lost.
    We struggled with personal protective equipment all over 
the State of Ohio, and all over this country, for our members 
during the pandemic. And I believe that it is critically 
important to get that supply chain back and make sure that, not 
even when we are in this pandemic, but whenever we need 
protective equipment, our workers and our members can get those 
supplies.
    It is critically important to our economy to make sure that 
we have a good supply chain for domestic pharmaceuticals and 
protective equipment supplies.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
    Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. I appreciate your holding the hearing. It 
is very timely, and I thank you for inviting so many Ohioans to 
join us. Jake Timmons, Jonathan Jennings, thank you guys for 
being here. And, Donnie Blatt, I appreciate your being on 
today, and I appreciate working with you and your team, and all 
of your locals, including some good successes with Piketon, 
with Cooper Tire, most recently with Cleveland-Cliffs, that 
saved a bunch of jobs. And your support for our made in America 
bills, including some recent legislation that was introduced on 
made in America--because I think you are right: that is an 
opportunity. And our Level the Playing Field Act as well. And 
then, in our new bill, we are working on leveling the playing 
field.
    This is a really important issue. I want to back up just 
for a second and talk about how do we ensure that we can be 
competitive? There has been a lot of good discussion about the 
tax laws, but I think there is a new emerging consensus that we 
need to think about competitiveness in terms of what is called 
``the industrial commons,'' where you have manufacturers, you 
have suppliers, you have inventors, and you have skilled 
workers kind of all together.
    And although, as a Republican I am always hesitant to talk 
about the government being too involved in our market--which 
has ultimately been very successful in making us strong, with 
an economy a lot of people envy--I think we have to realize 
that those kinds of industrial commons that have all those 
folks together really do matter.
    Think of Ohio and Michigan, in terms of the auto industry. 
Or think of Boston in terms of the pharmaceutical industry.
    Here is an interesting statistic: U.S. R&D expenditures in 
China have grown 13.6 percent annually on average since 2003. 
In the United States, it has been just 5 percent. So what that 
means is, the manufacturing is going on in China. What happens? 
The R&D starts to go over to China. So this is all connected.
    And I guess I would just ask my three Ohioans about this 
notion of keeping manufacturing, innovation, skills, as was 
just said by Jay--and I agree with Senator Menendez on this: 
the skilled worker is a critical part of this. And we have some 
great legislation on that as well.
    But you guys agree--my Ohio friends here--that our 
manufacturing industry and its workers were better off with a 
healthy industrial commons with a strong supply network, lots 
of R&D investment, and skilled workers.
    Mr. Blatt. Well, this Ohioan from Chillicothe, Senator, 
does agree. All roads lead through Ohio, I realize, and thank 
you for that question.
    And I will also say that Senator Wyden, the chairman, 
mentioned that our goal should be to out-compete China when it 
comes to research and development. I could not agree more. And 
I think that this is incredibly important, and an incredibly 
important topic.
    Senator Portman. Great. Thanks.
    Donnie? Jon?
    Mr. Blatt. Yes, Senator Portman; thank you for that. And I 
appreciate your comments on that. I could not agree more with 
what you have said in that vein, and definitely this Ohioan, as 
well as Jay, says ``yes'' to that.
    Senator Portman. Great.
    Jonathan, thoughts?
    Mr. Jennings. Yes; absolutely. And this Ohioan from 
Steubenville is also fully aligned with the comments. And it is 
not only for the workers, the consumers, but for America. At 
the end of the day, we need to make it all healthy.
    And to your point, this is one of the ways for us to get 
there. Thank you.
    Senator Portman. Let me ask a specific question. We talked 
a lot about the importance of the TCJA to investment, and jobs, 
and I could not agree more with that. With regard to 
amortization of R&D expenses, we had a good discussion about 
that. I think that is a big mistake. It is going to have a 
detrimental impact on innovation, of course.
    And so we have to be sure that domestic R&D, not amortizing 
over 5 years but being able to fully expense, stays in the law. 
And I am not even going to ask you that question because you 
all seem to agree with that.
    But there is another one that is similar, and that is with 
the deduction of interest under 163(j). The legislation limited 
the deduction of business interests based on earings before 
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or EBITDA. But 
at the end of the year, depreciation and amortization will be 
removed from further limited deduction. You all know about 
this.
    It is interesting, because right now a lot of these 
companies have taken on debt. So it makes it even more 
difficult to recover from the pandemic. It increases taxes, 
basically, by limiting the deductibility of interest.
    Can you comment on that briefly, Dr. Hanlon and Mr. 
Timmons?
    Dr. Hanlon. Sure; I will start. So you are exactly right. 
This limitation at section 163(j) now is supposed to move to a 
limitation based on EBIT and not EBITDA, and will become more 
binding, meaning that more companies will be limited in their 
interest deductions.
    And you know, I think the important thing about this is 
that that limitation can be more binding just by making another 
investment, not by taking on more debt. So if depreciation is 
not added back to that calculation, that makes the interest 
deduction limitation more binding. And again, that can happen 
with a strictly 
equity-financed investment.
    So I think you are exactly right.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Yes, I think you are correct as well, Senator. 
Look, we are a highly capital-intensive industry, part of the 
economy. And there are times when we need to borrow so that we 
can invest in new plants and equipment and base that on what 
our expectations are for future success.
    Increasing the costs of anything as it relates to doing 
business here in the United States, does harm our ability to 
compete and succeed in the global economy. The----
    The Chairman. We have 16 Senators to go.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 
Thank you, guys.
    The Chairman. Thank you both.
    Up next is Senator Carper.
    Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    To our witnesses, welcome. It is great to see all of you. I 
just want to say to Jay Timmons, and everybody at NAM, we 
passed legislation last year, strongly supported by NAM, and I 
just want to thank you. The greatest challenge we face on our 
planet is climate change; too much carbon in the air. And one 
piece of legislation, which NAM strongly supported, was a 
phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs. It is worth about half 
a degree Celsius, which is a huge huge advance. It would never 
have happened without the support of NAM, Jay, so I just want 
to say ``thank you.''
    I want to say to our friends at Ford, Ford knows better 
than anybody that the greatest source of carbon emissions on 
our planet comes from mobile sources, about 28 percent. The 
power industry in our country is about 27 percent, and 
industrial emissions are about 23 percent. But the biggest one 
of all is the emissions from the mobile sources.
    I just want to salute Ford for the great leadership that 
you are providing in trying to gather a whole bunch of auto 
companies together in common cause with California, and a bunch 
of States including Delaware, to join together in reducing 
global gas emissions from our mobile sources in the coming 
years.
    In that vein, I joined Senator Alexander, Lamar Alexander, 
last year in amending and extending the 30C. This is a question 
for Mr. Jennings.
    I joined Senator Alexander--sadly, he left us--but we 
joined forces in amending and extending the 30C investment tax 
credit for alternative fuel vehicles through the Securing 
America's Clean Fuels Infrastructure Act. And that legislation, 
Mr. Jennings, that legislation will better incentivize 
companies to make investments today in the construction of 
clean fuel vehicle infrastructure nationwide. It is one thing 
to build the vehicles. It is another thing to get people to buy 
them. Unless they have the ability to charge batteries, they 
are not going to buy them.
    So, Mr. Jennings, can you talk a little bit about the 
importance of tax incentives and amendments to the tax code 
like our Securing America's Clean Fuels Infrastructure Act to 
encouraging domestic manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles? 
What more should we be doing to leverage the tax code to reduce 
emissions from mobile sources and encourage greater innovation 
in this space? Thank you.
    Mr. Jennings. Yes. Thank you for the question. I am 
absolutely, fully aligned that climate change is impacting us 
all. I appreciate the comments on the efforts that Ford is 
doing, with us, again, being fully aligned with the Paris 
Accord and also the more stringent greenhouse standards in 
California.
    It is critical for us to continue on and have those tax 
incentives to give us the opportunity to do the R&D, to ensure 
that we are continuing on the strategy and on the track to be 
able to be carbon-neutral by the year 2050.
    So that is one of the key areas where we would use the 
revenue that you referenced, along with the other incentives 
to, again, put us on that path to be able to achieve that by 
2050.
    Senator Carper. My colleagues, I was struck by the 
witnesses today, a really excellent panel. But there is a lot 
of interest not in raising taxes, not raising revenues, but we 
are looking at just an avalanche of debt. I am a recovering 
State Treasurer from Delaware. We are looking at an avalanche 
of debt.
    We have spent money--the last administration and this 
administration a little bit remind me of drunken sailors. I am 
a retired Navy Captain. I have seen drunken sailors spend 
money, and I am reminded a little bit of that today--and the 
last administration as well.
    There used to be a Senator, Russell B. Long--I think he was 
from Louisiana. He might have been head of the Finance 
Committee. But he used to say, ``Don't tax you; don't tax me; 
tax that fellow behind the tree.''
    And nobody wants to pay more taxes--corporate taxes, 
personal taxes. But I just would remind us all, about a month 
ago the Government Accountability Office came out with their 
high-risk scores--they do this every 2 years--high-risk ways of 
wasting money. One of the things they called for, again, is 
making sure that we go after the tax gap. The tax gap is money 
that is owed to the Treasury. We know that it is owed, and we 
are not collecting it. And the folks at the IRS have asked us 
to be responsive to the question of the IRS funding. For the 
money that we provide, for every dollar--I forget what it is, 
but it is something like, for every dollar we provide in 
revenues, or for staffing, for technology at the IRS, they 
collect something like $5 or $6 in revenue.
    And while nobody wants to pay more taxes, I think what is 
more compelling is when we pay our share, our fair share, and 
we have other folks, other businesses, that are not. I would 
ask you to keep that in mind.
    Lastly, I probably do not have the time to ask this, but I 
will for the record. I am going to ask you all, for the record, 
to let me know where you think this panel agrees. Where does 
this panel agree with respect to tax incentives that are needed 
to strengthen, to enhance domestic manufacturing in this 
country? Where do you agree? Just give me one idea.
    And I will stop with that. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Carper. Fifteen Senators 
to go.
    Senator Lankford?
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me get a 
chance to be able to jump right into this. Obviously, an issue 
that has come up over and over again is our supply chain. We 
are talking about manufacturing, and that is going to be a 
locomotive that is coming towards us on our supply chain in the 
days ahead.
    So whether it is steel, whether it is producing 
automobiles, whether it is producing medical equipment, whether 
it is energy production, supply chain matters on this. That is 
rare earth minerals, critical minerals, occasionally conflict 
issues from the Congo in cobalt and lithium and such.
    So one of the questions I have is--we have multiple of 
those minerals that are here. When you start dealing with 
supply chain issues--and I can bring this up to Mr. Jennings at 
this point because I know, obviously with a vehicle, you have a 
lot, especially if you are heading towards an electric vehicle, 
a lot of issues there.
    What can we do in the tax code that you see at this point 
to attract some of those suppliers to be able to come to the 
United States? Or what are the barriers that are actually 
pushing some of that development outside the United States that 
make vehicle production here, or a lot of our manufacturing, 
vulnerable to supply issues?
    Mr. Jennings. I really appreciate the question, and you are 
spot-on in reference to not only the overall vehicle assembly, 
but as you get further into the value chain, those raw 
materials; how do we ensure that we are able to get those 
localized?
    And it goes back to--and I have had multiple discussions 
with suppliers--making the tax code more incentivized for them 
to come here, because the true benefit is in that true vertical 
integration, where it is not just the vehicle itself but all 
the way through the value chain.
    Senator Lankford. So is there anything in particular in the 
tax code that you see right now that is a detriment to actually 
coming back, or a disincentive to actually bring some of that 
manufacturing supply chain here?
    [Pause.]
    Senator Lankford. You will have to talk louder, or turn 
your mic on----
    Mr. Jennings. I am sorry; that was my fault. That was my 
fault. I think what we need to do is, again, retain our current 
competitive tax rate and ensure that we do not step backwards. 
Because we know that there are other nations that are 
competitive in that space.
    And in speaking with our suppliers, because of that 
competitiveness, they are actually looking elsewhere outside 
the U.S. So we need to maintain that competitive tax rate to 
ensure that we maintain it here in the U.S.
    Senator Lankford. Okay.
    Mr. Timmons, let me ask you that same question as well: 
things that you see that may be a challenge in our tax code to 
bring in some of those suppliers and to be able to bring those 
back to the United States to decrease our vulnerability in 
mineral production and in some of our basic supplies.
    And then also, there is this ongoing conversation about 
tariffs as well, which is basically a tax issue. If you would 
be able to make a comment about that. There have been some 
folks who say, just raise tariffs on everyone else and 
suddenly, miraculously, they will come back.
    We have not seen that to be completely true. What are the 
tax barriers there to actually coming back?
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Senator. You know, I think Mr. 
Jennings really hit the points on the tax code. Let me offer 
one other perspective, and that is: permitting reform.
    So some of those critical minerals that you are talking 
about run into issues when it comes to prompt permitting. And 
sometimes it can take 3 to 4 years to get the permits in line 
to do what we need to do to extract those.
    As far as tariffs go, obviously they distort the cost of 
goods and services. At some point, though, there has been some 
rationale for certain tariffs that have been applied to attempt 
to level the playing field against, say, countries like China.
    What we need to avoid, Senator, is we need to avoid 
imposing tariffs that would end up causing retaliatory tariffs 
on our goods leaving the United States. It makes us less 
competitive. It makes our products less desirable around the 
world.
    We want to be able to reach the 95 percent of customers who 
live outside of the United States. We need competitive economic 
policies here at home to grow domestic manufacturing, and we 
need trade agreements that are enforceable that enable us to 
reach other markets.
    Senator Lankford. One of the things I wanted to bring up--
Senator Portman brought it up as well--is the 163(j) provision, 
only because we have changes that are coming on that soon.
    What effect does that have for manufacturers and suppliers 
wanting to be able to come to the United States, to see things 
like that change? It is a pretty dramatic change at this point. 
Does that encourage or discourage investment coming back to the 
United States when they see temporary tax policies?
    Mr. Timmons. Are you addressing that to me, Senator?
    Senator Lankford. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Timmons. Yes. Well, the change that is coming into 
effect--if we do not do something about it, if Congress does 
not do something about it--would discourage investment in 
manufacturing and make it more expensive, obviously, to borrow 
money.
    So we are pleased to see the legislation that is being 
considered before you all.
    Senator Lankford. And we are as well. Hopefully we will be 
able to get that done.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you. Let me thank our witnesses. This 
has been an incredible panel, and I want to thank you, Mr. 
Chairman and Ranking Member, for conducting this hearing.
    Manufacturing is critically important to Maryland and our 
Nation. Maryland has over 4,100 companies that participate in 
manufacturing, and over 112,000 jobs. And in the auto industry, 
we have heavy trucks at Volvo that employ over 1,500 people.
    So this hearing is very important to me. And I am certainly 
going to be supportive of changes in our tax code to make 
domestic manufacturing more competitive, whether it is to deal 
with innovation and research and development, those provisions, 
or whether it is industry-specific.
    But I just want to make one observation. We talk about 
having a competitive tax structure, and it is virtually 
impossible for us to have that if we do not harmonize with the 
rest of the world. And what I mean by that is, we raise most of 
our own revenues through income taxes, not through a 
consumption tax, which is what the rest of the world does. And 
consumption taxes are border-adjusted, whereas income taxes are 
not border-adjusted, putting U.S. manufacturers at a distinct 
disadvantage.
    So--and we talk about having predictability in our tax 
code. Let's be reasonable about this. The tax code has been 
changed so many times over the last couple of decades, and 
don't we expect whatever changes were made in 2017 to be 
changed again?
    So I just really want to put on the table that we should be 
talking about how we can take advantage of the American 
reliance on governmental services, and have not only 
competitive but low tax rates compared to the global community. 
And that means harmonizing and having a progressive consumption 
tax, or raising some of our revenues here in the United States.
    And as the chairman knows, and the ranking member knows, I 
put that on the table, and I will continue to raise that issue 
because I think that is the way that we could have the most 
competitive tax code from the point of view of the issues that 
we have talked about today.
    The second point I want to make--and I am going to go to 
the floor in a few moments to speak about Mrs. Guzman, who is 
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration. I hope 
as we talk about how we can help domestic manufacturing, we 
recognize there are special needs for the smaller companies, 
which are where a lot of our job growth takes place, and the 
innovation takes place.
    We need to make sure that we do focus on the needs of 
smaller companies, smaller manufacturing companies, as we look 
at the changes in our tax code.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back my time, 
and I am going to the floor to speak for Mrs. Guzman, and give 
you a few extra minutes for other colleagues.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    Senator Young?
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Senator Young? We do not have Senator Young. 
Then do we have Senator Brown?
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Senator Casey?
    Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Here is Senator Casey.
    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. I want to 
thank you for this opportunity. Let me turn my volume up here. 
And I thank the witnesses.
    I will just have maybe two questions for one witness, and I 
will maybe submit some others for the record, but I wanted to 
start with a question for Donnie Blatt. I appreciate his work 
with the steelworkers, who obviously have a big presence in my 
home State of Pennsylvania. And I know they care deeply about 
the manufacturing jobs that we hope to create. And we have 
suffered through so much loss.
    I was just looking at some of the numbers. By one estimate, 
in Pennsylvania between January of 2005 to January of this 
year, we have lost over 147,000 manufacturing jobs. And that is 
on top of the several hundred thousand jobs we lost in the 2 or 
3 decades before that.
    So I wanted to ask Mr. Blatt about, first of all--in your 
testimony, you discussed the power of Federal procurement and 
the ways it can be used to support American manufacturing. I am 
also glad to see the administration is focusing on supply chain 
security, and on revisiting rules around buy American, which 
are often very complex and riddled with loopholes, including 
weak rules of origin.
    I have legislation to establish supplemental rules of 
origin for nonmarket economies like China. This will close a 
back door into our trade agreements, and also into government 
procurement, for goods that are not produced under competitive 
market conditions.
    So I would ask Mr. Blatt, can you discuss what a measure 
like that could mean for workers, and particularly 
steelworkers?
    Mr. Blatt. Yes, absolutely, Senator Casey. And thank you 
for that question.
    Look, we have dealt with unfair trade agreements, as people 
all over the Nation have, probably more than anyone else. And 
our organization believes that these trade agreements should 
reflect our values. And we should make sure that these 
nonmarket economies like China do not have these back doors 
that they can get into to steal our jobs out of this country.
    You know, the buy American provision that we have; again, 
it creates jobs here in this country. And that is what we are 
all about. We want to make sure that we create as many jobs as 
we can to get our manufacturing sector back up to where it 
should be. And as we do this, it is going to strengthen our 
communities and strengthen workers, and make sure that our 
families are taken care of. So again, trade agreements that 
reflect our values--and that is, taking care of American 
industry.
    Senator Casey. I appreciate that.
    I wanted to talk to you about two bills that focus on some 
of these challenges that we have when it comes to offshoring 
jobs and the manufacturing impact on workers. One particular 
proposal I have would establish automatic economic and fiscal 
stabilizers to communities that are impacted by trade or by 
industry transition, or huge job loss. I know that there are 
communities that fit that description in Ohio, plenty of them 
in Pennsylvania, really over my lifetime, but especially the 
last 25 years.
    This particular bill would provide $100 million in direct 
economic support to regions to implement both an economic plan 
and also to implement support for workers and small businesses. 
So we have one proposal that focuses on regions that have 
suffered those kinds of losses by way of transition or job 
loss.
    The second bill I have is the Payback Act, which would 
direct the revenue--the revenue derived from antidumping and 
countervailing duties--back to communities impacted by trade.
    I would just ask you to comment on those proposals, and 
then we will wrap up and give time back to the chairman.
    Mr. Blatt. I appreciate that. And I remember Mr. Jennings 
talking about being from Steubenville, OH. I am also from that 
area in southeast Ohio, and if you look in that area, at one 
time Pittsburgh Steel employed about 3,000 people. The Ormet 
Corporation that I came out of employed 2,250 people when I was 
hired in 1979. And right beside that plant was the Consolidated 
Aluminum plant that had 1,700 people who were employed in that 
as well.
    So if you just talk about one area within 50 miles of each 
other, all those plants are gone, and all those jobs are lost. 
And so that would be a big boost to that region. It is not 
unlike any other regions that you have in Pennsylvania or all 
over this country that need that help. And it is what we ought 
to be doing for our workers and for our communities in this 
country.
    Senator Casey. Mr. Blatt, thanks very much. And this is 
probably the first hearing I have ever been in ahead of Senator 
Brown in questions. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    Senator Warner?
    Senator Warner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for holding this hearing. And I appreciate the fact 
that both you and Senator Crapo have already raised the issue 
of protecting critical supply chains, particularly advanced 
technology like semiconductors.
    I know it was not too long ago that, if we talked about 
government investment in this category, it would sound like it 
was industrial policy, and that was a bad name, a bad word. But 
I think we have to understand that we have to use the tax code 
and, in certain places, direct government investment to be 
competitive.
    I like to point out, way back in 1979 when the U.S. 
Government put about $4 billion into a new area called GPS, 
that really has revolutionized how our economy works--that $4 
billion being equivalent to $15 billion today.
    I think, as we think about areas where we, America needs to 
lead, the semiconductor industry is a clear example of that. 
And unfortunately, we have seen America's share of the 
semiconductor industry go from 37 percent in 1990, now 
projected to be about 9 percent by 2030. In the meantime, China 
has gone the absolute opposite, from about 12 percent of the 
market to 30 percent expected in 2030.
    China, as a matter of fact--as the chairman and I know, 
sitting on the Intel Committee--is looking at a $150-billion-
plus investment in semiconductors.
    So there is legislation that was included in the NDAA, the 
so-called CHIPS Act that Senator Cornyn and I think will 
probably speak to it. A number of members on the committee have 
been supportive of it. But I wanted to ask Mr. Davis, this kind 
of all-of-the-above, both tax incentives as well as direct 
government investment in semiconductors, how critical is that 
for not only Intel, but for maintaining America's position in 
the global challenges around semiconductors, which we all know 
is ``the sauce inside,'' to paraphrase your logo, of virtually 
everything that happens in advanced manufacturing and 
technology development.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Senator Warner. And thank you for 
your leadership on the CHIPS Act as well. I appreciate that.
    You know, I think you pointed out the salient statistic, 
which is, there is policy activity that is driving a shift in 
the U.S. competitiveness for attracting semiconductor 
manufacturing, and semiconductor investment overall. And if you 
look at China, Taiwan, South Korea, all of the areas where 
there has been substantial growth in the percent of 
semiconductor manufacturing taking place, it has been with a 
coordinated set of policies to induce investment in those 
countries.
    So it is very much, in some ways, a policy of those 
countries that semiconductors are so fundamental to their 
economic base and to their national security that they are 
going to do things beyond normal tax policy to incent. And 
really, the U.S. has not taken that position.
    And so I think you can point to the success of others as a 
way of perhaps pointing to--if we took a more direct focus on 
everything from the grants that have been discussed over time 
and the investment tax credit that has focused on this, this is 
really a direct response to what is happening in the rest of 
the world.
    Senator Warner. Thank you. And I hope--again, I think we 
will be able to work on this, and I am glad we got it into the 
NDAA.
    I want to turn to my friend Jay Timmons for my last 
question. And this is a subject, Jay, you and I have worked on 
and talked about a long time. I frankly think if we look back 
over the last year, the government, under both the last 
administration and this administration, has stepped up in a 
major way to deal with COVID.
    The only challenge, I believe--or the biggest challenge, 
actually--is we have spent about $5 trillion but not nearly 
enough on workforce retraining. I think a number of the jobs 
that we have lost are not coming back. This is a move toward a 
digital economy.
    You and I have talked--and I would like you to comment on 
this. I think we need to create the equivalent of an R&D tax 
credit for companies that invest in their workforce to increase 
the quality of that workforce, to alleviate the challenge we 
have right now where a company, a manufacturing company, goes 
out and spends $5,000 on a robot, and gets an R&D tax credit. 
The robot is an asset you can put on your balance sheet. And if 
you are a public company, you can report it. If you make those 
same investments in workers to be more efficient, and 
steelworkers to be more efficient than the robot, you do not 
get any of that tax accounting or reporting treatment.
    Jay, can you speak to how we can make sure that we incent 
companies with the tax code to make that upscaling investment 
in the workforce?
    Mr. Timmons. Just a couple of--I know we have just a couple 
of seconds, Senator. We have been working on this since 
``communities and schools'' days, and thank you for the 
question.
    So just a brief synopsis. A tax credit in this area can 
really play an important role in helping train the workforce of 
tomorrow. We did make recommendations last year on the supply 
chain. And we know that high-quality ``earn and learn'' models 
are really essential to staff manufacturing facilities 
efficiently.
    Deferring the costs associated with these programs, a new 
deduction could be put in place for items such as--and you 
mentioned some of them--but items like the initial setup costs, 
cost of wages for learners and trainers, other direct costs 
associated with these types of programs.
    And then secondly, I would say that employees should not be 
penalized for investments that employers make in their skills. 
There is guidance right now from the IRS that allows only 
$5,200 or so for educational assistance to an employee to be 
excluded from an employee's gross income. And we think that 
that should be at least doubled to about $11,500.
    The Chairman. Mr. Timmons, I am very interested in this 
subject; we just have to move on. Thank you, Senator Warner.
    Mr. Timmons. Understood. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Young?
    Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Ranking Member, for holding this important hearing. And I also 
want to thank our five witnesses for lending their time and 
expertise to the whole committee today.
    We are looking forward to building a post-COVID economy and 
strengthening, even supercharging, our manufacturing sector. 
And it is critical that, as we think about this, we identify as 
many ways as possible to increase investment in research and 
development in this country.
    To that end, yesterday I reintroduced a piece of 
legislation, the American Innovation and Jobs Act, along with 
Senator Hassan. This would expand the R&D tax credit for 
innovative startups and ensure companies can continue to 
expense R&D costs in the year in which they are incurred.
    I want to thank Senators Portman and Sasse and Cortez Masto 
for joining Senator Hassan and me in advancing this important 
bill.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent to 
insert in the hearing record a letter of support for this bill 
from Mr. Steve Ferguson, who is CEO of Cook Group, a medical 
device manufacturer in Bloomington, IN; and from Mike Mansuetti 
of Bosch North America. They have an electric drive facility in 
Albion, IN.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The letters appear in the appendix beginning on p. 104.]
    Senator Young. Thank you.
    Mr. Jennings, since 1954 companies have been able to deduct 
their R&D expenditures as they incur them. But beginning in 
2022, as I know was mentioned earlier, companies will be 
required to spread out their deductions over a number of years 
rather than deduct them all in the current year.
    If the United States does not preserve immediate expensing, 
it will become one of only two countries in the industrialized 
world--the other being Belgium--that require the amortization 
of R&D expenses. To continue America's global leadership, we 
have to ensure the next generation of cars, computers, med 
devices, and other 
cutting-edge technologies is developed and produced here in the 
United States.
    So, Mr. Jennings, if companies are unable to expense their 
R&D costs in the year they are incurred, how will that affect 
Ford's ability to invest in tomorrow's technologies?
    [Pause.]
    Senator Young. Mr. Jennings?
    Mr. Jennings. Yes. For some reason, I get double-muted. 
Hopefully you can hear me now.
    Senator Young. Yes.
    Mr. Jennings. First of all, Senator Young, I appreciate 
your leadership in this space, along with Senator Hassan. It 
would specifically affect Ford. For example, we spent $5 
billion the past 2 years straight. The ability for us to deduct 
those expenses allows us to prioritize R&D going forward.
    So it is critical that we continue on with the ability to 
deduct that, because for that R&D, it puts us in a 
noncompetitive position globally.
    Senator Young. And since you would be in a noncompetitive 
position globally, I presume that also means that your 
inability to immediately deduct these expenditures would come 
at the expense of some manufacturing jobs here in the United 
States and throughout your broader supply chain. Is that indeed 
the case?
    Mr. Jennings. Absolutely. Again, with the total of $5 
billion, that has a substantial impact to our business plan and 
bottom line. So it is critical for us to be able to continue to 
deduct those expenses.
    Senator Young. Okay. Well, I know Hoosiers certainly care 
about that.
    Mr. Davis, in the 21st century, the U.S.'s share of R&D 
investments has fallen dramatically from 39 percent to 29 
percent. Meanwhile, we continue to face stiff competition from 
countries like China. China has aggressively focused on growing 
its R&D sector and, by some estimates, will surpass American 
R&D investment just by the end of this decade.
    So, Mr. Davis, in your testimony you rightly point out the 
danger of an anemic domestic R&D sector, not only for economic 
loss but as a genuine national security risk. If we fail to 
take our competitor seriously, I have grave concerns about the 
ability of the U.S. to maintain our role as a global leader in 
this regard.
    So what signal, Mr. Davis, would an expansion of permanent 
expensing give the companies that are planning their 
investments over the next few years? Speak to that issue, 
please.
    Mr. Davis. You know, I think when it comes to tax policy, 
predictability and competitiveness cannot be overstated. And 
when you look at R&D, if we do not go back to deductibility, we 
will be completely out of step from a competitive standpoint 
with the rest of the world.
    It is handing our competitors overseas, essentially, a gift 
to compete more effectively with the U.S. and to attract more 
R&D offshore. And I think one of the reasons why there is great 
bipartisan support for this--and we appreciate your support, 
Senator--is, that just makes no sense.
    Senator Young. Well, thank you so much, sir. And as the 
leader of Intel, we worked with your team as we have polished 
this legislation. So I am aware that passing the American 
Innovation and Jobs Act would help ensure that Hoosier 
companies, like our auto assemblers that have been seeing 
shortages of semiconductors, would have sufficient and steady 
access to these important components in the future, thus saving 
Hoosier jobs and jobs for other Americans.
    So, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
    Senator Whitehouse?
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I 
may, I would like to go back to Mr. Timmons.
    Mr. Timmons, last year the National Association of 
Manufacturers was identified as the worst obstructer of climate 
action in America. I doubt that was your favorite day. I am 
also prepared to concede that I actually think the Chamber of 
Commerce earned that distinction more than the National 
Association of Manufacturers did. You were in a virtual tie 
with the Chamber.
    But never mind that. My question is, what is the National 
Association of Manufacturers' position on climate legislation 
in Congress today?
    Mr. Timmons. Senator, thanks for that question. This is not 
a--this is not an unexpected question. You and I have had these 
conversations before, although I have to say, I have not 
actually seen that study that you cite. So, look, as you and I 
have discussed before, manufacturers are very committed to the 
cause of climate change, and to decarbonizing our environment.
    In fact, we have shared this with you and others, ``The 
Promise Ahead,'' which is our plan on taking action on climate 
change. And it is true that we have made some great strides as 
a Nation to reduce emissions that cause climate change. But we 
have done so oftentimes in spite of policies that come out of 
Washington, and not because of them.
    We have really spent far too long, I think, apportioning 
blame over climate change, and really too little time working 
on solutions. And that is why we do call for action, and that 
is what this plan is all about.
    Senator Whitehouse. So let's talk about solutions for a 
moment.
    Mr. Timmons. I am happy to do that, sir.
    Senator Whitehouse. First of all, do you see a way forward 
to solve the climate crisis and avert climate pandemonium 
without Congress stepping in in some significant way?
    Mr. Timmons. So, look, I think--I think we need a global 
solution that is binding. And this is something you and I have 
talked about before as well. And if we can get a comprehensive 
climate treaty, that really is the foundation of the U.S. 
response to climate change, to prevent carbon leakage and solve 
the underlying problems. I think that is where we need to go. 
And I look forward----
    Senator Whitehouse. Which Congress would then need to 
enforce by laws, correct? That's the way those things work.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure.
    Senator Whitehouse. So now we have gotten through the 
predicates into the punch line here. Assuming that there must 
be significant climate legislation in Congress, and that NAM 
would support that as part of your plan, what are the key 
attributes that that legislation should have in order to 
protect and expand domestic manufacturing?
    Mr. Timmons. Well, as I said, it needs to be enforceable 
globally. We cannot do this alone.
    Senator Whitehouse. Border adjustments?
    Mr. Timmons. So we need to be able to enforce actions of 
our trading partners. I think also, Senator, we have some 
environmental goods agreements with Europe that we have talked 
about for a while. We would like to see that get enacted. And I 
also think the whole purpose of today's hearing has to do with 
tax policy and how that can incentivize our ability to do all 
of the things that we have talked about, not only investing in 
hiring and raising wages and benefits, but also being able to 
take on new technologies.
    The R&D tax credit, for instance, is key to helping us 
create new technologies that will help us not only clean the 
air and the water, but decarbonize the environment. Those are 
things that we know--quite frankly, we know where the world is 
headed. We know where we want the world to head.
    Manufacturers are a key to that. And we have been able to 
make a lot of progress in the last few years, but I believe tax 
policy and enforceable trade agreements--pardon me; yes, 
enforceable trade agreements--but also enforceable climate 
agreements, are critical to our ability to do that.
    Senator Whitehouse. As we try to figure out how to put 
enforceable climate agreements and enforceable trade agreements 
together, one of the things that I often hear is that if you do 
not have the capacity for the United States to apply border 
adjustments, and you have other countries that are not in step 
with our climate strategy, you could have leakage of jobs for 
the very artificial reason that they have put themselves out of 
step with our climate strategy. Do you agree with that way of 
looking at the problem that you described?
    Mr. Timmons. So, Senator Cardin also mentioned that during 
this hearing. And we are happy to sit down and talk with you 
and your colleagues about any proposals that will help us 
incentivize manufacturing in the United States to meet the 
goals that we share on cleaning the environment.
    Senator Whitehouse. But you concede that border leakage is 
a problem, a potential problem?
    Mr. Timmons. Yes.
    Senator Whitehouse. Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, I think my time is just out, and I will yield 
back. And I thank Mr. Timmons for his conversation with me.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Hassan, I have to go vote. Why don't you ask your 
questions, and if Senator Crapo comes back, he will chair until 
I can get back. All right? So we will recognize you at this 
time.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I greatly 
appreciate that. And I certainly appreciate all of the 
witnesses. And I am grateful for your testimony.
    I am going to follow up on a number of questions you have 
already heard from Senator Young and others about the 
importance of research and development tax incentives.
    So, Mr. Timmons, yesterday I introduced the bill that 
Senator Young talked about. It is a bipartisan bill with him 
and Senators Cortez Masto, Portman, and Sasse. It would 
strengthen research and development tax incentives for domestic 
manufacturers and innovative startups.
    Our bill would expand the R&D tax credit for new and small 
businesses by doubling the cap on the startup credit. The bill 
would also strengthen vital R&D incentives for the 
manufacturing sector by preserving full R&D write-offs. 
Together, these provisions will help secure U.S. supply chains, 
boost the economic recovery from COVID-19, and increase our 
competitiveness with China.
    Mr. Timmons, in your testimony you mention the importance 
of our bipartisan bill for domestic manufacturers. Could you 
elaborate on how strengthening R&D tax incentives would help 
secure our manufacturing supply chain?
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you very much, Senator. I certainly can, 
and I thank you so much for your leadership on this very 
critical piece of legislation, and the leadership of Senator 
Young and the co-sponsors that you mentioned as well.
    Put very simply, research and development is the lifeblood 
of manufacturing. And manufacturers, as you have already heard 
today, perform nearly two-thirds of all private-sector research 
and development in the United States. And that is the most of 
any sector.
    There is fierce, fierce global competition for research and 
development. And right now, the United States is, frankly, 
woefully behind the world when it comes to research and 
development tax incentives. And I worry about amortization.
    And as you have already heard, if we allow that to occur, 
the United States and Belgium would be the only countries that 
require amortization. I think Belgium is a beautiful country, 
but I do not think that we want ourselves to be in the same 
economic class, or the same economic policies as Belgium.
    If you look at a study by Ernst and Young, it finds that 
amortization would reduce R&D spending by about $4 to $10 
billion a year. And you have already heard from Mr. Davis that 
each billion dollars of research and development investment 
lost could cost about 17,000 jobs right here in the United 
States.
    So we need to get back on track. We need to get rid of the 
amortization clause. Your bill will help ensure that the tax 
code continues to support innovation. And it is key to helping 
America be a competitive location for onshoring.
    And we really do appreciate the fact that this is 
bipartisan, and we really look forward to working with members 
on both sides to advance this bill and get it signed into law.
    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Timmons. I appreciate 
that. I want to give Mr. Davis and Mr. Jennings a chance just 
to comment on it too.
    So, Mr. Davis, I would like to ask you about the importance 
of R&D tax incentives for our country's production of 
semiconductors, which are obviously critical to our economic 
and national security. Your testimony discusses how the 
bipartisan R&D bill would support domestic semiconductor 
manufacturing. So could you just explain to the committee how 
these incentives in the bill would promote U.S. leadership on 
semiconductors?
    Mr. Davis. Sure. Thank you. First off, thank you for your 
leadership and for the bill you put forth, which I think is so 
critical to really avoiding regressing on R&D. The U.S. has 
been a true leader in R&D and, yes, the rest of the world is 
investing more over time. But our leadership reflects the 67 
years of our treatment for R&D, which understands that 
encouraging it through deductibility leads to a very positive 
outcome. And I do not see any reason why we would want to go 
from what is seen as the world's standard today to the most 
regressive treatment of R&D going forward. And we thank you for 
your support.
    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you very much for that comment. 
And, Mr. Jennings, could you explain to the committee how 
strengthening R&D tax incentives, as we do in the bipartisan 
bill, would help promote domestic production of advanced 
batteries?
    Mr. Jennings. Absolutely. And again, Senator Hassan, we 
appreciate your leadership in this space, along with Senator 
Young.
    As I had mentioned, $10 billion just in the past 2 years, 
in reference to R&D research within Ford. The ability to have 
that immediate deduction helps us to prioritize as we continue 
forward. And we need that to remain competitive globally.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
    And I do not see--oh, there. I do see Senator Crapo, so I 
will yield back to Senator Crapo. And thanks to all the 
witnesses for your testimony.
    Senator Crapo [presiding]. Thank you.
    And next is Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Thank you 
for this conversation. It has been very enlightening,
    Let me start with Mr. Jennings, and maybe Mr. Davis, 
because I think going beyond just incentivizing domestic 
manufacturing to mining and production of raw materials is a 
conversation worth having.
    In Nevada, lithium mining is occurring. We have companies 
that either have to obtain it or are seeking to mine lithium 
there. Being able to obtain these critical minerals and 
resources domestically, we all know, will help incentivize 
domestic manufacturing and technology. And it will be key to 
meeting the rapidly growing need and balancing our 
environmental concerns at the same time. It can be done.
    But let me ask you, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Davis, what 
incentive strategies do you think we can explore to ensure that 
these credits are available for efficient and safe raw mineral 
extraction, and production as well.
    You have talked about tax credits for other things, but 
what about the actual extraction? Have you any thoughts about 
that?
    Mr. Jennings. Senator Cortez Masto, I can go ahead and 
start. We have looked at that because, again, we need to not 
only look at the vehicle assembly, but all the way through that 
value chain, because that is how we remain competitive.
    So not only are we looking at those credits--again, I would 
call that tier one and OEM level--but all the way through that 
entire value chain to ensure that we are competitive, again, 
globally.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes?
    Mr. Davis. No; I think I agree with Jonathan's points 
entirely.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. And I do too. I think the 
conversation we are having today is crucial if we are going to 
really bring back that manufacturing, bring back and make sure 
our workforce is strong and a part of this new future 
innovation economy. And we need to make that investment. I 
agree with my colleagues that that definitely needs to occur 
here in the United States at so many levels, and that is why I 
so appreciate this conversation.
    Let me just say also, I am so happy to be on the bill, The 
American Innovation and Jobs Act, with my Senator colleagues 
here that have talked about it.
    But, Mr. Timmons, let me ask you this. We have a few small 
companies leading research and development in Nevada, like 
Dragonfly Energy, and they assemble battery packs for RVs and 
for domestic manufacturing of the next generation of lithium-
ion batteries in Nevada.
    And we have talked about some of the options that are 
available to them through The American Innovation and Jobs Act, 
but what other options should we be exploring here through the 
tax code to support small businesses and entrepreneurs to be 
able to develop new technologies? Do you have any thoughts 
there?
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that question, Senator, and also 
again thank you for your leadership on the R&D bill. We 
appreciate that.
    You have a lot of small and medium-sized manufacturers in 
Nevada. Click Bond, for instance, is on my board of directors, 
and they too innovate on new solutions for fasteners for 
aircraft and other products like that.
    So I think for small and medium-sized manufacturers, we are 
going to need to look at--and I realize it is not the focus of 
today's conversation--but we are going to have to look at 
making the pass-through rates more competitive. Small and 
medium-sized manufacturers are at many disadvantages, not the 
least of which is an outsized burden when it comes to the cost 
of compliance for regulations, almost twice as much as larger 
manufacturers.
    They also find themselves with a less competitive tax code. 
The pass-through rates are different for them, as you all know. 
And I welcome having a conversation about that in the future, 
because that is where the job creation is really the most 
energizing and robust in this country: small and medium-sized 
enterprises. And we need to do everything we can to incentivize 
them through the tax code to be able to do exactly that, and to 
invest more in this country.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I look forward to the 
work. Thank you all.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
    Next is Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. All right, Ranking Member Crapo. Thank you.
    Senator Stabenow and Senator Manchin and I recently 
introduced a bipartisan bill called the American Jobs in Energy 
Manufacturing Act. It dedicates $8 billion to a modified 
version of the section 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax 
credit that will track clean energy manufacturing and recycling 
companies in areas with high unemployment, and in places where 
coal mines or coal power plants have closed.
    Expanding this credit will provide a powerful tool to help 
create jobs in coal- and energy-producing communities in 
Montana, as well as across the country. And it will ensure 
these workers continue to play a big part, as they should, in 
American energy production.
    However, it is also important that we consider how section 
48C would interact with other broader provisions, including 
several Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions that are set to expire 
this year, if no further action is taken.
    Professor Hanlon, how would you expect a targeted provision 
like section 48C to interact with R&D expensing, the current 
EBITA calculation of the limitation of interest deductibility, 
bulk depreciation, and would a failure to extend these 
provisions go against the very positive effects of the section 
48C incentive?
    Dr. Hanlon. Thank you for that question, Senator. I think 
you are exactly right in the sense that, if we do not extend 
the other provisions like R&D expensing, maybe bonus 
depreciation, and fix the limitation in 163(j), that would cut 
against these incentives.
    In other words, you would be giving on the one hand and 
taking away on the other hand, essentially, some of the 
benefits that we would be providing.
    And if I can just add, I think the corporate AMT that is 
being proposed by the Biden administration would also work 
against these incentives, because financial accounting would 
not have this incentive embedded in it. And so on the AMT side, 
you would not get that incentive. And so it would work against 
the credit.
    Senator Daines. Thank you for those comments.
    Mr. Timmons, in your testimony you mentioned that 
businesses across the country have told you the reduction of 
tax rates on corporations and pass-throughs that were enacted 
as part of the 2017 tax cuts have sparked new investment by 
businesses, helped them add jobs, and increased wages.
    One part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that I am 
particularly proud of is that 20-percent deduction for pass-
through businesses. In fact, when I look at my home State of 
Montana, 99 percent of businesses in Montana are small 
businesses. As we have seen--remember that debate back in 
2017--a lot of the job creation in the economy came from the 
pass-through side, even versus the C corp side. I was for 
lowering rates for both, but we have to keep our eye on, 
certainly, these pass-throughs.
    The bill that Senators Cassidy, Scott, and Portman recently 
introduced would make this tax deduction permanent, which I 
believe would give businesses the certainty to continue 
investing in businesses, as well as the workforce.
    My question is, in your opinion, would it not be better for 
Congress to act early to make this deduction permanent, before 
it expires at the end of 2025? And related to that, what would 
be the consequences of not extending this very important 
deduction?
    Mr. Timmons. Well, thank you for that question, Senator. I 
think it is a very important question, and it relates to the 
previous discussion we had about the power of the small and the 
medium-sized manufacturers in this country.
    In fact, of our 14,000 members, 90 percent of them are 
small and medium-sized enterprises. So we obviously see the tax 
code as very consequential to small and medium-sized 
enterprises.
    And yes, I would very much agree with you that we need to 
take that issue on now and not wait until the last minute. As 
these businesses are trying to figure out exactly what to do in 
the future, when it comes to expanding their operations or 
hiring more workers, they need to plan ahead. This cannot be 
something that happens right at the last minute.
    You specifically asked--and in fact, I would say I would 
like to see even more generous tax policy, quite frankly, for 
small and medium manufacturers, because they truly do power the 
economy.
    You asked specifically about some of the results of tax 
reform from 2017; 263,000 manufacturing jobs were created in 
2018. That was the best job growth that we have seen in the 
sector in over 2 decades. We had the fastest growth in wages of 
3 percent following tax reform as well.
    So we have seen a lot of investment. We have seen a lot of 
job growth because of those tax policies, and we see it in the 
data. But I also hear it anecdotally. I know you do too. I know 
Todd O'Hair of the Montana Chamber of Commerce--that is our 
State affiliate there. I am sure you and he talk about this a 
lot. It is anecdotally what you hear from manufacturers all 
around the country: how they feel empowered and supercharged, 
even during the pandemic. Even during a time when everything 
should have gone south, and much of it did clearly, 
manufacturing was able to weather the storm because of those 
competitive policies that we had in place.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Timmons.
    Senator Crapo, I think I am out of time. Is that right?
    Senator Crapo. Yes; that is correct.
    Senator Daines. Okay. All right; thanks.
    Senator Crapo. Sorry, Steve.
    Next is Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you, Senator Crapo. And I am 
grateful to you and Chairman Wyden for having this hearing.
    Really what I would like to do is just first make a 
confession. I am one of those who, from an economic standpoint, 
always thought that efficiency and low-cost providers were a 
good idea, no matter where the manufacturing occurred. But I 
have reevaluated my opinion in light of the pandemic--and in 
light of the vulnerability of our supply chains in general. And 
many of us have mentioned in the course of this hearing and 
elsewhere the importance of our competition with China, whether 
it is in 5G, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum 
computing, or you name it. And so, I do think some sort of 
industrial policy considerations need to apply.
    And the question I have for each of the witnesses is, if 
you had to choose between an annual appropriations process and 
a refundable tax credit like the CHIPS for America Act that 
Senator Warner and I have proposed--and that many others on a 
bipartisan basis have supported--which would you choose? If you 
had to choose just one in terms of its predictability and 
usefulness? Anybody who would like to answer. Maybe start with 
Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. And thank you for 
your leadership on the CHIPS Act. I think an annual 
appropriation is difficult for those of us who make large 
investments and have to make decisions about what the 
environment is that we are going to be making those investments 
in.
    So moving away from annual and going back to, as I said, 
the predictable and competitive--and in our case that is 
competing with Asia for semiconductor investments. So much more 
on the intent of the CHIPS Act.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Timmons, do you have a view on that?
    Mr. Timmons. Certainly. And I agree completely. An annual 
appropriation, unfortunately, or an annual decision, if you 
will, does not make for predictability or stability. And we do 
need that in order to compete and succeed in a global economy.
    And I will say this, Senator: I think you can have both. 
Products made in America--look, I represent manufacturers in 
America. I want everything made in the United States. You know, 
I want American workers to benefit.
    We know that that is not possible every time, but we ought 
to be doing everything we can to attract investment and job 
creation here. And so I would say you can do that, and you can 
have low-cost products being made here as long as we have the 
right tax and regulatory policies in place, which is what this 
hearing is all about today. And I completely agree with your 
statement and support that legislation, and I hope that we can 
see it enacted.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you. If there is one thing that the 
virus has taught us, it is about the vulnerability of our 
supply chains, starting with PPE. But it does not end with PPE. 
And obviously semiconductors--China is building 17 foundries as 
we are thinking about building one, or having one built in 
Arizona. So I think this is a critical one. But it is not the 
only critical one.
    So I hope that all of you will help contribute to our 
thinking about how we prioritize the manufacturing that does 
have national security implications, in addition to just the 
economics of the situation.
    So thank you for being here, and thanks for your testimony.
    Back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Crapo. All right. I am not sure if we have any 
Senators who remain back yet. There is a vote going on, and we 
expect some to come back, but let me go through--is Senator 
Cassidy available?
    [No response.]
    Senator Crapo. And how about Senator Brown?
    [No response.]
    Senator Crapo. All right. Well, I have a couple of 
questions that I did not get to, and so, while we wait for a 
couple of those Senators to come back, or the chairman to come 
back, let me go on with the line of questioning that I started 
out with.
    I think many of you very capably pointed out the importance 
of protecting our tax credits for investment, research and 
development, and having a stable system in which we do not go 
through this annual process for the tax extenders, or even the 
longer process that we got out of the reconciliation bill for 
some of the tax credit policies. And I agree very much with 
that.
    I am very concerned, however, about some of the reports 
that we are getting from the White House in terms of its 
intended proposals for tax policy that would increase the broad 
base--what I consider to be the very important base of the 
corporate income tax rate reductions that we achieved in the 
TCJA.
    We reduced it, as you recall, from 35 percent to 21 
percent, which still left us, when you look at the averages 
that Michelle Hanlon pointed out, still left us with one of the 
higher tax rates, but still competitive, right? Really sort of 
in the middle of the pack, if you will, with our global 
competitors.
    And so I just would like to ask--I see the chairman is 
back, so let me just ask Mr. Davis and Mr. Blatt. If you could, 
just quickly respond to the concern that I have that we should 
not look at offsetting the needed stability we need in the R&D 
and investment tax credit arena with a corporate tax rate 
increase.
    Mr. Davis. Yes, I think they work against each other. I 
think, as Michelle talked about earlier, it is giving with one 
hand and taking with another. And really, as you know, the R&D 
tax credit is not a give. It is a void moving to a takeaway 
that would make us completely uncompetitive with the rest of 
the world. And so, I fully support a focus on a predictable, 
very competitive corporate tax rate, and then preserving the 
deductibility for R&D.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Blatt?
    [Pause.]
    Senator Crapo. I think he may have stepped away from the 
camera for a minute. With that--oh, here he is. Did you hear 
the question, Mr. Blatt?
    Mr. Blatt. I did hear the question, Senator Crapo. And I 
appreciate the question. I probably have more of a unique 
opinion on R&D than probably the others do, and I think there 
are probably two types of R&D that we look at as an 
organization.
    First of all, the first part of the R&D is the fact that we 
are trying to make sure that we stay competitive, and we have 
more productivity. In that respect, I would be okay with making 
sure that we keep the tax rate low for that type of R&D.
    But if we are doing research and development to try to 
lower the workforce or take people out of the workplace, then I 
would have a different view of that. And so that would take 
people out of the economy, and I think that goes against what 
we are trying to do here.
    Senator Crapo. Understood. Thank you. And I did want your 
perspective on that.
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes. Thank you----
    Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to turn it back to 
you. And I think Senator Brown is the next one in line.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Crapo. And Senator Brown 
is indeed the next one in line. I want to thank all my 
colleagues for their patience. We have had a lot of Senators 
interested, and understandably so.
    Senator Brown?
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Crapo. Just 
like old times, calling on me. Thank you.
    Last week, 81 workers in Bucyrus, OH, saw their jobs 
outsourced to China. Bucyrus city council and the union offered 
to find ways to save the jobs. They sent a letter to the 
company offering to work with the stakeholders to find a 
solution. GE Savant refused. Now 81 workers face tough 
conversations at the kitchen table about how their families 
survive. ``What do we do next?''
    In this case, GE's lighting plant in Logan, OH makes the 
glass for remaining assembly lines in Bucyrus. Its workers 
belong to the USW.
    So, Mr. Blatt, briefly, what happens to U.S. workers in 
factories when parts of a supply chain like that go overseas?
    Mr. Blatt. Thank you, Senator Brown. Unfortunately, we see 
a lot of that within our country, and within our union: 
companies moving overseas. And in this particular instance with 
Savant, we just actually got done getting a contract with the 
company in Logan, OH. But now the fact that they make the glass 
casings for the LED lights that are finished in Bucyrus, that 
plant is now looking for a place--what are they going to do 
with these glass casings that they are making?
    That puts pressure not only on the company to find 
someplace to put their product, but it also puts pressure on 
the workers to know whether they are going to have a job or 
not, which then puts pressure on the community to wonder if 
those jobs are going to be available for workers now or workers 
in the future?
    And so, unfortunately, it puts all kinds of pressure on all 
kinds of people. And you know, companies like GE are famous for 
doing that, and it seems that that will put pressure now to 
maybe lose that facility in Logan, OH as well.
    Senator Brown. Well, thank you. And we will continue to 
talk to you and to the two communities about it.
    Mr. Timmons, it was good talking to you the other day. I 
also appreciated a chance to talk to a fellow Ohioan. Thank you 
for that.
    What steps can we, as policy-makers, take to halt the 
closure of plants in towns like Bucyrus?
    Mr. Timmons. Senator, you missed the Ohio lovefest that we 
had here just a little while ago. You have three panelists with 
Ohio ties. So it is always good to be with Ohioans.
    Senator, that is a great question, and it is one that we 
addressed in our proposal on strengthening manufacturing supply 
chains. I think it really applies to existing facilities that 
are here as well. And that is making sure that we have a broad-
based tax credit that encourages manufacturing investment here 
and support for workforce training programs. Donnie--I was very 
happy to hear him talk about the need for ensuring that we are 
not only training but retraining and future-proofing jobs.
    A tax credit would help manufacturers achieve that. We have 
already talked about ensuring that the tax code supports 
research and development, protecting interest deductibility, 
and getting an annual report on American competitiveness. It is 
something we are not doing. There has been some discussion 
today of industrial policy, and I know that for years we have 
kind of avoided that term. I, frankly, am not afraid of that 
term; it does not bother me, because everything we do should be 
directed at strengthening manufacturing and increasing 
manufacturing jobs here in the United States.
    But I think all of those things, Senator, as well as 
infrastructure investment--as I mentioned in my opening 
statement--and other priorities, can help us do exactly that 
here in this country to make sure that we are more competitive.
    Senator Brown. Thank you.
    I have heard there was bad news in another case today that 
we just heard, and, Mr. Jennings, as a Clevelander, I want to 
talk to you about this.
    Clevelanders turned on the local news and saw headlines 
about yet another American corporation deciding to build things 
in Mexico instead of Ohio. Ford had made a 2019 commitment to 
invest $900 million in the Ohio Assembly Plant of Lorain in 
Avon Lake, OH, an investment they promised would create more 
than 1,500 jobs, where instead now it is deciding to not honor 
that proffer and instead build the next-generation vehicle in 
Mexico.
    Mr. Jennings, you know how important the Avon Lake facility 
is to Lorain and northeast Ohio. That decision to turn its back 
on the community is just unacceptable. Give me your thoughts 
about that, what a plant--what an investment like that would 
mean to a community.
    Mr. Jennings. So, thank you for the question. As you know, 
Ford employs more hourly workers in the U.S. than any other 
automaker, and we choose to invest in America more than any 
other automaker.
    Specific to the Ohio Assembly Plant that you referenced, we 
have actually invested $185 million and created 100 new jobs 
there at the assembly plant. We are invested at that facility, 
and we are looking to actually increase the capacity that that 
facility provides from the Super Duty truck perspective for 
such a strong demand.
    So we are going to continue to invest and support that 
particular facility there in Ohio.
    Senator Brown. But the $900 million commitment is no 
longer? Is that what you are saying?
    Mr. Jennings. We are continuing to work--we are continuing 
to work and invest in that facility; $185 million has been 
invested at that site. As we continue to look at other 
activities for other vehicle programs, we will be looking 
outside of Ohio.
    Senator Brown. $185 million is less than $900 million. Even 
people in Washington can do that math. So I am hopeful that 
your company will step up and do the right thing here. This is 
not the last time you will hear from us. We have talked to the 
administration. President Biden has strong feelings, I know, 
about this, and I am hopeful we can find a way to invest here. 
I know that kind of investment in an auto plant--I have seen it 
in Lorain, I have seen it in Toledo, I have seen it in 
Youngstown--that kind of investment creates huge numbers of 
good-paying union jobs, and good-paying management jobs too. 
And we want to continue it.
    Thank you so much.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Brown.
    Senator Cassidy is next.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. And then Senator Sasse will close for the 
day.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Senator Crapo, perhaps you know about the 
whereabouts of Senators Cassidy and Sasse? You are on mute.
    Senator Crapo. My understanding is that Senator Sasse will 
not be able to make it back. And since Senator Cassidy is not 
here now, I am assuming the same is true for him, Mr. Chairman. 
So I am assuming we can wrap up.
    The Chairman. I am going to wrap up just with a quick 
statement, because I want you all to know what I am taking away 
from this, because I think it has been a very productive 
session. A lot of constructive thoughts were being offered by 
Senators of a variety of different philosophies.
    And to me, the takeaway is that it is urgent business for 
elected officials to create the conditions for a home-grown 
semiconductor industry that employs high-skilled, high-wage 
workers for a decade, not just for a year. And that is my 
takeaway. And I will just tell you, as the chair of this 
committee, I have seen too many short-term tax policy mistakes.
    One year I voted against the tax extender package because I 
said, ``I am not going to support any tax extenders with a 
shelf life shorter than a carton of eggs.'' So we have had one 
short-term policy after another, one fiscal cliff after 
another, and I just want you walking out of here knowing I 
intend to work with Senator Crapo and all of our colleagues to 
come up with a strong policy--and I think it can be 
bipartisan--that creates the conditions for the kind of home-
grown industry that ensures that we can out-compete China. That 
is what this is all about: out-competing China.
    So I want to thank all of our guests today, all of our 
witnesses, and the members. We had a very high turnout among 
members, which shows how strongly colleagues feel about this.
    I guess the hearing is wrapping up, but it is in the ``to 
be continued'' department. Because issues like the research and 
development questions, they cannot afford to wait. Every single 
day is a mistake to allow that to continue.
    So--to be continued. Thanks, everybody.
    [Several witnesses say, ``Thank you.'']
    [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


Prepared Statement of Donnie Blatt, District 1 Director, United Steel, 
 Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, 
             and Service Workers International Union (USW)
    Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of 
the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name 
is Donnie Blatt, and I am the district director for United Steelworkers 
District 1, which covers the State of Ohio. Our union is the largest 
industrial union in North America, representing workers across the 
economy, but primarily in energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries 
that produce a wide array of materials and products, including paper, 
glass, ceramics, cement, chemicals, aluminum, rubber, oil, mining, and, 
of course, steel.
                              introduction
    I joined the union in April 1979 as a member of Local 5724 at Ormet 
Aluminum Corp. in Hannibal, OH, which was an aluminum smelter that 
employed nearly 1,000 workers. I can speak personally about the hard 
work, pride, and economic security of a union manufacturing job. I can 
also speak about the devastation that a plant closure has on families 
and communities because the Ormet facility was idled in 2013, and torn 
down several years later. At the time, estimated impacts were net job 
loss of over 3,000 and a loss of $9 million in State tax revenue. While 
those numbers are terrible by themselves, I want to paint a more human 
picture. The once bustling downtown with lots of shops is now empty 
with only a handful of small businesses. Families no longer buy new 
cars, and many have moved away in search of good jobs. As a kid, I 
would never have predicted that my hometown would look the way it does 
today.

    My personal experience is not all that different from many of our 
union's current, and former, members and across the State of Ohio. 
Those of us in the industrial heartland know the importance of 
manufacturing jobs in order to support the local tax base and build 
strong communities. We also see the unraveling of supply chains when 
good manufacturing jobs are lost. For example, the Economic Policy 
Institute found that 16.5 indirect jobs are lost per $1 million drop in 
demand for durable manufacturing, compared with 10.6 indirect jobs lost 
for the same demand drop in retail.\1\ For these reasons, Congress and 
the administration should use all of the tools available to retain and 
grow manufacturing jobs and domestic supply chains, including tax 
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.epi.org/press/job-loss-in-manufacturing-has-a-
large-ripple-effect-on-other-jobs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ensuring american workers make products in critical supply chains
    As the committee considers the effects of the tax code on 
manufacturing, we need to make sure that firms and their workers are 
globally competitive and are able to make the products for important 
technology, communications, energy, and medical supply chains 
(including personal protective equipment). This starts with better 
understanding our supply chains and improving our procurement policies. 
President Biden's executive order on America's supply chains furthers 
that process by a review of four vital products: semiconductors, 
critical minerals, advanced batteries, and pharmaceuticals and their 
ingredients. The order also initiates a long-term review of the 
industry basis of six sectors of our overall economy over the next 
year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/
2021/02/24/executive-order-on-americas-supply-chains/.

    Another important way that the tax code can be used is to 
strategically drive investment in industrial facilities to upgrade, 
retool, or install new technologies that ensure the longevity of the 
facility. Capital investments in manufacturing facilities are expensive 
and are expected to last for decades, and that upfront capital is hard 
to come by, especially during a recession like the one we are currently 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
experiencing.

    Our union certainly has had success stories where our employers 
have taken advantage of tax credits to ensure that our members' jobs 
continue. One example is Rotek in Aurora, OH. The 2009 authorization of 
the 48C tax credit helped Rotek make investments to upgrade the 
facility, and our members there continue to make large diameter slewing 
bearings and seamless forged rings that have applications in the oil, 
gas, mining, and wind energy industries. Because of this and other 
successes with 48C in other parts of the country, our union has 
endorsed the American Jobs in Energy Manufacturing Act of 2021, 
introduced by Senator Manchin and Senator Stabenow, to revive and 
expand the 48C tax credit. We particularly support that the legislation 
directs a portion of the spending to manufacturing facilities in 
communities with significant job losses in coal, power plants, and 
manufacturing.

    It is also important that we put our tax code in perspective with 
the globe and that we protect against unnecessary tax base erosion. The 
fact is that the United States raises less revenue from corporate 
income taxes as a share of GDP than all other countries in the G7, and 
almost all other countries in the OECD.\3\ While that may sound good to 
companies in the short term, we often have a saying that management 
will trip over dollars to pick up a penny. We need to ensure that our 
tax code allows government to rebuild our infrastructure, invest in our 
workers, and provide for our security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-
corporate-income-tax-rates-and-revenues-compare-other-countries.

    Meanwhile, we need to work with our allies while improving our tax 
code to discourage outsourcing and profit shifting to low tax 
jurisdictions. We should not allow smaller domestic manufacturers to 
lose out to larger firms who seek to venue shop across the globe for 
lower tax rates. There are policies that this union has supported for 
years now, which would improve transparency and help prevent 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
outsourcing of manufacturing.

    USW has supported the Disclosure of Tax Havens and Offshoring Act, 
which would require multinational corporations to publicly release 
basic revenue and tax information that they are already required to 
collect and privately report to the IRS. This concept of country by 
country reporting will help investors, and prevent multi-national 
corporations from generating artificial profits through risky 
international tax planning.

    Another piece of legislation the union has supported is the No Tax 
Breaks for Outsourcing Act. The legislation would level the playing 
field for small and wholly domestic businesses by eliminating the deep 
discount that multinational companies get for shifting profits offshore 
and outsourcing jobs. It is counterproductive to the goals of a fair 
and growing economy to allow U.S. companies to pay a lower tax rate 
abroad than they pay in the United States.
             creating demand for u.s. manufactured products
    The quest to build out domestic supply chains for critical 
technologies and materials will only be successful if we also use 
policy levers to ensure that domestic manufacturers have customers who 
make long-term commitments to source domestically. Our union can 
provide many examples of U.S. companies whose prices are illegally 
undercut by foreign competitors. Our trade laws need reform, but so do 
our industrial policies that have not successfully created markets for 
domestic manufacturers on a scale large enough to develop robust supply 
chains in this country.

    For example, the bulk of components for new energy technologies 
come from overseas. Yet, USW represents Sharon Tube, owned by Zekelman 
Industries, in Sharon, OH that can make steel tube to the 
specifications for utility scale solar, among other applications. And 
Thomas Strip Steel in Warren, OH, makes paper thin steel for battery 
casings. These companies are both nearly 100 years old and have adapted 
over time to produce products needed for the technology of the era. I 
am confident that U.S. manufacturers can, and would, innovate as long 
as they have customers.

    As we look at the expansion of new technologies, the Federal 
Government has a big role to play in the buildout of supply chains, and 
in making sure that we retain existing supply chains. The auto supply 
chain is a good example. USW members at Warren Coke in Warren, OH, have 
long provided the coke to Cleveland-Cliffs in Cleveland, OH (formerly 
ArcelorMittal) where our members make lightweight steel that goes into 
fuel efficient automobiles. Many car companies have made commitments to 
make more electric vehicles. As they work to meet those commitments, 
Federal policy should ensure that we gain, rather than lose, jobs in 
the auto supply chain.

    Our union has long been a supporter of buy America policies in 
Federal procurement for infrastructure as a way to build markets and to 
ensure that Federal money is spent to support American workers. The 
U.S. Federal procurement expenditures are estimated to have been 
equivalent to 9.3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 
2017.\4\ We need to better harness that power. As President Biden said 
when he signed his executive order on strengthening American 
manufacturing, we need to ``use taxpayers' money to rebuild America. 
We'll buy American products and support American jobs, union jobs.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF11580.pdf.
    \5\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/
01/25/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-executive-order-on-
strengthening-american-manufacturing/.

    These principles are broadly popular. The Alliance for American 
Manufacturing has found in polling that 80 percent of Americans support 
requiring that all 
taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects use American-made goods and 
materials.\6\ We encourage Congress to ensure that Federal spending in 
the form of tax credits is used to benefit industries and companies 
that drive economic recovery in America, and grow our manufacturing 
base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/aamweb/2019_Slide_Deck_-
_Infrastructure_and_Buy_
America_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               conclusion
    In conclusion, well-paid, union, American manufacturing workers are 
critical to our economy. You can see the evidence of that in my 
hometown and many others across the country. Growing a globally 
competitive manufacturing base with mature strategic supply chains is 
critical to both our economic recovery and our national security. I 
thank you for the opportunity to share today how important it is for 
Congress to use many tools--including tax policy--to meet that goal.

                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted for the Record to Donnie Blatt
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Are there existing provisions of tax law that, although 
unintended, provide an incentive for corporations to locate factories 
or jobs abroad? How should Congress reform these provisions of tax law?

    Answer. It has been well documented that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act (TCJA) dramatically cut tax rates, but once you get past the top-
line numbers, there are several provisions which unfortunately 
encourage offshoring of profits and still provide incentives to firms 
that outsource.

    The U.S. system of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) is 
supposed to address offshore profit shifting in excess of 10 percent, 
but companies that shift tangible assets (e.g., machinery, factories, 
stores) can more or less discount those investments from GILTI. This 
incentive to outsource should be closed.

    Finally, if you look at GILTI offshore profits that are subject to 
U.S. taxes, they are effectively taxed at 10.5 percent, which is half 
of the current 21-percent corporate tax rate. Steven M. Rosenthal in 
2017 wrote a comprehensive piece on the potential outsourcing pieces in 
TCJA and can be viewed here: https://www.
taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/current-tax-reform-bills-could-encourage-us-
jobs-factories-and-profits-shift-overseas.

    There are a number of legislative proposals which could improve our 
tax law. The first step is to invest in our country's ability to 
collect the revenue needed to rebuild our country. The Internal Revenue 
Service has been drained of resources and is estimated to be losing 
roughly $600 billion per year in revenue from unpaid taxes, including 
from corporations. Better policing of our tax laws can be unlocked for 
pennies on the dollar. The Treasury Department has estimated a return 
on investment for the treasury of nearly $6 in direct revenue for every 
additional enforcement dollar.

    In addition, legislation such as Senator Whitehouse's No Tax Breaks 
for Outsourcing Act are steps in the right direction.

    Question. The threats to domestic manufacturing associated with our 
reliance on foreign supply chains are not industry-specific. From 
semiconductors to PPE and other essential medical supplies to 
pharmaceuticals, our reliance on foreign supply chains threatens not 
only the health and safety of Ohioans, it impacts their livelihoods and 
the economic health of our communities.

    Members of this committee have put forward some strong proposals to 
invest in supply chain resiliency right here in the U.S. in order to 
better support hardworking Americans and our domestic manufacturing 
facilities. Last year, I introduced the Protecting American Heroes act 
to increase U.S. production of PPE, both to support our COVID-19 
response and to better prepare for future public health emergencies. 
Senator Portman and I have worked together on our Build America, Buy 
America Act, which would both strengthen domestic manufacturing and 
support American workers. And Senator Cassidy and I are drafting 
legislation to create a domestic API reserve and make our 
pharmaceutical supply chain more resilient.

    With his recent executive order on U.S. supply chains, President 
Biden has acknowledged how important it is that we act to strengthen 
the resiliency of our domestic supply chains. We have a once in a 
generation opportunity to advance policy to strengthen domestic 
manufacturing.

    Beyond tax policy, what are some other legislative concepts that 
could help support domestic manufacturing and deliver for American 
workers? Please share a few ideas on policy proposals that would help 
strengthen the resiliency of our domestic supply chains.

    Answer. The ability of Congress to influence the economy to support 
both domestic manufacturing and their workers is vast. This starts with 
recognizing what other governments are providing for State support to 
manufacturers and what that means for private companies here 
domestically. Congress can provide aid to upgrade manufacturing 
facilities and can also provide technical support to foster newer 
industries. This can be done through modification of the tax code 
toward policies that the union supports, like the 48C Advanced Energy 
Manufacturing Tax Credit, but also through direct procurement and 
support to revitalize or build domestic industry. Where there are 
unnatural monopolies that prevent domestic industry from moving further 
up the supply chain, like in solar ingots and wafer where China's 
market dominance crowds out domestic private enterprise, there is a 
need for the U.S. government to intervene. Other proposals, such as 
improving domestic and global labor rights, will also ensure that 
workers are not the ones to suffer when supply chains shift.

    The Blue Green Alliance and the AFL-CIO also had well-developed 
agendas which highlight significant manufacturing policy ideas. They 
are linked below.

    BGA: https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/resources/manufacturing-
agenda-a-national-blueprint-for-clean-technology-manufacturing-
leadership-and-industrial-transformation/.

    AFL-CIO: https://aflcio.org/workers-first-agenda.

                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Elizabeth Warren
    Question. In your written testimony, you note that ``the United 
States raises less revenue from corporate income taxes as a share of 
GDP than all other countries in the G7, and almost all other countries 
in the OECD.'' What are the consequences of low corporate tax revenue 
collections for manufacturing workers, their families, and communities?

    Answer. The deferred maintenance in our communities is showing, and 
it is directly reflected in the reduced revenue brought in by the 
Federal government because of inadequate tax law and insufficient tax 
policy. There are real world impacts when dams fail, power grids buckle 
under climate pressures, and motorists navigate roads that are 
crumbling. Low corporate tax revenue also slows gross domestic product 
because there is not adequate investment in our infrastructure. A 2014 
University of Maryland study found that infrastructure investments 
added as much as $3 to GDP growth for every $1 spent with a bigger 
effect during a recession.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-infrastructure.

    Question. In your written testimony, you note that ``the United 
States raises less revenue from corporate income taxes as a share of 
GDP than all other countries in the G7, and almost all other countries 
in the OECD.'' What are the consequences of low corporate tax revenue 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
collections for manufacturing workers, their families, and communities?

    Answer. The consequences of low corporate tax revenue collections 
impact manufacturing workers personally because of reduced potential to 
supply from their factories the goods that our country needs to make to 
rebuild our country. This impacts their commute home where in 2018 it 
was estimated that commuters wasted an average of 54 hours a year in 
traffic. This impacts timely delivery of goods artificially raising 
prices for them at the grocery store. When a worker wants to go on 
vacation they deal with America's airports, which carry the most 
passengers of any country in the world, but our aviation infrastructure 
is also overburdened, with some 20 percent of all arrivals and 
departures delayed in 2019. These workers lose out on time and, 
ultimately, the chance to pursue happiness when we do not collect 
revenues necessary to run one of the largest economies in the world.

    Question. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed critical weaknesses in our 
Nation's medical supply chain. As the disease spread, we suddenly 
needed many more of the products essential to fighting the virus, 
including masks, glass vials used to store vaccines, and even basic 
chemicals used to make test kits. My Pharmaceutical Supply Chain 
Defense and Enhancement Act would invest $5 billion in domestic drug 
manufacturing and additional funding to create a market for these 
domestically produced pharmaceutical by requiring Federal agencies to 
purchase American-made drugs. Do you believe that this kind of 
investment would help stabilize our supply chain and boost job creation 
here at home?

    Answer. Legislation like the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Defense 
and Enhancement Act will help keep critical, well-paying jobs in the 
pharmaceutical industry here in America, while helping to address our 
Nation's concerning dependence on foreign-made medicines. According to 
the FDA, only 28 percent of active ingredient manufacturing facilities 
are located in the U.S. With China and India manufacturing 
approximately 80 percent of the drugs consumed in the U.S., it is clear 
that we need legislation like the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Defense 
and Enhancement Act to ensure that the production and skills needed to 
produce life-saving medications remain on U.S. soil. As a union, we've 
seen our manufacturing base shrink as company after company has moved 
production overseas. We represent workers at a generic oral-solid dose 
facility in Morgantown, WV that is being shuttered at the end of July. 
The former Mylan facility, which is currently operated by Viatris, is 
costing 1,500 employees their jobs as the company moves production to 
plants overseas. It is clear that more needs to be done. We need 
Federal agencies to be required to purchase American-made drugs in 
order to safeguard our supply chain and workforce. We need legislation 
like the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Defense and Enhancement Act.

                                 ______
                                 
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Idaho
WASHINGTON--U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), ranking member of the U.S. 
Senate Finance Committee, delivered the following remarks at a hearing 
entitled, ``Made in America: Effect of the U.S. Tax Code on Domestic 
Manufacturing.''

    Thank you, Chairman Wyden, and your staff for collaborating with us 
on this bipartisan hearing. There are many areas within the Finance 
Committee's jurisdiction that are ripe for bipartisan support in this 
Congress, and I look forward to working with you on those through 
regular order.

    Today's hearing will focus on the role of tax incentives for 
domestic manufacturing.

    The manufacturing sector is critical to the U.S. economy. In 2019, 
the manufacturing sector accounted for 11 percent of GDP. The U.S. has 
experienced a net loss of manufacturing plants in every year from 1998 
through 2018. The decline in domestic manufacturing jobs may be 
attributable to a number of factors, including increased automation and 
productivity, labor costs, and taxes.

    Taxes can play a significant role in a company's site selection 
process. Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the United States 
had one of the highest corporate income tax rates among developed 
countries. Also before TCJA, the U.S. confronted pressures for domestic 
firms to invert or be acquired by foreign companies, leading to U.S. 
headquarters and jobs going abroad.

    Today, as a result of TCJA, the United States now has a flat 21-
percent corporate income tax rate. Pressures for inversions and 
acquisitions abated. Yet, despite the decreased rate, the U.S. still 
holds the 11th highest corporate tax rate among developed countries. 
The statutory corporate income tax rate is critical to the United 
States' competitiveness in the global market.

    Another key aspect to our competitiveness is capital investment. 
The Internal Revenue Code has a number of tax incentives for capital 
investment, which, when paired with a competitive corporate tax rate, 
are essential to promote domestic manufacturing.

    President Biden's recent executive order notes a growing concern 
about the supply of semiconductors. This is an area of bipartisan 
interest, and I welcome the opportunity to work with Chairman Wyden on 
this. For example, last year, Senators Cornyn and Warner introduced S. 
3933, the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for 
America Act (CHIPS Act), which would create a 40-percent refundable 
investment tax credit for qualified semiconductor equipment or any 
qualified semiconductor manufacturing facility investment expenditures. 
This bill had seven Republicans and five Democrats as cosponsors.

    Another example: just this month, Senators Manchin, Stabenow, and 
Daines introduced S. 622, the American Jobs in Energy Manufacturing 
Act, which offers an $8-billion increase to the section 48C Advanced 
Manufacturing Tax Credit available to manufacturers and other 
industrial users to retool, expand, or build new facilities that make 
or recycle energy-related products.

    Micron, Intel and other American semiconductor manufacturers are 
operating in an increasingly competitive and sometimes unscrupulous 
market. Only a couple of years ago, Chinese state-owned companies stole 
trade secrets from Micron in an effort to gain an advantage against 
leading producers of a sought-after technology. Helping U.S. companies 
strengthen their supply chains to better protect these critical 
technologies is vital to safeguarding national security and the health 
of our economy.

    Chairman Wyden, we have a great panel here, representing a 
comprehensive range of perspectives from the business community, 
academia, as well as labor.

    I look forward to hearing their thoughts as we consider various tax 
proposals that can help to address the global semiconductor shortage, 
supply chain issues, and encourage domestic manufacturing activity.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 ______
                                 
    Prepared Statement of George S. Davis, Executive Vice President 
             and Chief Financial Officer, Intel Corporation
    Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, thank you for the 
opportunity to address the committee today.

    Our Nation and the semiconductor industry have faced unprecedented 
challenges due to the pandemic. Recognizing the critical role of 
technology and our responsibility to our communities, Intel launched a 
$60 million technology initiative to combat the coronavirus through 
accelerating access to technology at the point of patient care, 
scientific research, and ensuring access to online learning for 
students.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-commits-technology-
response-combat-coronavirus/#gs.v42r84.

    Semiconductor technology and Intel's domestic R&D and manufacturing 
operations provide a critical foundation for U.S. economic and national 
security. More than 50 years ago, Intel invented the world's first 
commercial microprocessor. This fueled job growth and development of 
new technologies with major economic benefits. Intel remains the only 
American semiconductor company that still designs and manufactures the 
most advanced logic chips and is the only company that has built 
leading-edge fabs in the U.S. during the last 5 years. I am proud that 
the majority of our manufacturing is conducted in Oregon, Arizona, and 
New Mexico, and, that the majority of Intel's intellectual property 
still resides here at home.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Intel Corporation, Annual Report 10-K, https://www.intc.com/
filings-reports/all-sec-filings?form_type=10-K&year=2020.

    Unfortunately, U.S. leadership in semiconductor manufacturing is at 
risk. Global demand for semiconductors has increased dramatically and 
is projected to grow five percent annually until 2030.\3\ However, only 
12 percent of global semiconductor manufacturing is in the U.S. and 
just nine percent is from American companies. Currently, 80 percent of 
the world's semiconductor manufacturing is concentrated in Asia.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Boston Consulting Group and the Semiconductor Industry 
Association, ``Government Incentives and US Semiconductor 
Manufacturing,'' September 2020, https://www.semiconductors.org
/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Government-Incentives-and-US-
Competitiveness-in-Semiconductor-Manufacturing-Sep-2020.pdf.
    \4\ Ibid.

    U.S. semiconductor manufacturing must regain its competitiveness. 
President Biden's executive order \5\ reinforces the urgency of funding 
the bipartisan CHIPS for America Act, led by Senators Cornyn and 
Warner. Their legislation recognizes the importance of using Federal 
grants to support American workers and strengthen the domestic 
semiconductor industry. Congress must now work to fully fund the grant 
program and enact its proposed investment tax credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/
2021/02/24/executive-order-on-americas-supply-chains/.

    An investment tax credit would encourage long-term, domestic 
semiconductor manufacturing. A single, advanced logic manufacturing 
facility costs tens of billions of dollars to build and operate. Every 
advancement in chip design requires retooling and reinvesting in new 
equipment. Over the last decade, the average rate of chip manufacturing 
has grown five times faster overseas than in the U.S. due to robust 
incentive programs offered by other countries. In fact, U.S. companies 
face up to a 40-percent cost disadvantage compared to Asian competitors 
due largely to government incentives. Moreover, 19 European Union 
countries recently agreed to jointly invest in semiconductor 
technologies to close the manufacturing gap. This targeted government 
support could total as much as $60 billion.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-germany-chips/
germany-predicts-chip-investments-of-up-to-50-billion-euros-in-europe-
idUSKBN2A32KG.

    Investment in research and development is critical to advanced 
manufacturing. As President Biden acknowledged in his executive order, 
R&D is necessary to sustain leadership in the development of critical 
goods and materials. However, without congressional action, 67 years of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pro-R&D growth policy is about to be reversed.

    Starting next year, businesses will be required to amortize their 
R&D expenses over several years. Removing this deduction will make the 
U.S. virtually the only developed country in the world with this 
policy. U.S. investment in research is already relatively flat. While 
other governments work to substantially increase R&D investment, this 
change will significantly increase the cost to perform R&D in the U.S. 
We applaud the bipartisan work of Senators Hassan, Young, Cortez Masto, 
and Portman, whose bill, the American Innovation and Jobs Act, would 
prevent this regressive policy from taking effect.

    Right now, the U.S. is uncompetitive in attracting new 
semiconductor investments. Semiconductors are the building blocks of 
technology, and producers must continually invest in R&D to enable 
chips to run faster and use less power. This is why Intel reinvests on 
average nearly 20 percent of its revenue into R&D, or about $13 billion 
annually. The CHIPS Act, and the ability to continue to deduct R&D 
expenditures, enable American companies to compete on equal footing 
with heavily subsidized foreign companies.

    The U.S. is the birthplace of semiconductor technology and has 
always been a leader in semiconductor development. Investments in our 
industry will bolster manufacturing capabilities needed to strengthen 
U.S. economic and national security. Virtually all modern technology, 
from artificial intelligence to 5G to health care, exists because of 
U.S. leadership in semiconductors.

    Thank you for your time and we look forward to working with you to 
advance these solutions and U.S. technological leadership.

                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted for the Record to George S. Davis
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Are there existing provisions of tax law that, although 
unintended, provide an incentive for corporations to locate factories 
or jobs abroad? How should Congress reform these provisions of tax law?

    Answer. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) initiated several changes 
in the U.S. tax code, which resulted in the creation of new, complex 
regulations. Many of these regulations were recently finalized or are 
still in the process of being finalized so businesses are just now more 
able to fully understand how the TJCA functions in practice. However, 
one key change that was incorporated into the TCJA, which discourages 
U.S. activities and jobs, is the forthcoming amortization of R&D.

    Starting 2022, 67 years of tax policy will end, and the ability to 
immediately deduct R&D expenses under section 174 of the tax code will 
be removed. Due to the constant nature of R&D investment, requiring 
businesses to amortize R&D expenses would effectively result in a 
permanent tax difference. Amortizing R&D expenses discourages on-going 
investment in innovation. In fact, according to a 2019 EY report,\1\ 
amortizing R&D spending would lead to the loss of over 20,000 U.S. R&D 
jobs in the first 5 years, with that number increasing to nearly 60,000 
in the following 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://investinamericasfuture.org/ey-impact-of-the-
amortization-of-certain-rd-expenditures-on-rd-spending-in-the-united-
states/.

    The ability to deduct R&D expenses is directly tied to investments 
and jobs. We would encourage Congress to pass H.R. 1304 and S. 749 this 
year, which would prevent the change to this longstanding policy from 
taking effect. For Intel, the ability to innovate is directly tied to 
improving and enhancing our manufacturing process as we move to smaller 
and smaller chip nodes. The immediate deduction of R&D expenses is 
critical. Congress must ensure this negative policy does not take 
effect so that we can continue to compete and foster US semiconductor 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
leadership.

    Question. The threats to domestic manufacturing associated with our 
reliance on foreign supply chains are not industry specific. From 
semiconductors to PPE and other essential medical supplies to 
pharmaceuticals, our reliance on foreign supply chains threatens not 
only the health and safety of Ohioans, it impacts their livelihoods and 
the economic health of our communities.

    Members of this committee have put forward some strong proposals to 
invest in supply chain resiliency right here in the U.S. in order to 
better support hardworking Americans and our domestic manufacturing 
facilities. Last year, I introduced the Protecting American Heroes act 
to increase U.S. production of PPE, both to support our COVID-19 
response and to better prepare for future public health emergencies. 
Senator Portman and I have worked together on our Build America, Buy 
America Act, which would both strengthen domestic manufacturing and 
support American workers. And Senator Cassidy and I are drafting 
legislation to create a domestic API reserve and make our 
pharmaceutical supply chain more resilient.

    With his recent executive order on U.S. supply chains, President 
Biden has acknowledged how important it is that we act to strengthen 
the resiliency of our domestic supply chains. We have a once in a 
generation opportunity to advance policy to strengthen domestic 
manufacturing.

    Beyond tax policy, what are some other legislative concepts that 
could help support domestic manufacturing and deliver for American 
workers? Please share a few ideas on policy proposals that would help 
strengthen the resiliency of our domestic supply chains.

    Answer. Semiconductors power the Internet, are the building blocks 
of the digital economy, and provide the foundation for all critical 
technologies such as artificial intelligence, 5G, and autonomous 
vehicles. Our country's leadership in designing and developing 
semiconductors is the major reason the U.S. has the world's largest 
economy, most advanced technologies, and strongest military. However, 
U.S. semiconductor manufacturing has eroded from 37 percent several 
decades ago to just 12 percent today, only 9 percent of which is done 
by U.S. owned and controlled companies.

    To help fuel U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and increase U.S. 
supply chain security, Congress should: (1) fully fund the bipartisan 
CHIPS for America Act; (2) address workforce challenges; (3) support 
measures that incentivize increased supply chain transparency; and (4) 
enable positive export controls.

    Congress authorized significant Federal grants for semiconductor 
manufacturing incentives and research initiatives in the U.S., but it 
now must appropriate funds. President Biden has called for an 
investment of $50 billion in domestic R&D and manufacturing to fund the 
CHIPS Act, which, according to a study by the Boston Consulting Group, 
will reverse the erosion in the U.S. share of global semiconductor 
manufacturing capacity and increase it by a few percentage points. We 
urge Congress to reaffirm its support for U.S. semiconductor 
manufacturers and their supply chains by promptly funding the CHIPS Act 
in an amount of at least $50 billion.

    Additional policy options for strengthening the semiconductor 
supply chain include ensuring the U.S. has the workforce needed to 
compete globally. This includes implementing policies which will help 
develop, expand, and diversify the current and future STEM U.S. 
workforce. And where current skills shortage gaps exist, supporting 
meaningful U.S. immigration reforms which provide access to global 
talent, especially foreign nationals obtaining advanced STEM degrees 
from U.S. universities, and eliminate the green card backlog through 
both recapture of unused green cards and exempting advanced STEM degree 
graduates of U.S. universities from existing green card caps. A strong 
and competitive U.S. workforce with needed immigration reforms will 
help the U.S. to obtain and retain the talent necessary for America and 
American enterprise to continue to innovate and create jobs here.

    Third, to promote healthier, more resilient supply chains, the 
administration should include a focus on measures that promote 
increased supply chain transparency. For example, Intel describes one 
comprehensive, pragmatic approach to increasing visibility into the 
composition of products in its Compute Lifecycle Assurance efforts, 
outlined here: https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/
2019/12/introduction-compute-lifecycle-assurance.pdf.

    Lastly, unilateral U.S. export controls harm the competitiveness of 
U.S.-origin products and technology, U.S. development, and U.S. market 
leadership. Congress should avoid unilateral controls on semiconductor 
products and technology and work to ensure such controls are generally 
adopted at the multilateral regimes before implementing U.S. controls. 
These are some policies which could support the semiconductor supply 
chain ecosystem especially in areas where the export control 
regulations have not kept pace with industry innovations, and where the 
United States maintains technological advantages. Intel Corporation 
stands ready to further discuss these and other potential policy 
measures.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
    Question. The focus of the hearing is on provisions that encourage 
U.S. companies to expand their U.S. operations and create jobs. While a 
competitive U.S. corporate rate, R&D incentives, expensing, and certain 
tax credits are central to that goal, certain international tax 
provisions also have a significant effect on where U.S. companies 
choose to invest. The foreign derived intangible income, or FDII, 
provision enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created an 
important incentive for companies to locate their intangible property 
in the United States which aims further encourage U.S.-based 
manufacturing and innovation. My Democratic colleagues have proposed 
eliminating this incentive, and some even believe it's an incentive to 
offshore.

    How does FDII affect Intel's domestic operations, and do you 
believe it is an important incentive to encourage U.S. companies to 
stay in the United States, expand their U.S. footprint, and bring 
operations back to the United States from abroad?

    Answer. Intel has maintained the majority of its advanced 
manufacturing, R&D, and intellectual property within the United States. 
Intel has more than 53,000 employees in high-tech jobs in the U.S., 
with most being located at our large manufacturing sites in Arizona, 
Oregon, and New Mexico. In fact, according to a recent economic study 
by a third party, we directly contributed more than $25 billion to the 
U.S. GDP in 2019.

    The FDII is an important provision that helps us to make decision 
to perform manufacturing and hold IP in the U.S. High-tech 
manufacturing demands a huge upfront investment in rigorous product R&D 
and process IP development in order to successfully manufacture very 
complex products at high volume. We have invested more than $35 billion 
since 2015 to develop groundbreaking technologies, leveraging the 
semiconductor manufacturing base we established in the U.S. over 40 
years ago. The FDII deduction encourages companies to develop and 
mature their IP in the U.S. which leads to the creation of more jobs--
new manufacturing lines for new products, incorporating new 
technologies into existing processes and products, etc. We would 
strongly encourage Congress to maintain the FDII deduction to help to 
encourage U.S. R&D and ownership of IP which are important for a strong 
manufacturing ecosystem.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. Thank you for Intel's support of my Innovation and Jobs 
Act and for sharing during the hearing how this bill would address the 
semiconductor shortage problem Hoosier companies and businesses 
nationwide are experiencing.

    To follow up on our conversation, if Congress allows the full 
expensing of R&D costs to expire at the end of this year, do you 
anticipate that U.S. companies may be incentivized to move high skilled 
jobs and R&D activities overseas?

    Answer. Eliminating the ability to immediately deduct R&D expenses 
would result in the U.S. having one of the world's worst, and most 
regressive, R&D policies at a time when the U.S. should be encouraging 
businesses to maximize R&D investments. The ability to deduct R&D is 
globally recognized because successful innovation is unpredictable.

    Intel invests $13 billion dollars annually into R&D on average, 
which is about 20 percent of our revenue. Intel's commitment to 
innovation is constant, particularly as we advance our manufacturing 
process. The inability to deduct R&D expenses effectively results in a 
permanent tax difference that would discourage reinvesting into this 
critical function. According to a November 2018 Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) report, amortizing R&D expenses ``will reduce the 
incentive to invest in R&D.'' Moreover, an EY report \1\ cited that 
amortizing R&D spending would lead to the loss of over 20,000 U.S. R&D 
jobs in the first 5 years, with that number increasing to nearly 60,000 
in the following 5 years.

    Semiconductors are a critical component in fueling innovation and 
enabling technology from medical equipment to smart phones to clean 
energy. The ability to deduct R&D expenses is important for businesses 
of all sizes and is directly tied to investment and jobs. In fact, 
according to an EY study, every $1 billion in R&D spending equated to 
17,000 jobs supported. We urge Congress to pass the bipartisan American 
Innovation and Jobs Act (S. 749) which would maintain this immediate 
deduction.

                                 ______
                                 
    Prepared Statement of Michelle Hanlon, Ph.D., Howard W. Johnson 
   Professor, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of 
                               Technology
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished members of 
the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this 
hearing about the effect of taxes on domestic manufacturing. I am a 
chaired professor at the Sloan School of Management at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. My research focuses on the 
effects of taxation and accounting on corporate decision-making and on 
the intersection of tax and accounting such as the accounting for 
income tax and book-tax conformity. I am an editor at the Journal of 
Accounting and Economics and I am the area head of economics, finance, 
and accounting at the Sloan School.

    The main points of my testimony are as follows. First, a 
competitive statutory corporate income tax rate is an important tax 
policy objective and we should endeavor to maintain a rate that is 
competitive with the rest of the developed world. Second, research and 
development incentives are vital and the evidence suggests that such 
policies are effective at incentivizing research and development in the 
U.S. Third, targeted tax incentives for strategic industries or 
activities can also be effective but the trade-off should not be a 
relatively high corporate statutory income tax rate. Finally, 
reenacting a corporate alternative minimum tax could negate tax 
incentives for investment and would not be a good policy option, 
especially if the minimum tax were based on financial accounting 
income.
          maintaining a competitive corporate income tax rate
    Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), the U.S. had one 
of the highest statutory corporate income tax rates in the world at 35 
percent. As I (and many others) testified in prior congressional 
hearings, that high corporate income tax rate in combination with our 
prior international tax regime led to many negative economic outcomes. 
Some of these outcomes included, for example, economic incentives to 
move operations and profits to other countries, high cash holdings in 
foreign subsidiaries, higher corporate debt in the U.S., and a 
relatively disadvantaged competitive position in the market for 
corporate control (i.e., acquisitions).\1\ Further, there was pressure 
for companies to invert, or leave, the U.S. in terms of tax residency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Foley et al. (2007), Graham et al. (2010), and Hanlon et 
al. (2015) for research on these outcomes.

    In particular, our high corporate tax rate and international tax 
regime prior to the TCJA led, in some cases, to strong incentives to 
manufacture in foreign locations. For example, U.S. multinational 
corporations that placed high-profit intellectual property (IP) in 
foreign subsidiaries to benefit from the lower tax rates in those 
jurisdictions often structured their operations in a manner that would 
not subject the foreign profits to current U.S. taxation (e.g., subpart 
F). In many cases, this meant conducting manufacturing outside of the 
U.S. Thus, our tax rules prior to the TCJA resulted in incentives to 
manufacture outside of the U.S. because to minimize the taxation of 
intangible profits on sales outside the United States, foreign 
manufacturing was necessary.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The incentives to manufacture outside the U.S. also occur in 
other fact patterns.

    After the enactment of the TCJA, our Federal corporate statutory 
income tax rate is now 21 percent. According to OECD data, our rate 
including subnational taxes is estimated to be 25.8 percent.\3\ The 
OECD reports that the OECD average combined national and subnational 
rate is 23.3 percent and the G20 average rate is 26.9 percent.\4\ Thus, 
our corporate income tax rate is now clearly more in line with the 
average corporate income tax rates around the world; but we are by no 
means a tax haven. The U.S. now has a competitive domestic corporate 
income tax rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I1.
    \4\ http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/tax-database-
update-note.pdf.

    The research consensus is that tax policy affects investment 
(Hassett and Hubbard 2002; Hassett and Newmark 2008; Desai and Goolsbee 
2004; Djankov et al. 2010; Bond and Xing 2015). A large area of 
research regarding tax rates and investment is the cross-country study 
of tax rates and foreign direct investment. The evidence from these 
studies is consistent with a negative relation--as host country tax 
rates decrease, foreign direct investment into that jurisdiction 
increases, all else constant.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See DeMooij and Ederveen (2003) for a summary of the research, 
and Becker et al. (2012).

    It is difficult to assess the importance of certain TCJA provisions 
or attribute the changes in observed corporate behavior to any one part 
of the TCJA (or in many cases even to the TCJA as a whole) using 
archival data. However, my co-authors and I recently surveyed some U.S. 
companies about the TCJA.\6\ We asked companies what provisions of the 
TCJA were important to their business using a rating scale between 0 
(not important at all) and 4 (very important). Of the 161 C 
corporations (both multinational and domestic-only businesses) that 
answered the question, the lowering of the corporate statutory income 
tax rate received a rating of important or very important by 89 percent 
of the respondents. No other provision of the TCJA received this high 
of rating in the subsample of C corporations. This is consistent with 
ex ante surveys about tax reform. For example, in the early 2000s, the 
Tax Council Policy Institute asked multinational corporations to rank 
tax reform options; a lower corporate tax rate was the highest rated 
option.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Graham, Hanlon, and Shroff (2021).
    \7\ Tax Council Policy Institute (2005).

    We also asked what provisions within the TCJA led to changes in 
behavior, specifically in investment in the United States. Tax policy 
is only one of many factors that determines whether or where a company 
will make an investment. For example, other determinants include the 
availability of positive net present value investment opportunities to 
invest in, proximity to customers, supply of qualified labor, 
government regulations and requirements in each jurisdiction, as well 
as other factors. Thus, I would not expect the TCJA to change 
investment decisions at every company. Consistent with this, in our 
sample of firms, roughly 26 percent of C corporations responded that 
they increased U.S. capital investment in response to the TCJA. When 
asked about how important certain provisions were in the TCJA in terms 
of decision-making with regard to capital investment, 85 percent of 
these C corporations that increased U.S. capital investment said that 
the reduction in the corporate statutory income tax rate was important 
or very important in their company's decision to increase U.S. capital 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
investment.

    The changes in the TCJA, including the lower statutory corporate 
income tax rate, full expensing of domestic investment, and the Foreign 
Derived Intangible Income (FDII) provision, altered incentives to place 
IP offshore and altered incentives to manufacture offshore. While there 
are some examples of companies repatriating IP back to the U.S., it is 
not clear that repatriation of existing IP back to the U.S. will be a 
dominant decision as a result of the TCJA.\8\ However, in terms of a 
company's next marginal decision, the tax incentives under the TCJA are 
more likely to lead to the decision to retain IP in the U.S. and also 
to manufacture in the U.S., all else constant. The TCJA provisions 
(e.g., lower corporate tax rate and FDII) help mitigate the incentives 
to manufacture offshore and the provisions could be strengthened by 
giving taxpayers certainty that those provisions will remain in place. 
Finally, the evidence so far with respect to another outcome after the 
TCJA is that corporate inversions out of the U.S. have stopped. The 
pressure to leave the U.S. because of our previously onerous tax system 
has subsided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Horst (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        tax incentives other than a competitive income tax rate
    Beyond competitive tax rates, targeted tax incentives are often 
desirable. The tax treatment of research and experimentation/
development is a good example. When a business determines whether a 
research project they are considering is a worthy investment, it will 
conduct a cost-benefit calculation to determine the budget and amount 
of investment. In such an analysis, the business will focus more on 
benefits to itself rather than benefits to society. However, research 
and the production of new knowledge have externalities, in other words, 
benefits extending past the business to society as a whole. A clear, 
current example are the COVID-19 vaccines. The profits from the 
vaccines to Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson will be small 
compared to the societal and economic benefits of ending the pandemic. 
In many such situations, businesses are likely to undertake too little 
research because they would bear all of the costs but would not reap 
all of the benefits. As a result, one of the policy arguments for the 
research tax credit is that because society reaps some of the benefits 
it should also bear some of the costs for firms to undertake more 
research. Thus, incentives should be provided to companies to avoid the 
underinvestment problem from a societal perspective. One way to do this 
is through tax incentives.

    Created in 1981, the U.S. research credit is in IRC section 41 
Credit for Increasing Research Activities (known as the research and 
development credit, research and experimentation credit, or simply the 
research credit--the term I will use).\9\ At a very high level, 
taxpayers can claim a research credit equal to 20 percent of the amount 
of qualified research expenses in a taxable year that exceed a ``base'' 
amount for that year. In other words, the credit is for incremental 
spending on research. There is a simplified alternative approach (14 
percent and a different base) and start-up firms have a different base 
reference than mature firms. The tax credit works in conjunction with 
allowed deductions for research under section 174; the deductions 
allowed are reduced by the credit, or, alternatively, taxpayers can 
elect to claim a reduced credit instead of reducing deductions. Unused 
research credits can be carried forward for 20 years. In addition, 
because start-ups often have little to no income tax liability, certain 
start-ups can elect to apply a portion of their research credit against 
their payroll tax liability instead of their regular tax liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ The credit was made permanent in the Protecting Americans from 
Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015.

    Innovation in the manufacturing industry is driven by research and 
development intended to improve, for example, manufacturing methods, 
processes, and systems as well as to create and develop products.\10\ 
According to IRS data for 2014 (the last year with research credit data 
available on the IRS website), the manufacturing industry claimed 
roughly 60 percent of the research credits claimed by corporations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Pisano and Shih (2012) for a discussion of why and under 
what conditions keeping manufacturing and R&D geographically close 
increases innovation.
    \11\ https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-ta-stats -corporation-
research-credit.

    The research that examines the effectiveness of tax incentives for 
research and development (R&D) spending provides evidence consistent 
with the conclusion the research credit increases R&D spending and that 
the benefits of the research credit exceed the costs (Berger 1993; 
Gupta et al. 2011; Rao 2016; Bloom et al. 2019).\12\ Many other 
countries and many of the U.S. States have research incentives as 
well.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ For example, Berger (1993) estimates that the R&D spending-to-
sales ratio for firms that can use the credit increased after 1981. 
Berger (1993) estimates that the credit induced $1.74 of additional 
spending per dollar of foregone revenue. Gupta et al. (2011) estimate 
that for firms that qualified for the credit, there is an additional 
$2.08 of additional research spending per dollar of foregone revenue. 
See Hall and Van Reenen (2000) for a review of the literature.
    \13\ In comparison to other countries, a recent OECD report 
concludes that the U.S. R&D tax subsidy rate is below the OECD median 
but that U.S. total government support to business R&D as a percent of 
GDP is higher than the OECD median (OECD (2019), ``R&D Tax Incentives 
in the United States, 2019,'' https://www.oecd.org/sti/rd-tax-stats-
united-states.pdf, Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, 
December 2019).

    Similar to the research credit, there may be other situations where 
there are societal or strategic reasons to provide tax incentives for 
certain activities due to the externalities. Some examples include 
``green energy'' (e.g., wind and solar energy, electric cars and 
battery/electricity storage capabilities). Such investments are likely 
not profitable for an individual business until there is a basic level 
of development, a critical mass, and ready infrastructure for the broad 
use of these alternative energy sources. Thus, if a policy goal is to 
motivate a shift to such alternative energy sources and reduce the 
social and environmental cost of carbon, then it makes sense for the 
government to subsidize, through the tax code or otherwise, these 
activities until they are profitable--when a company's cost-benefit 
analysis would lead it to invest absent a tax credit.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ This includes tax credits to consumers, which allows 
businesses to charge higher prices (e.g., electric cars).

    A recent, but slightly different, example includes concerns about 
the lack of supply and manufacturing of certain goods in the U.S., in 
particular semiconductors. The concerns existed before, but have been 
exacerbated by the current global pandemic. Much of the manufacturing 
of semiconductors occurs outside of the U.S. and there is now a global 
shortage of semiconductors. One piece of legislation that attempts to 
address diversification of sourcing and increase production ``at home'' 
in the U.S. is the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce 
Semiconductors for America Act or the CHIPS for America Act. A portion 
of the CHIPS for America Act yet to be enacted is a proposal for an 
investment tax credit for investments in qualified semiconductor 
equipment or qualified semiconductor manufacturing facilities. My 
understanding of the proposal is that the investment tax credit would 
start at a 40 percent credit for equipment acquired, or facility 
investment expenditures incurred, before January 1, 2025, and decrease 
in amount over time (30 percent for investments in 2025; 20 percent for 
investments in 2026, and be completely phased out (0 percent credit) in 
2027). Based on the research evidence with respect to other investment 
incentives, it is likely that such a credit would incentivize 
investment in production facilities and equipment in the U.S. However, 
to maximize the responsiveness, the statutory corporate tax rate will 
need to remain competitive such that the tax burden going forward does 
not put manufacturing in the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage 
relative to manufacturing overseas. If there are significant risks of 
future tax rate increases, temporary investment incentives will have 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
much less impact.

    Another example of a tax incentive beyond a competitive tax rate, 
is what is known as bonus depreciation. This is not a tax credit but 
rather accelerated depreciation deductions for qualified investments. 
Bonus depreciation was introduced in the U.S. in 2002 and 2003 with the 
policy intent of increasing investment. The original provisions 
provided for an immediate deduction of up to 30 percent (2002 
legislation) than 50 percent (2003 legislation) of the cost of certain 
assets put in place during a specified time period. Studies by House 
and Shapiro (2008) and Zwick and Mahon (2017) provide evidence 
consistent with bonus depreciation leading to significant increases in 
investment. The investment response varies based on expected benefits, 
for example, the response is concentrated in asset classes where the 
benefits of bonus depreciation would be the greatest and responses are 
stronger when cash flow benefits are immediate. In addition, small 
firms respond more to the incentive than large firms. While the 
empirical results are possibly due, in part, to some timing effect 
(investments made earlier than otherwise would have been the case) and 
substitution effect (from asset classes not eligible for bonus 
depreciation), the results show that investment decisions are sensitive 
to tax policy.

    The bonus depreciation provision was expanded and contracted over 
the ensuing years. In the TCJA, bonus depreciation was expanded to 100 
percent, full expensing. Meaning the cost of qualified asset purchases 
(new or used) can be deducted in full in the year of acquisition. The 
provision applies to property placed in service after September 27, 
2017 and before January 1, 2023. Thereafter, the bonus depreciation 
percentage phases down annually through 2026.\15\ We asked about the 
TCJA expansion of bonus depreciation in our recent survey of tax 
directors. The data are that 53 percent of the C corporation 
respondents to the question rated the expansion of bonus depreciation 
as important or very important to their company.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Property with longer production periods are allowed an 
additional year of full expensing. The TCJA also increased the section 
179 expense election limits.
    \16\ We also have a small number of pass-through businesses in our 
sample, 19 of which answered this question. Of those businesses, 74 
percent responded that the expansion of bonus deprecation in the TCJA 
was important or very important to their company.

    I also note that prior to the TCJA there was an incentive in the 
tax code called the Domestic Production Activities Deduction. This 
provision was in section 199 of the tax code and was enacted in the 
American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA) of 2004. The provision allowed a 
deduction of a portion of manufacturing income. The research evidence 
regarding this provision is generally that it did serve to increase 
investment (Lester 2019; Ohrn 2018).\17\ However, in my opinion, lower 
overall business income tax rates are a much simpler and better 
approach of lessening the tax burden on manufacturers than the prior 
section 199 Domestic Production Activities Deduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ There is some evidence that the effects were concentrated in 
domestic-only companies (the effects were not strong for multinational 
companies) and that there was some substitution effect such that the 
increase in investment came at the cost of a decrease in labor (Lester 
2019).

    Looking forward with respect to investment tax incentives, it is 
important to consider future changes scheduled in the TCJA. Beginning 
in 2022, the TCJA requires research expenditures to be capitalized and 
amortized ratably over a 5-year period rather than immediately deducted 
as is the case under current law. In addition, bonus depreciation 
begins to phase down starting in 2023. Thus, both of these tax 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
incentives are scheduled to weaken, not strengthen, in the near future.

    Another, less obvious, upcoming change from the TCJA that may 
weaken some investment incentives is in the interest deduction 
limitation (section 163(j)).\18\ The rule has other components, but 
primarily the TCJA's modification to section 163(j) limits the net 
business interest expense deduction to 30 percent of ``adjusted taxable 
income.'' Currently, ``adjusted taxable income'' is defined as the tax-
based measure of the financial statement metric of EBITDA--earnings 
before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. In other words, 
it is taxable income after adding back interest expense deductions, 
depreciation deductions, and amortization deductions. However, for 
taxable years beginning after 2021, the ``adjusted taxable income'' 
computation will change to be a tax-based measure of EBIT--earnings 
before interest and taxes. To put this directly, depreciation and 
amortization will no longer be added back to taxable income, making 
``adjusted taxable income'' a lower number than it was when it was a 
proxy for EBITDA. What all this means is that after this change takes 
effect, more interest deductions will be disallowed, all else constant. 
The part that is less obvious is that the EBIT-based limitation could, 
in some cases, weaken the incentive effects of bonus depreciation. This 
will occur because more depreciation expense from new investment will 
lower the tax-based EBIT and thus, lower the interest limitation. Thus, 
in some cases, part of the tax benefits a company obtains from 
additional depreciation will be offset by a loss in interest expense 
deductions, even if the new investment is equity financed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ I describe the calculations under section 163(j) at a very 
high level, abstracting from details. There is an exception for small 
businesses. The limitation was modified for 2019 and 2020 as part of 
the CARES Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        a corporate minimum tax would negate many tax incentives
    Above, I have discussed the benefits of certain tax incentives and 
some scheduled changes that will affect them. In addition, there are 
proposed tax changes that would negate, possibly unknowingly, many 
investment incentives. These proposals often include using financial 
accounting income as a backstop or benchmark for taxable income. When 
considering such proposals, it is important to be cognizant that 
financial accounting income and taxable income are computed to serve 
very different purposes. Financial accounting is meant to provide 
outside stakeholders, for example investors and creditors, with 
information about the firm's economic performance. Taxable income is 
intended to assess tax liability in a fair and equitable manner in 
order to raise revenue for public finance and achieve a variety of 
other social objectives.

    President Biden's tax plans include such a proposal through the 
resurrection of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for corporations.\19\ 
We do not have all the details, but his campaign plan advocated for a 
minimum tax on corporations with book profits of $100 million or 
higher. Corporations would pay the greater of their regular corporate 
income tax or the 15 percent AMT while still allowing for net operating 
loss carryovers and foreign tax credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ The corporate alternative minimum tax was abolished in the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.

    The Biden proposal is reminiscent of an adjustment put into place 
in the Tax Reform Act of 1986--the Business Untaxed Reported Profits 
(BURP) adjustment (also called the Book Income Adjustment (BIA)). The 
BIA was computed as 50 percent of the difference between the pre-tax 
financial accounting income and the alternative minimum tax base 
(before the BIA) for U.S. entities. If this was positive, meaning 
financial accounting income exceeded the pre-BIA AMT, then the 50-
percent differential was added. If the pre-BIA AMT base was higher than 
financial accounting income, then no adjustment was made. When enacted, 
this adjustment was to apply for 1987-1989 and then a new method of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
computing the AMT would apply.

    President Biden's proposal seems to be targeting companies who 
appear to report large accounting profits but show little-to-no tax 
expense in their financial statements. It is difficult to discern if a 
company is paying U.S. taxes based on financial accounting disclosures. 
However, even if some companies are not paying income taxes because 
their legitimate deductions are high, creating a minimum tax based on 
financial accounting earnings is not the answer.

    First, an alternative minimum tax, especially one using financial 
accounting earnings, significantly increases complexity. Second, such a 
policy negates the targeted policies I discuss above. For example, 
financial accounting employs (generally) straight-line depreciation 
over the useful lives of assets. This results in the expense being 
recorded in the same accounting period as the income earned from the 
asset. Thus, using financial accounting income as part of an AMT base 
will essentially take the tax benefits from bonus depreciation away 
because depreciation is not accelerated for financial accounting.\20\ A 
similar result will occur for other investment incentives in the tax 
code and will weaken the effectiveness of these policies in 
incentivizing investment.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Depending on how the rules are written, the effect of the 
minimum tax could be very harsh. For example, during periods of 
accelerated depreciation the minimum tax would apply, denying the 
deduction, while in later periods with no remaining taxable 
depreciation, the higher taxable income would be the tax base.
    \21\ Park (2016) examines a 1999 tax change in the depreciation 
allowances for the corporate alternative minimum tax. Park (2016) finds 
that firms subject to the AMT increased investment after asset lives 
were shortened for AMT purposes. The evidence is consistent with an AMT 
system mitigating investment incentives. See Hanlon and Shevlin (2005) 
for a general discussion of book-tax conformity and increasing the 
links between the two systems.

    In other words, the incentive would be present in the regular tax 
system but not in the alternative tax system. Why create such a 
complicated tax policy where incentives appear to be there but really 
are not? It would be better to prioritize the goals of the tax system 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and write the tax code in a manner consistent with those priorities.

    Finally, using financial accounting income as part of the 
alternative minimum tax base creates another problem. The evidence from 
the studies of outcomes around the Tax Reform Act of 1986 suggest that 
companies responded to such a policy by altering how they report 
financial accounting income--companies deferred more income into future 
years.\22\ This behavioral response poses serious risks for financial 
accounting and the capital markets. If managers are not reporting 
income in a manner that best conveys their private information about 
firm performance, the information in financial accounting earnings will 
decline. In addition, if companies start reporting lower financial 
accounting earnings as a result of the minimum tax, the minimum tax 
will not raise as much revenue as revenue estimators likely expect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Gramlich (1991); Dhaliwal and Wang (1992); Boynton et al. 
(1992); Manzon (1992); Wang (1994); Dharmapala (2020). See also Choi et 
al. (2001) for some caution with respect to some of the results in the 
papers above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              conclusions
    There are many factors that affect a company's decisions about 
whether and where to invest; taxation is often one of the factors. 
Maintaining competitive statutory business income tax rates is an 
important tax policy in terms of attracting and increasing investment. 
Other incentives such as the research credit, and likely similarly the 
proposed tax credit for investment in equipment and facilities for the 
manufacture of semiconductors, are also effective in incentivizing 
increased investment. However, the perceived risk of future tax rate 
increases will likely offset targeted incentives to invest, as will 
some scheduled changes in the TCJA and some proposed changes such as a 
financial-accounting-based alternative minimum tax.

    Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this hearing. I 
look forward to your questions.

References

Becker, J., C. Fuest, and N. Riedel. 2012. Corporate tax effects on the 
        quality and quantity of FDI. European Economic Review 56: 1495-
        1511.
Berger, P. G. 1993. Explicit and implicit tax effects of the R&D tax 
        credit. Journal of Accounting Research 31(2): 131-171.
Bloom, N., J. Van Reenen, and H. Williams. 2019. A toolkit of policies 
        to promote innovation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 
        33(3): 163-184.
Bond, S. and J. Xing. 2015. Corporate taxation and capital 
        accumulation: Evidence from sectoral panel data for 14 OECD 
        countries. Journal of Public Economics 130: 15-31.
Boynton, C., P. Dobbins, and G. Plesko. 1992. Earnings management and 
        the corporate alternative minimum tax. Journal of Accounting 
        Research 30 (Supplement): 131-53.
Choi, W. W., J. D. Gramlich, and J. K. Thomas. 2001. Potential errors 
        in detecting earnings management: Reexamining studies 
        investigating the AMT of 1986. Contemporary Accounting Research 
        18 (Winter): 571-613.
DeMooij, R. and S. Ederveen. 2003. Taxation and foreign direct 
        investment: a synthesis of empirical research. International 
        Tax and Public Finance 10: 673-693.
Desai, M. A. and A. D. Goolsbee. 2004. Investment, overhang, and tax 
        policy. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Brookings 
        Institution: Washington DC: 285-338.
Dhaliwal, D. and S. Wang. 1992. The effect of book income adjustment in 
        the 1986 alternative minimum tax on corporate financial 
        reporting. The Journal of Accounting and Economics 15(1): 7-26.
Dharmapala, D. 2020. The tax elasticity of financial statement income: 
        implications for current reform proposals. National Tax Journal 
        73: 1,047-1,064.
Djankov, S., T. Ganser, C. McLiesh, R. Ramalho, and A. Shleifer. 2010. 
        The effect of corporate taxes on investment and 
        entrepreneurship. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 2: 
        31-64.
Foley, F., J. Harzell, S. Titman, and G. Twite. 2007. Why do firms hold 
        so much cash? A tax-based explanation. Journal of Financial 
        Economics 86: 579-607.
Graham, J., M. Hanlon, and T. Shevlin. 2010. Barriers to mobility: The 
        lockout effect of U.S. taxation of worldwide corporate profits. 
        National Tax Journal 63: 1111-1144.
Graham, J., M. Hanlon, and N. Shroff. 2021. TCJA and CARES Act effects 
        on 
        decision-making: A survey. Work in progress.
Gramlich, J. D. 1991. The effect of the alternative minimum tax book 
        income adjustment on accrual decisions. Journal of the American 
        Taxation Association 12 (1): 36-56.
Gupta, S., Y. Hwang, and A. P. Schmidt. 2011. Structural change in the 
        research and experimentation tax credit: Success or failure? 
        National Tax Journal 64(2): 285-322.
Hall, B. and J. Van Reenen. 2000. How effective are fiscal incentives 
        for R&D? A review of the evidence. Research Policy 29: 449-469.
Hanlon, M., R. Lester, and R. Verdi. 2015. The effect of repatriation 
        tax costs on U.S. multinational investment. Journal of 
        Financial Economics 116: 179-196.
Hanlon, M. and T. Shevlin. 2005. Book-tax conformity for corporate 
        income: An introduction to the issues. Tax Policy and the 
        Economy 19, edited by James M. Poterba. National Bureau of 
        Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Hassett, K. and G. Hubbard. 2002. Tax policy and business investment. 
        In Handbook of Public Economics, edited by A. Auerbach and M. 
        Feldstein. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science vol. 3: 1294-1343.
Hassett, K. and K. Newmark. 2008. Taxation and business behavior: A 
        review of the recent literature. In Fundamental Tax Reform: 
        Issues, Choices and Implications, edited by J. Diamond and G. 
        Zodrow. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 191-214.
Horst, T. 2020. The TCJA's incentives for and impediments to 
        repatriating intangible property. Tax Notes International, 
        February 10th.
House, C. and J. Shapiro. 2008. Temporary investment incentives: Theory 
        with evidence from bonus depreciation. American Economic Review 
        98 (3): 737-768.
Lester, R. 2019. Made in the U.S.A.? A study of firm responses to 
        domestic production incentives. Journal of Accounting Research 
        57 (4): 1,059-1,114.
Manzon, G. B. 1992. Earnings management of firms subject to the 
        alternative minimum tax. Journal of the American Taxation 
        Association 14(2): 88-111.
Ohrn, E. 2018. The effect of corporate taxation on investment and 
        financial policy: Evidence from the DPAD. American Economic 
        Journal: Economic Policy 10(2): 272-301.
Park, J. 2016. The impact of depreciation savings on investment: 
        Evidence from the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. Journal of 
        Public Economics 135: 87-104.
Pisano, G. P. and W. C. Shih. 2012. Does America really need 
        manufacturing? Harvard Business Review (March).
Rao, N. 2016. Do tax credits stimulate R&D spending? The effect of the 
        R&D tax credit in its first decade. Journal of Public Economics 
        140: 1-12.
Tax Council Policy Institute. 2005. The U.S. international tax regime: 
        confronting the challenge of the evolving global marketplace. 
        February 10th-11th.
Wang, S. 1994. The relationship between financial reporting practices 
        and the 1986 alternative minimum tax. The Accounting Review 
        69(3): 495-506.
Zwick, E. and J. Mahon. 2017. Tax policy and heterogeneous investment 
        behavior. American Economic Review 107(1): 217-248.

                                 ______
                                 
      Questions Submitted for the Record to Michelle Hanlon, Ph.D.
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Are there existing provisions of tax law that, although 
unintended, provide an incentive for corporations to locate factories 
or jobs abroad? How should Congress reform these provisions of tax law?

    Answer. Yes. If a U.S. corporation placed high-profit intellectual 
property (IP) in foreign subsidiaries to benefit from the lower tax 
rates in those jurisdictions, the company would also have to 
manufacture outside of the United States in order to avoid subpart F 
inclusion of the intangible profits on sales outside the United States. 
The incentives to manufacture outside the United States were strong in 
many cases when the IP was just licensed to the foreign entity as well.

    The TCJA lessoned the incentives to place IP offshore which would 
mean the next marginal decision in terms of manufacturing related to 
the now-onshore IP could be done in the United States. In other words, 
the TCJA relieved some of the pressure (necessity) to manufacture 
outside the United States.

    Uncertainty about the TCJA, however, has lead to uncertainty as to 
whether to retain IP in the United States. If the FDII deduction is 
repealed and the corporate tax rate raised, then the old incentives 
that were present prior to the TCJA will probably become very important 
again. Even now it is not clear that companies are retaining as much IP 
as they otherwise would because they do not think the rules in the TCJA 
will remain in place.

    A competitive and stable tax policy are important for attracting 
investment and manufacturing to the United States.

    Question. The threats to domestic manufacturing associated with our 
reliance on foreign supply chains are not industry specific. From 
semiconductors to PPE and other essential medical supplies to 
pharmaceuticals, our reliance on foreign supply chains threatens not 
only the health and safety of Ohioans, it impacts their livelihoods and 
the economic health of our communities.

    Members of this committee have put forward some strong proposals to 
invest in supply chain resiliency right here in the United States in 
order to better support hardworking Americans and our domestic 
manufacturing facilities. Last year, I introduced the Protecting 
American Heroes act to increase U.S. production of PPE, both to support 
our COVID-19 response and to better prepare for future public health 
emergencies. Senator Portman and I have worked together on our Build 
America, Buy America Act, which would both strengthen domestic 
manufacturing and support American workers. And Senator Cassidy and I 
are drafting legislation to create a domestic API reserve and make our 
pharmaceutical supply chain more resilient.

    With his recent executive order on U.S. supply chains, President 
Biden has acknowledged how important it is that we act to strengthen 
the resiliency of our domestic supply chains. We have a once in a 
generation opportunity to advance policy to strengthen domestic 
manufacturing.

    Beyond tax policy, what are some other legislative concepts that 
could help support domestic manufacturing and deliver for American 
workers? Please share a few ideas on policy proposals that would help 
strengthen the resiliency of our domestic supply chains.

    Answer. I am an accounting and tax professor so would only consider 
myself an expert in those areas. Thus, answers beyond tax policy are 
more of a personal opinion. But here are some thoughts. (1) Increase 
opportunities for training so that there are more qualified workers for 
today's manufacturing facilities. This would include vocational 
schools, junior colleges, and trade schools. This would also include 
incentives for companies to provide more on-the-job training or maybe 
apprenticeship programs. (2) Get America out of the mindset that 
everyone needs to attend a 4-year college. Some people attending a 4-
year college would be better served learning a trade or high-tech 
manufacturing skills, or starting their own business--construction, 
plumbing, etc. (3) Establish/maintain a tax policy where businesses 
actually want to start and operate here. Most importantly, maintain a 
competitive tax rate on business income and secondly provide investment 
incentives and incentives for workforce training. Reducing uncertainty 
in tax policy and simplifying compliance would also help.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. In your hearing testimony you detailed the various tools 
that the Federal Government uses to incentivize research and 
development. In particular, I am interested in the benefit gained by 
the Research and Development (``R&D'') Tax Credit as well as the 
immediate expensing allowed under section 174. As I mentioned during 
the hearing, my American Innovation and Jobs Act would preserve the 
important expensing provision beyond the end of this year, as well as 
expand the R&D Tax Credit to provide more benefit to start-ups and 
small businesses.

    Generally speaking, what does the expert research say about the 
pay-offs for Federal investment in R&D? How does Federal investment 
affect companies' R&D expenditures?

    Answer. The empirical evidence about the R&D tax credit is that it 
``pays off.'' That means that every dollar the government spends in 
terms of tax credit yields more than a dollar in R&D spending. The 
research is pretty settled and clear on this point.

    Question. While the breadth of research indicates that Federal 
incentives for R&D is overall a good investment, we know that the type 
of incentive offered matters greatly for different companies.

    Can you please explain the general economics of start-ups and why 
expensing of R&D may not benefit them, and therefore why a credit is 
instead more attractive and useful to start-ups and small businesses?

    Answer. Start-up companies are often not profitable. Thus, 
deductions and non-refundable credits are not very valuable to them 
because they have to wait until they are profitable to monetize; this 
could be years into the future and would only lead to an eventual 
benefit if the tax code allows carryforwards. One solution is to make 
the credits refundable or able to offset a different type of tax. 
Currently the tax code allows start-up firms to use the research credit 
against their payroll tax liability (up to a capped amount). This is 
important because it makes the research credit valuable to start-ups 
and makes start-ups more competitive with large businesses.

    Question. While tax credits like the R&D Tax Credit are important 
tools that the Federal Government can use to encourage U.S. firms to 
invest more in publicly beneficial areas such as R&D, the strength of 
that incentive can be affected by other parts of the tax code.

    Can you expand on how the impact of R&D incentives such as the R&D 
Tax Credit or full expensing would be affected by the tax increases 
proposed by the Biden administration, such as raising the corporate tax 
rate or instituting an alternative minimum tax?

    Answer. Raising the corporate rate puts the U.S. at a competitive 
disadvantage in terms of investment. Instituting an alternative minimum 
tax would offset the R&D tax credit and would offset full expensing, 
unless those two tax provisions are allowed in the alternative tax 
system. In other words, the alternative minimum tax system would take 
away some of the incentives provided by the R&D tax credit and by full 
expensing.

                                 ______
                                 
    Prepared Statement of Jonathan Jennings, Vice President, Global 
  Commodity Purchasing and Supplier Technical Assistance, Ford Motor 
                                Company
    Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the 
committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today.

    I'm honored to be representing the U.S. auto industry, which 
accounts for 18 million U.S. jobs. The manufacturers, suppliers and 
dealers that make up this complex system pump $953 billion into the 
U.S. economy each year.

    It's especially meaningful to be testifying in front of not one, 
but both of my home State Senators, Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown, and 
Ford's home State Senator, Debbie Stabenow. Our 53,000 Ford employees 
and more than 330,000 supplier and community partners are so fortunate 
to have you champion auto manufacturing in Washington.

    My career at Ford started in 1993 as a manufacturing engineer in 
Cleveland. Since then, I've worked around the world for Ford, focusing 
on developing a well-tuned global supply chain. I'm speaking to you 
today as Ford's vice president of global commodity purchasing and 
supplier technical assistance, which purchased more than $48 billion in 
goods and services from more than 5,000 U.S. suppliers in 46 States in 
2019.

    At Ford, we see ourselves as America's automaker--we employ the 
most hourly U.S. autoworkers, assemble more vehicles in the U.S., and 
export more vehicles from here than any other automaker. So we feel 
uniquely positioned to speak to the business environment needed to 
continue our winning strategy.

    We've supported communities and families across this country for 
117 years. When America has needed us to step up and aid the safety and 
security of the Nation, we have responded. From World War II to this 
global pandemic, we've been on the front lines.

    Starting last year, Ford, along with our UAW partners, produced 
masks, reusable gowns, test collection kits, face shields, and 
ventilators to meet the COVID-19 emergency. Our ability to quickly 
shift from manufacturing vehicles to manufacturing personal protective 
equipment was largely because of our unique U.S. manufacturing 
footprint. Many of the supplies we used to make face shields, 
respirators, and ventilators were already in our U.S. plants and 
warehouses.

    It's a case study in how powerful and responsive our industry can 
be if the materials and parts we need to build a new generation of 
vehicles are easily attainable. And that brings us to today.

    The global industry is driving a transportation revolution. The 
shift to electric vehicles will reduce our carbon footprint and change 
how auto manufacturers assemble vehicles.

    By 2040, more than half the world's vehicles will be electric, and 
the vast majority of new cars sold will be electric. Right now, China 
is home to 73 percent of the worldwide capacity for lithium-ion 
batteries, followed by the U.S., far behind in second place, with 12 
percent. This is simply unacceptable.

    Over the next few years, the growth in new manufacturing will be 
faster in Asia than in the U.S., further reducing our share of global 
battery manufacturing.

    Recently, we've seen a semiconductor shortage force production 
cutbacks throughout the industry. Every auto company manufacturing in 
the U.S. has had production interrupted--Ford workers have seen weeks 
of suspended production at plants including Louisville, Chicago and 
Dearborn.

    The semiconductor situation underscores our supply chain risk. 
There are dangerous parallels to the way electric vehicle batteries are 
sourced and developed.

    In short, we must collectively do more to protect the future of 
manufacturing in America.

    Ford already has committed $22 billion to develop a new generation 
of electric vehicles and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

    Last year, we spent more than $5 billion in research and 
development in the U.S., representing 15,000 engineers and software 
developers, vehicle and powertrain prototypes, test labs, and 
equipment.

    That investment is reflected in the safety and connected vehicle 
technology you'll see in an all-electric version of our best-selling 
Transit commercial van, which will be built at our Kansas City plant, 
and an all-electric version of our best-selling F-150 pickup, which 
will be built in Dearborn.

    We've been clear and are committed: the future is electric, and the 
future must include America.

    For the U.S. auto sector to succeed, we'll need Congress and the 
administration to support market-based consumer and manufacturing 
incentives, innovative new technologies, labor and plant transitions, 
and supply chain security.

    We appreciate Senator Stabenow's leadership, not just as a champion 
for expanding the electric vehicle consumer tax credit, but for her 
recent introduction of the American Jobs in Energy Manufacturing Act. 
We embrace the proposal by President Biden that would provide a 10-
percent advanceable tax credit for companies creating U.S. 
manufacturing jobs. We also support increasing existing R&D incentives 
for advanced battery and electric vehicle development, and continued 
immediate expensing of R&D.

    Together, public and private support of electrification will ensure 
America not only competes as a leader globally, but wins. This is 
particularly important as Europe and China are already moving forward 
with robust electric vehicle adoption strategies and policies.

    We at Ford stand ready to work with this committee, Congress and 
the administration on efforts to not only deliver world-class electric 
vehicles, but transition the supply chain and infrastructure to assure 
future economic and transportation stability and security for America.

    Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 
        Questions Submitted for the Record to Jonathan Jennings
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Are there existing provisions of tax law that, although 
unintended, provide an incentive for corporations to locate factories 
or jobs abroad? How should Congress reform these provisions of tax law?

    Answer. Unlike most other countries, the U.S. does not employ a 
value-added tax as a substantial source of government revenue. Instead, 
the United States more greatly relies on income taxes. The corporate 
income tax, by its very nature, functions as a disincentive to locate 
valuable assets and people within a country. Under the arms-length 
principle and OECD transfer pricing guidelines, taxable earnings are 
ascribed to the value creation attributable to valuable assets and 
people. Accordingly, corporations can reduce income taxes within a 
country by reducing the valuable property and people they locate within 
the country.

    Ford employs more Americans and produces more vehicles in America 
than does any other vehicle manufacturer. Also, unlike most other 
vehicle manufacturers, the value of Ford's vehicle exports from the 
U.S. exceeds the value of its imports. Accordingly, a tax (like the 
border-adjusted tax that was proposed several years ago) that taxes 
earnings from domestic sales of domestic production and imports but 
excludes exports would be favorable for Ford. Moreover, such a tax 
would remove the existing disincentives to U.S. investment that are 
inherent in the corporate income tax.

    One component of the current corporate income tax, the Global 
Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax, does potentially provide an 
incentive to locate factories or jobs abroad. Because of the way the 
GILTI is constructed, taxpayers can increase non-taxed foreign earnings 
by increasing foreign assets. And, to the extent a taxpayer has excess 
GILTI foreign tax credits, it can move income to GILTI subsidiaries 
tax-free.

    For Ford, as GILTI is presently constituted, these incentives to 
move valuable assets and people to GILTI subsidiaries are not 
significant enough to affect decision-making. However, if the GILTI 
provision is substantially changed, their significance could greatly 
increase. We are particularly concerned that modification to apply 
GILTI on a country-by-country could lead to very negative results. Ford 
has not shifted income to tax haven countries. But, depending on its 
specific formulation, country-by-country GILTI application could 
nevertheless have an unfair and perhaps unintended result. For example, 
because of tax attribute carryovers, Ford's high-tax-country 
subsidiaries that have incurred recent losses may not pay foreign cash 
tax. It would be unfair and inappropriate for the income of these 
subsidiaries to be subject to GILTI; Ford would have received no GILTI 
benefit for the earlier losses incurred.

    Question. Manufacturers across Ohio--from the Jeep plant in Toledo 
and the Honda plants in Marysville and East Liberty, OH to the Navistar 
facility in Springfield and the PACCAR facility in Kenton to the 
Whirlpool plant in Clyde--are struggling as a result of the global 
shortage of semiconductor chips.

    Given your testimony at last week's hearing, it is clear you share 
my concern over this semiconductor shortage. What more can Congress do 
to help support domestic manufacturers withstand this global shortage 
and strengthen our supply chains so we don't face a similar crisis in 
the future?

    Answer. Our industry faces a bifurcated challenge. The first is the 
immediate crisis arising from our inability to obtain the allocation of 
chips needed to maintain production current vehicle demand. What is 
needed to address this immediate shortage is for our semiconductor 
manufacturers to reallocate a portion of their production back to the 
auto industry. To this end, we have been in extensive touch with this 
administration and urged them to urge the governments of the leading 
chip manufacturers to contact their manufacturers and make the 
necessary reallocation immediately.

    The second challenge is the need to reshore more semiconductor 
manufacturing to the U.S. We are supportive of the broad proposals in 
the President's recently announced infrastructure plan that could 
provide incentives to do this. Additionally, we are also supportive of 
the CHIPS Act that also aims to provide domestic production incentives. 
Regarding any new incentives for domestic production, it will be 
important that producers receiving them also make semiconductors that 
can be used by the domestic auto industry. Without this, we could find 
ourselves in a situation where American taxpayers pay for incentives 
that then do not work to fix the current crisis.

    Question. The threats to domestic manufacturing associated with our 
reliance on foreign supply chains are not industry specific. From 
semiconductors to PPE and other essential medical supplies to 
pharmaceuticals, our reliance on foreign supply chains threatens not 
only the health and safety of Ohioans, it impacts their livelihoods and 
the economic health of our communities.

    Members of this committee have put forward some strong proposals to 
invest in supply chain resiliency right here in the U.S. in order to 
better support hardworking Americans and our domestic manufacturing 
facilities. Last year, I introduced the Protecting American Heroes act 
to increase U.S. production of PPE, both to support our COVID-19 
response and to better prepare for future public health emergencies. 
Senator Portman and I have worked together on our Build America, Buy 
America Act, which would both strengthen domestic manufacturing and 
support American workers. And Senator Cassidy and I are drafting 
legislation to create a domestic API reserve and make our 
pharmaceutical supply chain more resilient.

    With his recent executive order on U.S. supply chains, President 
Biden has acknowledged how important it is that we act to strengthen 
the resiliency of our domestic supply chains. We have a once in a 
generation opportunity to advance policy to strengthen domestic 
manufacturing.

    Beyond tax policy, what are some other legislative concepts that 
could help support domestic manufacturing and deliver for American 
workers? Please share a few ideas on policy proposals that would help 
strengthen the resiliency of our domestic supply chains.

    Answer. As you noted in your question, tax policy is particularly 
instrumental in addressing these concerns, still it is not the only 
policy tool. In general, the goal is to make the U.S. more globally 
competitive for manufacturing. The tax code plays a big role in this 
because it creates incentives for additional investment and 
disincentives by raising tax rates beyond those of other jurisdictions. 
Trade policy also plays a major role. The more trade agreements we have 
with foreign nations that allow our manufacturers to avoid foreign 
nations' high tariff rates will create an incentive for increased U.S. 
production in order to access these lower rates. Seeking to obtain 
reciprocity between foreign nations' tariff rates (frequently higher) 
and America's (usually lower) would greatly expand our export 
opportunities. Also, confronting other nations' currency manipulation 
when it occurs would be another positive step, because such 
manipulation does not just help close the market of the manipulating 
country, but reduces U.S. competitiveness with that country's 
manufacturers in all other foreign markets too. In the end, supply 
chains became more 
foreign-based because it was more cost competitive to operate abroad. 
We must address this through every tool we can; tax and trade options 
rank should be at the top of the list.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. I enjoyed our discussion during the hearing regarding the 
impact that my American Innovation and Jobs Act would have on Ford's 
ability to invest in tomorrow's technologies.

    To follow up on our conversation, if Congress allows the full 
expensing of R&D costs to expire at the end of this year, do you 
anticipate that U.S. companies may be incentivized to move high-skilled 
jobs and R&D activities overseas?

    Answer. Most countries permit deduction of research costs, and many 
provide valuable tax credits for conducting research. Some countries 
even provide for refundable research credits. If full expensing is 
permitted to expire in 2022, corporations will have a strong incentive 
to conduct research, and keep ownership of resulting intellectual 
property, outside the United States.

                                 ______
                                 
         Prepared Statement of Jay Timmons, President and CEO, 
                 National Association of Manufacturers
    Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and 
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity 
to appear before you and for holding this hearing today on 
manufacturing in America.
                            a. introduction
    My name is Jay Timmons. I was raised in the manufacturing town of 
Chillicothe, OH, where my grandfather worked at the Mead plant for 
nearly 4 decades. I have seen firsthand how manufacturing raises the 
quality of life for families and communities.

    I currently serve as president and CEO of the National Association 
of Manufacturers (NAM). The NAM is the largest manufacturing 
association in the United States, representing small and large 
manufacturers in every industrial sector. At the NAM, we advocate 
policies that would help grow domestic manufacturing and improve the 
lives of the more than 12 million men and women who make things in 
America.

    The manufacturing sector is vitally important to American 
prosperity. It accounts for 11 percent of U.S. GDP, driving more than 
$2.3 trillion in economic activity in the most recent quarter for which 
data is available. The industry provides financial security to working 
families, paying wages averaging $88,406, including pay and benefits--
nearly 24-percent higher than the average pay and benefits in all 
nonfarm industries. Moreover, 84 percent of manufacturing employees 
have access to a workplace retirement plan, helping to ensure families' 
financial stability for years to come.

    Through The Manufacturing Institute, the workforce and education 
partner of the NAM and an entity for which I serve as chairman of the 
board, manufacturers are also running innovative programs to recruit 
and train the next generation of manufacturing workers. Our FAME 
program provides education, training and certification with respect to 
core industry skills in 13 States. And our Heroes Make America program 
has had the privilege of partnering with the Army for several years to 
provide on-base manufacturing training for service members nearing the 
end of their enlistment period.

    I am joining you virtually because of the pandemic that this 
country has endured for more than a year now. But this pandemic is far 
more than a story of economic hardship and painful loss. It is also a 
story of communities and companies rising to the challenge.

    During this crisis, America's manufacturing workers mobilized in 
ways reminiscent of their resolve during World War II, when 
manufacturers became the arsenal of democracy. The companies joining me 
today are part of this effort. Ford remade shopfloors to make 
ventilators and face shields. Intel accelerated access to technology to 
combat the pandemic. From iconic global brands to family-owned shops, 
manufacturers answered the call. I am pleased to share just a few of 
their stories:

        Behlen Manufacturing, a global leader in steel fabrication 
based in Nebraska, organized local school labs with 3D printers to 
develop printable protective gear for health care workers.
        A team at AAON, a commercial heating and cooling equipment 
manufacturer based in Oklahoma, worked around the clock to make heating 
and cooling units with HEPA filtration systems for use in temporary 
hospitals in New York City.
        Acuity Brands, based in Atlanta, produces lighting and 
lighting control technology for buildings. This company squeezed a 
development process that usually takes up to a year into two weeks to 
create a sophisticated, portable health-care lighting stand for 
temporary hospitals.

    Today, 1 year after stay-at-home orders and health restrictions 
began, the light at the end of the tunnel is growing brighter by the 
second--thanks to the innovation and dedication of pharmaceutical 
manufacturers who are making vaccines to stop the spread of the virus. 
Their heroic work, combined with the previous administration's 
Operation Warp Speed, this Congress and this administration's focus on 
and investment in vaccine distribution, is now saving about two million 
American lives every single day.
     b. a tax policy framework for growing manufacturing in america
    Manufacturing workers' incredible achievements during this crisis 
are all the more impressive when you consider the disruptions and 
challenges they had to overcome. This pandemic exposed and exacerbated 
serious supply chain issues that we now must address as we work to 
build the next post-pandemic world.

    It was a challenge the NAM recognized early on. In spring 2020, we 
released our plan for strengthening manufacturing supply chains. I've 
had the chance to discuss it directly with some of you, and I know our 
plan has been shared with this committee. Our goal is your goal: 
ensuring that the next dollar invested in manufacturing is invested in 
America. The plan is comprehensive--ranging from tax code 
recommendations to workforce innovations. The central premise, though, 
is that the successful path is to incentivize investments. Incentives--
not punitive measures--will allow us to achieve our shared goal.

    The NAM's Strengthening the Manufacturing Supply Chain \1\ was 
motivated in part by an anticipated global competition for new 
industrial investment as countries emerge from the worldwide economic 
slowdown, that was identified in a study by The Manufacturing Institute 
and KPMG.\2\ The long productive life span of new manufacturing 
investments makes one thing clear--countries that attract the next wave 
of investment will be positioned for decades of industrial growth, job 
creation and innovation. Those that fail to capitalize on this moment 
face the prospect of falling behind as new advancements are researched 
and produced elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Association of Manufacturers, Strengthening the 
Manufacturing Supply Chain (2020), https://documents.nam.org/COVID/
NAM%20-%20Strengthening%20the%20Manufac
turing%20Supply%20Chain.pdf.
    \2\ KPMG, Cost of Manufacturing Operations Around the Globe (2020), 
https://www.the
manufacturinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/cost-
manufacturing-operations-globe.
pdf.

    While I would love for every product in the world to be made in the 
United States, it's simply not feasible or practical to expect all 
global manufacturing to relocate to America. In fact, attempts to 
quickly and radically upend global supply chains can create risks for 
consumers and increase the cost of manufactured goods for end-users. We 
must recognize that manufacturers in America benefit from foreign 
customers and foreign investment. The vast majority of customers are 
located outside our borders. In 2020, according to the United Nations, 
95.75 percent of the world's population lived outside of the United 
States. Moreover, the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that in 
2019, the most recent year for which data is available, foreign direct 
investment in U.S. manufacturing reached nearly $1.8 trillion, and U.S. 
affiliates of foreign multinational enterprises employed nearly 2.5 
million manufacturing workers in America.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, Direct Investment by Country and 
Industry, 2019 (July 23, 2020), https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/direct-
investment-country-and-industry-2019.

    The NAM believes that a focus on making the United States the 
destination of choice for new industrial investment would strengthen 
domestic manufacturing. There are several steps that members of this 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee can take to meet that goal.

    First, policymakers must recognize the importance of predictability 
and stability in the tax code. Large up-front costs accompany the 
required investments in the cutting-edge factories, machinery, and 
equipment modern manufacturing demands. The useful life of these 
capital assets is often measured in years, or decades for the most 
significant investments. A competitive tax regime that provides 
predictability can weigh in favor of U.S. investment.

    The data support a relationship between manufacturing growth and 
competitive tax rates. As members of this committee know, the NAM 
advocated tax reform in the decades following the Tax Reform Act of 
1986. Our view was that reforming the tax code would allow 
manufacturers to hire more workers, raise wages and benefits and grow 
their businesses. For our sector, that promise is being fulfilled. 
Consider the following:

        In 2018, manufacturers added 263,000 new jobs. That was the 
best year for job creation in manufacturing in 21 years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, 
Manufacturing Employment, Seasonally Adjusted (last visited March 5, 
2021), https://www.bls.gov/ces/data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2018, manufacturing wages increased 3 percent and continued 
going up--by 2.8 percent in 2019 and by 3 percent in 2020. Those were 
the fastest rates of annual growth since 2003.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, 
Average Hourly Earnings for Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, 
Manufacturing, Seasonally Adjusted (last visited March 5, 2021), 
https://www.bls.gov/ces/data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Manufacturing capital spending grew by 4.5 percent and 5.7 
percent in 2018 and 2019, respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Capital Expenditures, 
Table 2A, Manufacturing (last visited March 5, 2021), https://
www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/econ/aces/2019-aces-summary.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Overall, manufacturing production grew 2.7 percent in 2018, 
with December 2018 being the best month for manufacturing output since 
May 2008.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Industrial Production, 
Manufacturing, Seasonally Adjusted (last visited March 5, 2021), 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm.

    But these numbers don't tell the full story. I have heard from 
manufacturers around the country about the impact of the more 
competitive tax system that was enacted in 2017. Here are just a few 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
examples:

        Jamison Door in Hagerstown, MD gave their 120 employees 
special bonuses in anticipation of tax reform and again after the law 
took effect. They then offered raises and announced plans to add 50,000 
square feet of new manufacturing space, with investments in new, state-
of-the art equipment. With these investments, they aim to increase 
their workforce by 115 percent.
        Marlin Steel Wire Products, a small wire products manufacturer 
in Maryland, has invested more than $1.5 million in new technology 
since 2018, increasing their full-time workforce by 30 percent, given 
two rounds of raises, enhanced employee benefits, and as of last month, 
added 56 percent more factory floor space. They credit all of this to 
the tax cut and instant expensing.
        Carpenter Technology Corporation, credits tax reform for 
making possible a $100-million investment in soft magnetics 
capabilities and a new, precision strip hot rolling mill in its 
Reading, PA facility to help meet customer demand.
        Glier's Meats in Covington, KY delivered multiple wage 
increases for its 29 employees in 2018 alone after the tax reform law 
was passed. They've also been able to invest in new machinery that 
helps the business serve more customers, and they have continued hiring 
since 2018.

    Those are some examples of small companies, but the large firms 
that employ 57 percent of the manufacturing workforce have also been 
growing in the United States. When a Midwest manufacturer announced a 
$400 million investment in a new campus in late 2019, the company's 
leadership explicitly credited tax reform. The investment was slated to 
create 100 jobs directly with hundreds of more jobs created indirectly 
by supporting projects. In mid-2019, a manufacturer of components for 
nuclear power plants announced it was going on a hiring spree in 
Indiana and Ohio, as it expanded three facilities. And not only was the 
company creating 170 jobs in the two States, it was also investing in 
workforce development programs, including partnerships with K-12 
schools. That expansion, they said, was possible because of tax reform. 
And, just last month a manufacturer in the food and beverage industry 
committed to investing more than $1 billion in its U.S. operations over 
the next 2 years, a decision that was made easier thanks to tax reform.

    Reducing tax rates drove historic growth in the manufacturing 
sector. It is clear that increasing taxes--whether by increasing the 
corporate tax rate, increasing the tax burden on small and medium 
manufacturers who are organized as pass-through entities, expanding the 
scope of income earned abroad that would be captured by the U.S. tax 
net, or allowing the tax code to increase the cost of items critical to 
manufacturing, such as investing in new machinery or cutting-edge 
research--would inhibit growth in the sector. In our most recent 
Manufacturers' Outlook Survey,\8\ 87.4 percent of respondents said that 
their company would find it more difficult to hire more workers, invest 
in new equipment or expand their facilities if the tax burden on 
manufacturing income were increased. In addition, attempts to eliminate 
liquidity provisions designed to help businesses through the COVID-19 
crisis would amount to a retroactive tax increase on struggling firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ National Association of Manufacturers, NAM Manufacturers' 
Outlook Survey: First Quarter 2021 (2021), https://www.nam.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/NAM-Outlook-Survey-Q1-2021.pdf.

    Notably, tax reform only moved our combined Federal and State 
corporate tax rate to slightly higher than the OECD average.\9\ Merely 
maintaining our current tax system is not enough to drive new 
investment in the United States. Additional tax incentives should be a 
critical part of a national strategy to grow manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Garrett Watson and William McBride, Tax Federation, Evaluating 
Proposals to Increase the Corporate Tax Rate and Levy a Minimum Tax on 
Corporate Book Income (2021), https://taxfoundation.org/biden-
corporate-income-tax-rate/ (``The TCJA brought the U.S. statutory 
corporate tax rate down from a Federal-State combined rate of 38.9 
percent in 2017--then the highest in the OECD--to 25.8 percent in 2020, 
slightly above the current OECD average (excluding the U.S.) of 23.4 
percent.'').

    Among manufacturers' most urgent needs is a tax code that 
encourages investment in research and development. Manufacturers 
account for 62 percent of all private-sector R&D. The new technologies, 
materials and processes developed by manufacturers make modern life 
possible. Unfortunately, a looming change to the treatment of R&D 
spending could decrease American innovation by driving up the after-tax 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cost of research spending.

    For more than 6 decades, section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code 
provided businesses the ability to deduct R&D expenses in the year 
incurred. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act substantially altered the 
provision. Starting in 2022, companies will no longer be allowed to 
immediately deduct these research costs. Rather, they will be forced to 
amortize the costs over a period of years.

    This modification of the tax treatment of R&D expenses will 
negatively impact U.S. jobs, wages, and investment. A recent study \10\ 
by Ernst and Young found that in the first 5 years after amortization 
takes effect U.S. research spending would be reduced by $4.1 billion 
annually, the U.S. would lose 23,400 R&D-related jobs annually, and 
labor income related to R&D would be reduced by $3.3 billion annually. 
After the first 5 years, research spending would be reduced by $10.1 
billion annually, 58,600 research-related jobs would be lost each year, 
and labor income would be reduced by $8.2 billion annually. Note that 
these are merely direct job losses; if indirect effects are taken into 
account, the U.S. would lose 67,700 R&D-related jobs in each of the 
first 5 years after amortization takes effect and 169,400 annually in 
each subsequent year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Ernst and Young, Impact of the Amortization of Certain R&D 
Expenditures on R&D Spending in the United States (2019), https://
investinamericasfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EY-RD-Coalition-
TCJA-R-and-D-amortization-report-Oct-2019-1.pdf.

    Manufacturers are grateful to Senators Hassan and Young for 
introducing bipartisan legislation to stop R&D amortization from taking 
effect. We respectfully urge the committee to expedite consideration 
and approval of this important bill. Without it, the innovation that 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
has so long characterized manufacturing in America stands at risk.

    The ability to efficiently finance equipment and machinery 
purchases is critical to growing domestic manufacturing. Small and 
medium manufacturers are the backbone of America's supply chain. To 
effectively grow manufacturing in the United States, these firms must 
be able to expand their facilities, purchase new equipment and hire 
more workers. Small firms typically lack access to public equities 
markets and may take out business loans to afford these purchases. Yet 
a coming tax law change will make this financing option more expensive.

    Under current law, the maximum amount of deductible interest on a 
business loan is limited to 30 percent of a company's EBITDA (earnings 
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). Starting in 
2022, the limit will be 30 percent of EBIT (earnings before interest 
and taxes). Removing depreciation and amortization from the base upon 
which the limit is calculated would disproportionately harm 
manufacturers, as capital equipment purchases and other acquisitions 
can require significant amounts of depreciation and amortization.

    Research indicates that even under the more generous 30 percent of 
EBITDA standard, manufacturers are disproportionately subject to 
disallowance of interest deductions--when analyzed by industry, 
manufacturers bore 61 percent of potentially disallowed interest 
deductions.\11\ Importantly, this recent research reflects the 
operation of the provision in a ``normal'' business environment, only 
examining debt and earnings levels prior to 2020. The impact of the 
provision during the pandemic highlights the perverse nature of the 
interest restriction. As earnings are reduced in a challenging economy 
and more debt is incurred to keep businesses afloat, an increasing 
amount of interest deductions are disallowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Ernst and Young, Economic Impacts of One-Year Extension of 
CARES Act 163(j) COVID Relief (2021), https://www.nam.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/12/EY-CARES-Act-163j-COVID-relief-economic-analysis.pdf 
(this analysis also finds that a 1-year extension of the temporary 50 
percent of EBITDA limit included in the CARES Act would increase U.S. 
GDP by up to $11 billion and create up to 100,000 jobs).

    The tax burden shouldered by manufacturers under an EBITDA standard 
should not be exacerbated by a shift to an EBIT standard. Allowing this 
change to take effect would run counter to the goal of increasing 
domestic manufacturing capacity by increasing the cost of financing 
equipment purchases, facilities expansions and other activities that 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
are necessary to grow the sector.

    Similarly, the ability to immediately deduct the cost of capital 
equipment purchases makes such transactions more attractive on an 
after-tax basis. For small and medium manufacturers, the tax savings 
from so-called ``full expensing'' can make these purchases more 
affordable. Unfortunately, the ability to immediately deduct these 
expenses begins to phase out in 2023.

    The NAM respectfully urges this committee to ensure that 
manufacturers in America can meet the challenge of growing the sector 
by keeping business loans and capital equipment purchases affordable. 
Preventing changes to interest deductibility and full expensing from 
taking effect would ensure that the tax code supports the need for new 
industrial investments required by a growth in manufacturing.

    In addition, members of this committee should consider the adoption 
of a broad-based investment tax credit to spur growth in the 
manufacturing sector. As noted at this hearing, several bipartisan 
bills have already been introduced to stimulate investment in critical 
industries, including semiconductors and batteries. The NAM applauds 
Senators Stabenow, Cornyn, Warner, and Daines for their leadership in 
crafting proposals that utilize the tax code to encourage investment in 
modern manufacturing. As the committee examines investment tax credit 
proposals, I urge you to consider the following principles:

        Broad applicability--the NAM believes that any investment tax 
credit must be available to all companies that invest in manufacturing 
activities in the United States, irrespective of the current location 
of their operations or place of organization. Any expansion of the U.S. 
industrial base should be encouraged. As noted above, foreign direct 
investment plays a key role in supporting the U.S. manufacturing base.
        Stimulate new investments--The activities to which the credit 
attaches should be broad in scope. Investments in workforce, machinery, 
equipment, and innovation are all key to the long-term success of 
manufacturing. Each of these items should be given consideration as 
eligible expenses. Moreover, the amount of the credit should be tied to 
any cost differential that could sway an investment decision in favor 
of the United States. For example, recent research indicates that 
primary costs associated with U.S. manufacturing (labor, real estate, 
financing, and utilities) are approximately 16 percent higher than the 
same costs in other countries that export to America.\12\ A broad-based 
credit that seeks to equalize the core cost of operating domestically 
with our foreign competitors would match the amount of this 
differential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ KPMG, Cost of Manufacturing Operations Around the Globe 
(2020), https://www.the
manufacturinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/cost-
manufacturing-operations-globe.
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Seamless integration into existing law--To be effective, any 
investment tax credit must be as simple as possible to calculate, easy 
to claim and complement existing tax incentives that are available to 
all manufacturers, irrespective of size or form.
        Time-limited--A broad-based investment tax credit should be 
available for a limited number of years. The time to act is now. We 
must encourage immediate investment in America. Limiting the 
availability of the credit to investments made in a reasonable period 
of years after enactment (recognizing the long lead time associated 
with planning and executing a major industrial project) would send a 
signal to our competitors that we are ready to secure our supply chains 
and grow our manufacturing base.
         c. other policies that support domestic manufacturing
    While tax is the focus of today's hearing, other policy changes are 
needed to spur growth of manufacturing in America. The key priorities 
of the NAM over which this committee has jurisdiction include, but are 
not limited to:

    Addressing the workforce challenge. Our industry continues to 
suffer from a shortage of skilled workers. There have been roughly 
500,000 job openings in the manufacturing sector on average over the 
past 6 months, including a record high in October. Moreover, research 
in 2018 from The Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte noted that 2.4 
million job openings would go unfilled by 2028 due to the skills 
gap,\13\ and in our most recent Manufacturers' Outlook Survey, nearly 
66 percent of respondents said that the inability to find talent was a 
top concern for their business.\14\ Tax incentives that support 
programs to build a pipeline of manufacturing employees are critical to 
the sector's long-term growth. While outside of this committee's 
purview, comprehensive immigration reform is also critical to building 
the workforce of tomorrow, and I urge members of this committee to 
review the NAM's immigration proposal.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, 2018 Deloitte and 
the Manufacturing Skills Gap and Future of Work Study (2018), https://
www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/research/2018-deloitte-and-the-
manufacturing-institute-skills-gap-and-future-of-work-study/.
    \14\ National Association of Manufacturers, NAM Manufacturers' 
Outlook Survey: First Quarter 2021 (2021), https://www.nam.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/NAM-Outlook-Survey-Q1-2021.pdf.
    \15\ National Association of Manufacturers, A Way Forward (2019), 
https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
IIHR.ImmigrationReform.Report.2019.FINAL_.pdf.

    Investing in infrastructure: The NAM has called for an investment 
of at least $1 trillion in our Nation's infrastructure to upgrade the 
systems that support modern manufacturing and increase safety by 
adopting the benefits of innovative transportation in infrastructure 
systems. Our Building to Win plan provides details on the types of 
investments needed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ National Association of Manufacturers, Building to Win (2019), 
https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/IIHR.BTW_.2019.v08.pdf.

    A stable trade regime: Manufacturers of all sizes need U.S. trade 
policies that allow them to grow operations and jobs here at home, 
increase business predictability and enhance their ability to reach new 
customers around the world. Negotiating cutting-edge trade agreements, 
ensuring commercial enforcement of existing trade agreements (including 
full implementation of the USMCA), ensuring that China fulfills its 
obligations under the Phase One trade deal, reforming international 
trade rules and institutions, including the World Trade Organization, 
and modernizing the U.S. tariff code by enacting a new Miscellaneous 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tariff Bill, would all support domestic manufacturers.

    Provide regulatory certainty: A stable, tailored regulatory regime 
is also necessary to support the industry. On average, manufacturers 
pay $19,564 per employee to comply with Federal regulations, or nearly 
double the $9,991 per employee costs borne by all firms as a whole.\17\ 
This burden falls heavily on small businesses; of the 248,039 firms in 
the manufacturing sector in 2017, all but 3,914 had fewer than 500 
employees, with three-quarters of these firms having fewer than 20 
employees.\18\ For the smallest firms (i.e., those with fewer than 50 
employees), regulatory costs equal $34,671 per employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Crain and Crain, The Cost of Federal Regulation to the U.S. 
Economy, Manufacturing and Small Business (2014), https://www.nam.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Federal-Regulation-Full-Study.pdf.
    \18\ Id.

    Addressing many other policy matters will be critical to 
encouraging growth in domestic manufacturing. For example, with respect 
to highly regulated industries, speeding the required validation of new 
facilities, processes and ingredients would make the U.S. a more 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
feasible location for investments in new production capacity.

    Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to 
continued engagement with members of this committee as we work to grow 
jobs, wages and investment in manufacturing.

                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted for the Record to Jay Timmons
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Are there existing provisions of tax law that, although 
unintended, provide an incentive for corporations to locate factories 
or jobs abroad? How should Congress reform these provisions of tax law?

    Answer. As noted in my testimony, tax reform helped spur growth in 
domestic manufacturing. Following the enactment of the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act, manufacturers hired more workers, raised wages and benefits 
and boosted investment. Just consider:

        In 2018, manufacturers added 263,000 new jobs. That was the 
best year for job creation in manufacturing in 21 years.
        In 2018, manufacturing wages increased 3 percent and continued 
going up--by 2.8 percent in 2019 and by 3 percent in 2020. Those were 
the fastest rates of annual growth since 2003.
        Manufacturing capital spending grew by 4.5 percent and 5.7 
percent in 2018 and 2019, respectively.
        Overall, manufacturing production grew 2.7 percent in 2018, 
with December 2018 being the best month for manufacturing output since 
May 2008.

    Conversely, adopting a less competitive tax regime would hurt 
American workers. A recent economic analysis commissioned by the NAM 
(and attached to this submission) found that increasing corporate and 
individual tax rates, among other tax policy changes, would result in 
less economic activity and 1 million jobs lost in the first 2 years.

        Total employment, measured by hours worked, would fall by 0.7 
percent initially before moderating. The reduction in hours worked 
would be equivalent to an employment decline of approximately 1 million 
full-time jobs in 2023. Those jobs would still be gone in 2026 before 
stabilizing. The average annual reduction in employment would be 
equivalent to a loss of 600,000 jobs each year over 10 years.
        Moreover, by 2023, GDP would be down by $117 billion, by $190 
billion in 2026 and by $119 billion in 2031. Ordinary capital, or 
investments in equipment and structures, would be $80 billion less in 
2023 and $83 billion and $66 billion less in 2026 and 2031, 
respectively.
        Investments in intangibles, or ``firm-specific capital,'' are 
highly mobile and more sensitive to marginal tax rate changes. Such 
investments would fall 2.7 percent by year 2 and would be down a total 
of 3.8 percent by year 5.
        Real wages would fall by 0.6 percent in the long run, and 
total labor compensation, including wages and benefits, would decline 
by 0.6 percent initially before falling by 0.3 percent after 10 years. 
In the long run, total compensation would also decline by 0.6 percent.

    In addition, there are coming tax changes that, if allowed to go 
into effect, would make it harder for manufacturers in America to grow, 
and potentially make other nations a more attractive place for new 
industrial investment.

    First, starting next year, manufacturers--a sector which performs 
nearly two-thirds of all private sector R&D--will no longer be able to 
immediately deduct their R&D expenses. The amortization requirement 
would make it more expensive for manufacturers to do R&D which in turn 
would hurt jobs, innovation and competitiveness. In fact, according to 
a recent Ernst and Young study, there would be a loss of 23,400 R&D 
jobs in the first 5 years with a loss of 58,600 jobs in the following 5 
years.

    Second, starting in 2022, another scheduled tax change would make 
it more expensive for manufacturers to finance their growth. Currently, 
business interest deductions are limited to 30 percent of earnings 
before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization or EBITDA. 
However, next year the deduction will be limited to 30 percent of 
earnings before interest and tax or EBIT. By excluding depreciation and 
amortization, the stricter EBIT standard would reduce the maximum 
deduction available to manufacturers and disproportionately harm the 
sector given the industry's significant investments in depreciable 
equipment and machinery.

    Third, manufacturers can currently reduce the after-tax cost of 
capital equipment purchases through full expensing. However, in 2023 
full expensing begins to phase down which would raise the cost of these 
purchases. Preventing these changes from occurring would help ensure 
that the next dollar invested in manufacturing is invested in America. 
These new investments would in turn help drive the creation of new 
American jobs in the next, post-pandemic world.

    Question. Manufacturers across Ohio--from the Jeep plant in Toledo 
and the Honda plants in Marysville and East Liberty, OH to the Navistar 
facility in Springfield and the PACCAR facility in Kenton to the 
Whirlpool plant in Clyde--are struggling as a result of the global 
shortage of semiconductor chips.

    What are you hearing from your members about what the current 
semiconductor means for domestic manufacturing?

    Answer. The NAM recently provided comments to the Commerce 
Department in response to Executive Order 14017's 100-day review of 
risks in the semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging supply 
chain. These comments are attached for your convenience and summarized 
below.

    First, as noted in our submission to the Commerce Department, the 
semiconductor supply chain is truly global in nature:

        Chip manufacturing is among the most complex, costly and 
        precise processes in the world, and semiconductors amount to a 
        half-trillion-dollar global supply chain. Today's semiconductor 
        industry depends on an intricate global network. According to 
        Accenture, ``each segment of the semiconductor value chain has, 
        on average, 25 countries involved in the direct supply chain 
        and 23 countries involved in supporting market functions.'' 
        Semiconductor products can cross international borders 70 times 
        before the end-product reaches a customer.

    Semiconductors are an essential component in manufacturing. Any 
disruption of this supply chain ripples across multiple manufacturing 
segments (such as passenger and commercial vehicles, pharmaceuticals, 
medical devices, agricultural goods and essential supplies) and can 
profoundly affect the competitiveness of manufacturers in the United 
States. The gap between chip demand and the available supply is 
expected to grow over the next 5 years. Manufacturers' competitiveness 
will depend on ensuring the chip supply chain does not stall the 
delivery and adoption of advanced technologies. A recent study from The 
Manufacturing Institute, the workforce development and education 
partner of the NAM, found that over 50 percent of manufacturers report 
they will be testing or using 5G in some capacity within their 
facilities by the end of 2021, and 91 percent of manufacturers 
indicated the speed of 5G deployment will have a positive impact on 
their ability to compete globally.

    Policy solutions to address issues in this segment must recognize 
that it is not feasible to shift full, complex semiconductor supply 
chains to the United States overnight, and global companies will 
continue to carefully manage risks through geographically diversified 
supply chains. The U.S. government's strategy must include both of 
these approaches. The NAM respectfully urges you to consider the 
following policies regarding the semiconductor supply chain:

      1.  Pursue programs and policies that encourage the expansion of 
domestic semiconductor supply chains. The NAM's Strengthening 
Manufacturing Supply Chains proposal (attached) provides a clear set of 
recommendations for growing domestic manufacturing, and it recognizes 
that onshoring production across manufacturing sectors is vital for 
America's economic strength and job creation.
      2.  Fully fund programs authorized in the CHIPS for America Act 
and speed their implementation. Congress included provisions of the 
CHIPS for America Act in sections 9902 and 9903 of the William M (Mac) 
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, 
which became law on January 1, 2021. The law authorizes programs 
targeted to help manufacturers build and modernize chip manufacturing 
facilities in the United States. Congress should fully fund the enacted 
programs. It should further support the industry by providing an 
investment tax credit for these investments.
      3.  Provide robust funding for R&D initiatives underway at the 
Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Energy. These efforts should 
prioritize identification of the infrastructure and technical 
capabilities in domestic semiconductor supply chains, gaps in existing 
capabilities and the roll of strategic R&D investments to fill gaps, 
accounting for government and private sector demands and capabilities.
      4.  Streamline export control policies to support U.S. 
competitiveness in semiconductor manufacturing. Currently, domestic 
semiconductor manufacturers can be deterred from taking on a project 
that is heavily controlled due to the burdensome and costly nature of 
complying with existing export control regulations. This can force 
domestic manufacturers to source semiconductor products offshore, or 
require them to downgrade to an older technology, resulting in an 
inferior and less competitive final product. Where possible without 
sacrificing national security goals, manufacturers encourage the 
Departments of Commerce and State to streamline export control 
policies, especially as they relate to deemed exports, to allow 
companies within the U.S. manufacturing and defense industrial base to 
be able to obtain semiconductor components from foundries located in 
the United States.
      5.  Strengthen the manufacturing workforce. Manufacturers 
continue to face a workforce crisis, with 65.8 percent of respondents 
to the most recent NAM Manufacturers' Outlook Survey indicating that 
they continue struggling to find sufficient talent. The workforce 
challenge is expected to get worse in the coming years, with a study by 
Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute showing that nearly half of 
the estimated 4.6 million jobs manufacturers will need to fill over the 
next decade could go unfilled due to the ``skills gap.'' Policymakers 
should work with manufacturers on solutions to close the skills gap by 
supporting earn-and learn programs, certifications, 2- and 4-year 
degrees, on-the-job training, upskilling, and second chances.
      6.  Boost cooperation with allied countries to improve 
semiconductor supply chain reliability. The concentration of chips 
production in a small number of overseas locations creates economic and 
security risks to the entire supply chain. Boosting U.S. domestic 
capacity should be pursued along with prioritizing strategic 
collaboration with allies to support short-term supply needs of 
industry and government and to enhance reliable, diversified supply 
chains the support U.S. semiconductor companies. Geographically 
diversified supply chains among allied countries can improve supply 
chain resiliency and help ensure U.S. manufacturers' access to the 
global market.

    Question. The threats to domestic manufacturing associated with our 
reliance on foreign supply chains are not industry specific. From 
semiconductors to PPE and other essential medical supplies to 
pharmaceuticals, our reliance on foreign supply chains threatens not 
only the health and safety of Ohioans, it impacts their livelihoods and 
the economic health of our communities.

    Members of this committee have put forward some strong proposals to 
invest in supply chain resiliency right here in the U.S. in order to 
better support hardworking Americans and our domestic manufacturing 
facilities. Last year, I introduced the Protecting American Heroes act 
to increase U.S. production of PPE, both to support our COVID-19 
response and to better prepare for future public health emergencies. 
Senator Portman and I have worked together on our Build America, Buy 
America Act, which would both strengthen domestic manufacturing and 
support American workers. And Senator Cassidy and I are drafting 
legislation to create a domestic API reserve and make our 
pharmaceutical supply chain more resilient.

    With his recent executive order on U.S. supply chains, President 
Biden has acknowledged how important it is that we act to strengthen 
the resiliency of our domestic supply chains. We have a once in a 
generation opportunity to advance policy to strengthen domestic 
manufacturing.

    Beyond tax policy, what are some other legislative concepts that 
could help support domestic manufacturing and deliver for American 
workers? Please share a few ideas on policy proposals that would help 
strengthen the resiliency of our domestic supply chains.

    Answer. As I noted in my testimony, the NAM has released 
recommendations to strengthen the manufacturing supply chain, which are 
attached to this submission. These recommendations include incentives 
to spur industrial investment in the United States and are briefly 
summarized below:

      1.  Enact a new tax credit that encourages domestic investments 
in manufacturing and make tax law changes that reduce costs for 
manufacturers to hire and retain a pipeline of skilled U.S. workers.
      2.  Provide incentives to help manufacturers recruit, train and 
retain the skilled workers necessary to grow the industry.
      3.  Support U.S. private-sector R&D by immediately reversing the 
R&D amortization tax change set to go into effect in 2022 that will 
prevent companies from being allowed to immediately deduct their R&D 
spending and simplify the R&D tax credit and expand its application.
      4.  Establish a bold public-private investment vehicle to provide 
funding and financing to companies of all sizes to support research 
into advanced manufacturing technologies.
      5.  Speed the delivery of intellectual property protections for 
companies that conduct operations for their innovative ideas in the 
United States.
      6.  Ensure that manufacturers can efficiently finance pro-growth 
investments by preventing tax law changes from taking effect that would 
increase the cost of business loans and reduce the ability to write-off 
equipment and machinery purchases.
      7.  Open the Federal Government's portfolio of surplus property 
to manufacturers to build manufacturing facilities in the United 
States, which would reduce costs and spur investments.
      8.  Annually review the competitiveness of America's tax and 
regulatory regimes to ensure that we can continue to attract new 
industrial investment.
      9.  Harmonize sustainable permitting required to establish basic 
infrastructure that must be in place before companies can break ground 
on major facilities.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
    Question. Last year, we saw the coronavirus usher in a whole new 
suite of challenges that businesses face. Many businesses were hurt as 
they were shutdown, often for long periods of time. Though even for 
those businesses that stayed open or reopened early, they often faced a 
whole new set of costs associated with adapting to the risks posed by 
the pandemic. Presumably, investing in the safety and sanitization 
measures necessary for continuing operations diverted funds from what 
would have otherwise might have been long term investments to help grow 
the company, such as in R&D. I have introduced bipartisan legislation, 
the Healthy Workplaces Act, which provides a credit to help cover those 
unique costs associated with keeping the workplace safe during the 
pandemic.

    How have expenses associated with the coronavirus affected 
investment decision making for your manufacturers? Has R&D investment 
for 2020 declined? If so, is this attributable to refocusing budgets 
towards adapting to the new costs associated with the coronavirus?

    Answer. Since the pandemic began, the industry has learned 
firsthand what must be done to stop the spread of COVID-19 at 
manufacturing facilities and has invested significant resources to keep 
workers safe and ensure Americans have access to essential products, 
medicine and PPE. Manufacturers have responded quickly to guidance from 
the CDC by retooling production lines, purchasing PPE for employees, 
increasing disinfecting and cleaning, installing physical barriers, 
staggering shifts and providing access to the vaccine at no cost to 
employees.

    At the outset of the pandemic, the NAM called on Congress to 
enhance tax incentives for employers who invest in safety equipment, 
including but not limited to hand washing stations, respiratory 
equipment, and cleaning products. Given the significant investments 
made by manufacturers to keep workers safe during the pandemic the NAM 
greatly appreciates your leadership in introducing the Healthy 
Workplaces Act and looks forward to working with you to get it passed 
into law.

    While 2020 data has not been released yet with respect to capital 
spending, manufacturing activity has rebounded strongly. Moreover, 
according to the NAM's most recent Outlook Survey, the near-term future 
looks strong for capital spending with respondents expecting an average 
increase of 2.7 percent over the next 12 months with nearly half 
expecting higher capital spending in the next year.

    As for R&D investment, it rose throughout 2020 with investment 
increasing to $451.3 billion in the fourth quarter according to the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis. However, looking ahead, a coming tax 
change--the requirement to amortize R&D expenses starting in 2022--
would have a negative impact on R&D investment. According to a recent 
study by Ernst and Young, the amortization provision would result in a 
decline in R&D spending by $4.1 billion in the first 5 years and $10.1 
billion the following 5 years. That same study found that for every $1 
billion in R&D spending 17,000 jobs are supported and a decline in R&D 
spending would lead to a loss of 23,400 R&D jobs in the first 5 years 
and 58,600 jobs in the following 5 years. As R&D is the lifeblood of 
manufacturing, the NAM appreciates your cosponsorship of the American 
Innovation and Jobs Act which would continue to foster investment in 
R&D and support R&D jobs by repealing the amortization provision.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. In your testimony you described the strong link between 
R&D investment and a vibrant manufacturing sector. Particularly 
concerning to me is the estimated one hundred thousand or more jobs per 
year that are at risk should the amortization cliff hit at the end of 
this year.

    If Congress allows the full expensing of R&D costs to expire at the 
end of this year, do you agree that U.S. firms would be incentivized to 
move high skilled jobs overseas?

    Answer. With manufacturers performing nearly two-thirds of all 
private sector research and development in the U.S.--the most of any 
sector--the NAM thanks you for your leadership by introducing the 
American Innovation and Jobs Act which would repeal the amortization 
provision.

    As noted in my testimony, a recent study by Ernst and Young finds 
that this provision would result in the loss of 23,400 good paying R&D 
jobs in the first 5 years with a loss of 58,600 jobs over the following 
5 years. The same study finds that for every $1 billion of R&D spending 
17,000 jobs are supported demonstrating the strong relationship between 
R&D investment and jobs. If this provision were to go into effect, it 
would come at a time of fierce global competition for R&D. Currently, 
the U.S. ranks 27 out of 37 among OECD countries with respect to tax 
incentives for R&D. In fact, the U.S. would have the dubious 
distinction of being one of only two developed countries with such a 
policy.

    Fortunately, your bipartisan bill would help protect U.S. jobs and 
keep the U.S. as a global leader in innovation. The NAM looks forward 
to working with you and your colleagues in ensuring that the tax code 
continues to support innovation.

    Question. Given the record job growth that followed the 2017 tax 
cuts, which was accompanied by record rising wages as well, do you 
believe the growth seen over the last few years could be undone by an 
increased tax burden on manufacturers, regardless of their size?

    Answer. As noted in my testimony, tax reform sparked a surge in 
manufacturing with manufacturers creating new jobs, boosting wages and 
benefits and increasing investments.

    More specifically, consider:

        In 2018, manufacturers added 263,000 new jobs. That was the 
best year for job creation in manufacturing in 21 years.
        In 2018, manufacturing wages increased 3 percent and continued 
going up--by 2.8 percent in 2019 and by 3 percent in 2020. Those were 
the fastest rates of annual growth since 2003.
        Manufacturing capital spending grew by 4.5 percent and 5.7 
percent in 2018 and 2019, respectively.
        Overall, manufacturing production grew 2.7 percent in 2018, 
with December 2018 being the best month for manufacturing output since 
May 2008.

    However, a recently released study by the NAM on proposed tax 
changes currently under consideration in Congress such as increasing 
the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and the top individual tax rate to 
pre-TCJA levels finds that these and other tax changes would result in 
the loss of 1 million jobs over the first 2 years, and an average of 
600,000 jobs over the remainder of the budget window.

    Moreover, in the NAM's most recent Outlook Survey nearly nine out 
of 10 respondents warned that a higher tax burden would make it more 
difficult to expand their workforce as well as invest in new equipment 
or expand their facilities. In order to help ensure that the next 
dollar invested in manufacturing is invested in America it is essential 
that the U.S. continues to have a predictable, stable and competitive 
tax regime.

    Question. My American Innovation and Jobs Act is designed to 
support innovative U.S. firms up and down the supply chain. Whether 
they are a longstanding manufacturer with billions in assets, a small 
business, or an innovative start-up, these firms should be incentivized 
to develop cutting edge technologies. Is it important to support start-
ups in the R&D space? What kind of an impact can start-ups have in 
terms of technological advancement and job creation?

    Answer. As the majority of manufacturing firms in the U.S. are 
small with three-quarters of these firms employing less than 20 
workers, the American Innovation and Jobs Act would play an important 
role in supporting small and new manufacturers' pursuit of pioneering 
R&D by expanding and making it easier to access the refundable R&D tax 
credit. Not only would this help to strengthen the manufacturing supply 
chain by encouraging R&D here in the U.S. but it would also support 
good-paying jobs. In fact, the previously mentioned Ernst and Young 
study finds that R&D-related jobs pay an average annual wage of nearly 
$135,000. The NAM looks forward to working with you to ensure the tax 
code fosters the cutting-edge R&D by new and small firms that is so 
critical to our nations' competitiveness and future economic growth.

    Question. As we look to support job creators at the end of the 
COVID-19 crisis, do you believe that supporting large manufacturers as 
well as small businesses would have a positive effect on job growth?

    Answer. It is clear that supporting manufacturing job growth would 
prevent benefits for the country as a whole. There is a powerful 
relationship between manufacturing and the rest of the economy. Just 
consider that for every one worker in manufacturing, another five 
workers are hired elsewhere and for every $1 earned in the 
manufacturing sector another $3.14 in labor income is earned elsewhere. 
Finally, for every $1.00 spent in manufacturing, another $2.79 is added 
to the economy which is the highest multiplier of any sector.

    With the country beginning to emerge from COVID-19, manufacturers 
can and are leading the economic recovery but as the previously noted 
tax study warns increasing the tax burden would result in significant 
job losses. Instead of taking a step back, manufacturers need a 
predictable, stable and competitive tax code in order to support the 
creation of new jobs in the next, post-pandemic world.

                                 ______
                                 

           DYNAMIC ESTIMATES OF THE MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF 
            TAX RATE INCREASES AND OTHER TAX POLICY CHANGES

     John W. Diamond and George R. Zodrow, Tax Policy Advisers LLC

This study was prepared for the National Association of Manufacturers. 
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and 
should not be construed as reflecting the views of the NAM or any 
entity with which the authors are affiliated, including Rice University 
and the Baker Institute for Public Policy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    In this paper, we use the Diamond-Zodrow computable general 
equilibrium model of the U.S. economy to simulate the macroeconomic 
effects of a policy change that would alter the tax system enacted in 
2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The policy analyzed would 
increase the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent, reinstate the 
corporate AMT, eliminate expensing of most depreciable assets, 
eliminate the 20-percent deduction for certain pass-through business 
income, increase the top individual income tax rate to 39.6 percent, 
and tax capital gains and dividend income at ordinary rates for 
taxpayers with incomes above $1 million and tax unrealized capital 
gains at death. In order to focus primarily on the effects of the tax 
increases considered in isolation, we assume all of the revenues from 
these tax increases are used to finance an increase in government 
transfers, a use of revenues that has relatively few distortionary 
feedback effects on the economy.

    The simulation results indicate that although such a change in tax 
policy would raise significant amounts of revenue, this revenue 
increase would naturally have economic costs. For example, with 
implementation of these policy changes, investment in ordinary capital 
declines by 1.9 percent in the short run, by 1.3 percent ten years 
after enactment, and by 1.6 percent in the long run. Employment 
declines by 0.7 percent in the short run, by 0.1 percent ten years 
after enactment, and is unchanged in the long run. The net effects on 
GDP are declines of 0.5 percent in the short run, 0.4 percent ten years 
after enactment, and 0.6 percent in the long run. To capture orders of 
magnitude, the short run effects in this case, measured at 2023 levels 
(two years after assumed enactment in 2021), correspond to a decline in 
GDP of $117 billion, a decline in investment in ordinary capital of $80 
billion, and, to a rough approximation, a reduction of 1.0 million 
jobs, accompanied by an increase in transfer payments of $77 billion. 
These effects translate into a reduction of $662 in wage income per 
household coupled with an increase of $686 in transfers per household 
two years after enactment of the tax change.

I. OVERVIEW

    Recent months have seen numerous proposals for policy changes that 
would alter the tax system enacted in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act (TCJA). In this paper, we examine the macroeconomic effects of some 
typical elements of such proposals, including increases in individual 
and business rates, coupled with various other proposed tax changes. We 
do so within the context of the Diamond--Zodrow (DZ) dynamic, 
overlapping generations, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of 
the U.S. economy, which is designed to examine both the short run and 
the long run macroeconomic effects of tax policy changes.

    The paper proceeds as follows. In the following section, we 
describe the tax policy option that we analyze. Section III provides a 
brief description of our computable general equilibrium model, while 
our simulation results are reported in Section IV. The final section 
summarizes the results and offers some caveats.

II. PROPOSALS ANALYZED

    We consider a tax policy change, denoted as Policy P1, which has 
the following components:

        The CIT rate is increased from its current level of 21 percent 
to 28 percent;
        The corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) is reinstated;
        Expensing (100 percent bonus depreciation) of most investments 
in depreciable assets is eliminated immediately rather than being 
phased out over 2023--2027 and is replaced with the modified 
accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS);
        The 20 percent deduction for certain pass-through business 
income is repealed immediately, rather than expiring after 2025;
        The top individual tax rate is increased immediately from its 
current level of 37 percent to its pre-TCJA level of 39.6 percent, 
rather than expiring after 2025;
        Capital gains and dividends are taxed at the same rate as 
ordinary income for taxpayers with incomes above $1 million and 
unrealized capital gains are taxed at death; and
        The increase in tax revenues is used to finance a 
proportionate increase in all transfer payments other than Social 
Security benefits.

    Note that the policy assumes that all revenues are used to finance 
a proportionate increase in government transfer payments other than 
Social Security benefits. This assumption allows us to focus primarily 
on the effects of the tax increases considered in isolation, as using 
the revenues to finance an increase in government transfers has 
relatively few distortionary feedback effects on the economy--although 
the positive income effects of the transfers do cause recipients to 
work less (consume more leisure), which increases the simulated labor 
supply effects. Note that a commonly used alternative assumption is 
that the new tax revenues are used for the first 20 years to finance a 
reduction in the national debt and after that time period are used to 
finance a proportionate increase in government transfer payments other 
than Social Security. For example, that is the use of tax revenues 
typically assumed by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) (see Diamond 
and Moomau (2003) for a general discussion) as well as in other recent 
studies that follow the JCT approach (e.g., Penn-Wharton Budget Model, 
2019; Mermin et al., 2020). The ``partial debt finance'' assumption 
implies that national saving increases causing interest rates and the 
cost of capital to decline, which in turn implies that policy 
simulations involving revenue increases yield more favorable 
macroeconomic results as the reductions in the national debt free up 
funds for additional investment that offset some of the reductions in 
investment and the capital stock (and in labor supply) associated with 
tax increases when all revenues are used to finance increased 
government transfers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Another approach--not currently possible within our model but 
the subject of ongoing research--is to model explicitly the increases 
in government consumption and government investment expenditures 
financed with the tax increases, an issue that is also discussed by 
Diamond and Moomau (2003). See Penn-Wharton Budget Model (2020) for a 
recent example of an analysis that examines the effects of government 
investment in items such as infrastructure, R&D, health care, and 
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. OVERVIEW OF THE DIAMOND-ZODROW MODEL

    This section provides a short description of the model used in this 
analysis.\2\ Key parameter values used in the simulations are provided 
in the appendix. Versions of the model have been used in analyses of 
tax reforms by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (President's 
Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, 2005), the Joint Committee on 
Taxation (2005), and in numerous recent tax policy studies (Diamond and 
Zodrow, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2020, forthcoming; Diamond, 
Zodrow, Neubig, and Carroll, 2014; Diamond and Viard, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ For more details, see Zodrow and Diamond (2013) and Diamond and 
Zodrow (2015). The model combines various features from other broadly 
similar CGE models, including those constructed by Auerbach and 
Kotlikoff (1987), Goulder and Summers (1989), Goulder (1989), 
Keuschnigg (1990), and Fullerton and Rogers (1993).

    The domestic component of the DZ model includes both corporate and 
non-
corporate composite consumption goods and owner-occupied and rental 
housing. The corporate sector is subject to the corporate income tax 
and subdivided into domestic and multinational firms as described 
below, and the ``non-corporate'' sector--which includes S corporations 
as well as LLCs, LLPs, partnerships and sole-proprietorships--is taxed 
on a ``pass-through'' basis at the individual level. Firms combine 
labor and several different types of capital to produce their outputs 
at minimum after-tax costs. The time paths of investment are determined 
by profit-maximizing firm managers who take into account all business 
taxes as well as the costs of adjusting their capital stocks, correctly 
anticipating the macroeconomic changes that will occur after any change 
in the tax structure. Firms finance their investments with a mix of 
equity and debt, choosing an optimal debt-asset ratio that balances the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
costs and benefits of additional debt, including its tax advantages.

    On the consumption side, household supplies of labor and saving for 
capital investment and demands for all housing and non-housing goods 
are modeled using an overlapping generations structure. A 
representative individual in each generation (1) spends a fixed amount 
of time working and in retirement, (2) makes consumption and labor 
supply choices to maximize lifetime welfare subject to a lifetime 
budget constraint that includes personal income and other taxes, and 
(3) makes a fixed ``target'' bequest.

    The government purchases fixed amounts of the composite goods and 
makes transfer payments, which it finances with the corporate income 
tax, a progressive tax on labor income after deductions and exemptions, 
and constant individual-level average marginal tax rates applied to 
capital income in the form of interest receipts, dividends, and capital 
gains. The modeling of corporate income tax revenues includes explicit 
consideration of deductions for depreciation or immediate expensing for 
both new and old assets (which are treated separately), other 
production and investment incentives, and state and local income and 
property taxes. Tax policy in the rest of the world is assumed to 
remain constant, regardless of the changes enacted in the United 
States.

    The DZ model also includes a simplified foreign or ``rest-of-the-
world'' (RW) sector, with international trade and capital movements 
between the U.S. and RW. The model includes U.S. and foreign 
multinational enterprises (MNEs), both parents and subsidiaries, who 
determine the allocation of highly mobile firm-specific capital (FSK) 
that earns above-normal returns as well as the allocation of less 
mobile ordinary capital that earns normal returns.\3\ FSK captures a 
wide variety of intangibles, including patents, copyrights, designs, or 
other proprietary technology, R&D spending, new software, unique 
databases, brand names and trademarks, and goodwill and reputation, 
which are coupled with unique managerial or organizational skills or 
knowledge of production processes and distribution networks to create a 
factor that is assumed to be fixed in total supply and grows at the 
exogenously specified growth rate, is unique to the firm, and allows it 
to permanently earn above-normal returns.\4\ The model also allows for 
income shifting by MNEs in response to tax differentials across 
countries,\5\ the use of intermediate goods that are traded between the 
affiliates of the MNEs,\6\ and international trade in the goods 
produced by the U.S. and RW MNEs. To simplify the analysis, RW is 
modeled as consisting entirely of the MNE sector (both US-MNE 
subsidiaries and RW-MNE parents); we thus effectively assume that the 
remainder of RW is unaffected by the tax reforms analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The assumption of differential international mobility of 
capital follows Becker and Fuest (2011); see also Zodrow (2010).
    \4\ The modeling of firm-specific capital generally follows 
Bettendorf, Devereux, van der Horst, Loretz, and de Mooij (2009), de 
Mooij and Devereux (2011), Auerbach and Devereux (2018), and McKeehan 
and Zodrow (2017). Numerous recent analyses have stressed the 
increasing importance of the combination of intellectual capital and 
organizational and managerial skill, including an OECD study by Demmou 
et al., (2019) as well as Hassett and Shapiro (2011), Peters and Taylor 
(2017), and Ewens et al. (2020). These studies suggest that such firm-
specific capital may be 40 percent or more of total capital.
    \5\ For recent discussions of the controversial issue of the extent 
of income shifting by US multinationals, see Dharmapala (2014, 2018), 
Clausing (2020a, b), and Blouin and Robinson (2020).
    \6\ The inclusion of intermediate goods in the production functions 
of MNE parent firms and subsidiaries follows Desai, Foley, and Hines 
(2009).

    We conclude this brief description of our model by noting that it 
includes several fundamental assumptions that are typical of such 
dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) models, including those 
used by the Joint Committee on Taxation (see Auerbach and Grinberg 
(2017) for a general discussion) and the Congressional Budget Office 
(Nelson and Phillips, 2019), as well as the models cited above. 
Specifically, all markets are assumed to be in equilibrium in all 
periods, and the economy must always begin and end in a steady-state 
equilibrium, with all of the key macroeconomic variables growing at an 
exogenous growth rate that equals the sum of the population and 
productivity growth rates. Note that this implies that tax changes do 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
not affect the long-term growth rate in the economy.

    Our model also assumes a full employment equilibrium in the labor 
market in each period. Thus, any simulated changes in hours worked 
necessarily reflect changes in labor supply and demand in response to 
tax-induced changes in prices and incomes--including any increases in 
government transfers, which, as noted above, reduce labor supply as 
individuals ``consume'' more leisure--in the context of a full-
employment economy. Note that in the simulation results below, when we 
report for illustrative purposes a policy-induced decline in ``jobs'' 
we do so by converting the simulated decline in hours worked, holding 
the number of workers constant, into the equivalent decline in the 
number of full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, holding hours worked per 
worker constant.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

    The results of our simulations of the tax policy change described 
in Section II are provided below. These results show the percentage 
changes in the variables listed as a result of the implementation of 
the policy, relative to a steady state in which the current tax system 
is left unchanged, which is calculated to approximate the equilibrium 
under the ``current law'' assumption that the various phase-outs 
specified in TCJA occur as planned.

    To repeat, Policy P1 combines a 28 percent CIT rate with 
reinstatement of the corporate AMT, elimination of expensing and the 20 
percent deduction for certain pass-through business income, an increase 
in the top individual income tax rate to 39.6 percent, and the taxes 
capital gains and dividend income at ordinary rates for taxpayers with 
incomes above $1 million and taxes unrealized capital gains at death. 
The resulting revenues are used to finance a proportionate increase in 
all transfer payments other than Social Security benefits.

    The macroeconomic effects of this policy are shown in Table 1. 
Because the various tax increases on capital income--the rate increase 
in both the short and long runs and the other three provisions in the 
short run--reduce the after-tax return to saving and investment and 
increase the cost of capital to firms, policy P1 reduces saving and 
investment and, over time, reduces the capital stock. Investment in 
ordinary capital declines initially (two years after enactment) by 1.9 
percent, by 1.3 percent ten years after enactment, and by 1.6 percent 
in the long run; this effect is only modestly affected by imports of 
ordinary capital into the United States, which increase in the long run 
by 0.2 percent. Together these changes imply that the total stock of 
ordinary capital declines gradually to a level 0.6 percent lower ten 
years after enactment and 1.2 percent lower in the long run. The 
increase in the statutory corporate income tax rate results in a 
reallocation abroad of FSK, which declines initially by 2.7 percent, by 
3.5 percent 10 years after enactment, and by 2.9 percent in the long 
run.

    The decline in the stocks of ordinary capital and FSK gradually 
reduce the productivity of labor over time and thus real wages, which 
fall by 0.6 percent in the long run, while labor compensation falls by 
0.6 percent initially, by 0.3 percent ten years after enactment, and by 
0.6 percent in the long run. Employment falls initially by 0.7 percent, 
but the decline moderates over time to 0.1 percent 10 years after 
enactment and no effect in the long run. Recall that our model assumes 
full employment (accounting for all supply and demand factors in the 
model), so that these declines reflect a reduction in hours worked in 
response to the policy-induced changes in wages and incomes, including 
the increases in transfer payments, holding the number of employees 
constant. Suppose instead that labor hours worked per individual were 
held constant. In that case, focusing on employment effects over the 
ten-year budget window immediately following reform, the declines in 
hours worked would be equivalent to declines in employment of 
approximately just over 1.0 million FTE jobs two years and five years 
after enactment, and a decline of 0.1 million FTE jobs ten years after 
enactment. In terms of the duration of the reduction in employment over 
the first ten years after enactment, the average annual reduction in 
employment would be equivalent to a loss of roughly 0.6 million jobs, 
or 5.7 million total ``job years'' lost over the ten-year interval.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ For example, the loss of a job upon enactment of the tax change 
that was reversed eight years after enactment would result in the loss 
of eight ``job years.''

    The additional tax revenues, which reflect a static ten-year 
revenue gain of $1.7 trillion over 2021-2030,\8\ finance larger 
transfers, which increase initially by 12.1 percent, by 6.3 percent ten 
years after enactment, and by 5.3 percent in the long run.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Our static revenue estimates draw on the estimates provided by 
the Tax Policy Center (Mermin et al., 2020) and the American Enterprise 
Institute (Pomerleau, DeBacker, and Evans, 2020, and Pomerleau and 
Seiter, 2020).
    \9\ Interest rates decline initially and lower interest payments on 
the national debt allow a relatively large increase in transfer 
payments; this effect diminishes with time as interest rates return to 
near their initial levels.

    The declines in the ordinary capital stock, FSK, and (to a much 
smaller extent) employment imply that GDP declines as well, by 0.5 
percent initially, by 0.4 percent 10 years after enactment, and by 0.6 
percent in the long run. Consumption also declines, but by less than 
GDP since the declines in investment are disproportionately large; 
consumption declines initially by 0.1 percent, by 0.2 percent ten years 
after enactment, and by 0.4 percent in the long run.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ For purposes of comparison, we also simulated the same tax 
change under the assumption that revenues are used to finance a 
reduction in the deficit for 20 years before being used to finance a 
reduction in transfers (the partial debt finance approach used by JCT 
and others as discussed above). This alternative assumption regarding 
the use of revenues reduces the negative macroeconomic effects of the 
tax change, as debt reduction frees up funds for domestic investment. 
For example, in the long run, investment in ordinary capital and the 
stock of ordinary capital increase by 1.6 percent and 1.4 percent 
rather than declining by 1.6 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively, the 
real wage increases by 1.4 percent rather than falling by 0.6 percent, 
and GDP declines by 0.4 percent rather than by 0.6 percent.

    Finally, we note that the relatively large declines in the U.S. 
stock of relatively mobile FSK cited above, which arise primarily due 
to the increase in the U.S. statutory corporate income tax rate, imply 
that the effects of the tax change are disproportionately large in the 
multinational sector that utilizes FSK. For example, in the 
multinational sector of the model, investment in ordinary capital 
declines by 3.2 percent ten years after enactment (rather than by 1.3 
percent for the economy as a whole) and by 3.9 percent in the long run 
(rather than by 1.6 percent). Although the employment effects in the 
multinational sector are quite similar to those in the overall economy, 
output in the multinational sector declines by 0.8 percent ten years 
after enactment (rather than by 0.4 percent in the economy as a whole), 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and by 1.1 percent in the long run (rather than by 0.6 percent).


               Table 1. Macroeconomic Effects of Policy P1
  (Percentage changes in aggregate variables, relative to steady state
                             with no reform)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Variable % Change in
          Year:             2 *    5 **   10 ***    20      50      LR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDP                         -0.5    -0.8    -0.4    -0.5    -0.6    -0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumption                 -0.1    -0.5    -0.2    -0.4    -0.4    -0.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment in ordinary K    -1.9    -1.9    -1.3    -1.4    -1.5    -1.6
 in US
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports of ordinary K       -0.4    -0.4    -0.4    -0.3    -0.1     0.2
 into US
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock of ordinary K in      -0.1    -0.4    -0.6    -0.8    -1.1    -1.2
 US
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock of FSK in US          -2.7    -3.8    -3.5    -3.3    -3.1    -2.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment (hours           -0.7    -0.6    -0.1    -0.1     0.0     0.0
 worked) ****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor compensation          -0.6    -0.6    -0.3    -0.4    -0.6    -0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real wage                    0.1     0.1    -0.3    -0.4    -0.5    -0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government transfers        12.1    11.6     6.3     5.9     5.5    5.3
 (not incl. SS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy P1 increases the CIT rate to 28 percent, reinstates the corporate
  AMT, eliminates expensing and the 20 percent passthrough deduction,
  and increases the top individual income tax rate to 39.6 percent.
  Revenues finance a proportionate increase in all transfer payments
  other than Social Security benefits.
* Expressed in terms of dollar values in 2023 (assuming enactment in
  2021, with 4.1% steady state growth between 2021 and 2023), these
  changes would reflect a reduction of $117 billion in GDP and a
  reduction in $80 billion in investment in ordinary capital. Policy P1
  results in a reduction of $662 in wage income per household, coupled
  with an increase of $686 in transfers per household.
** Expressed in terms of dollar values in 2026 (assuming enactment in
  2021, with 10.5% steady state growth between 2021 and 2026), these
  changes would reflect a reduction of $190 billion in GDP and a
  reduction in $83 billion in investment in ordinary capital. Policy P1
  results in a reduction of $662 in wage income per household, coupled
  with an increase of $767 in transfers per household.
*** Expressed in terms of dollar values in 2031 (assuming enactment in
  2021, with 22.0% steady state growth between 2021 and 2031), these
  changes would reflect a reduction of $119 billion in GDP and a
  reduction in $66 billion in investment in ordinary capital. Policy P1
  results in a reduction of $371 in wage income per household, coupled
  with an increase of $351 in transfers per household.
**** As discussed in the text, the model assumes full employment.
  However, if instead labor hours worked per individual were held
  constant, the declines in hours worked would be equivalent to a
  decline in employment of approximately 1.0 million FTE jobs in 2022,
  1.0 million FTE jobs in 2026, and 0.1 million jobs in 2031. In terms
  of the duration of the reduction in employment over the first ten
  years after enactment, average annual jobs lost would be 0.6 million
  jobs, or 5.7 million total ``job years'' lost over the ten-year
  interval.
Note: The net effect of the policy is captured by the ``equivalent
  variation (EV),'' the amount that would have to be given to households
  to make them indifferent to the policy change. The EV varies from a
  loss of 2.2 percent to a gain of 0.2 percent of remaining lifetime
  resources for all generations alive at the time of enactment (with
  younger generations faring better) and equals a loss of 0.1 percent of
  lifetime resources in the long run.

V. CONCLUSION

    In this paper, we use the Diamond-Zodrow computable general 
equilibrium model of the U.S. economy to simulate the macroeconomic 
effects of tax policy changes relative to the tax system enacted under 
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. The policy involves increases in the 
corporate tax rate to 28 percent, coupled with reinstatement of the 
corporate AMT, elimination of expensing of most depreciable assets and 
the 20-percent deduction for certain pass-through business income, and 
an increase in the top individual income tax rate to 39.6 percent. In 
order to focus primarily on the effects of the tax increases considered 
in isolation, we assume that the revenues are used to finance an 
increase in government transfers, as this use of revenues has 
relatively few distortionary feedback effects on the economy (although 
the positive income effects of the transfers do cause recipients to 
work less (consume more leisure), which increases the simulated labor 
supply effects of the three policies).

    The simulation results indicate that although such tax policy 
changes would raise significant amounts of revenues, these revenue 
increases would naturally have economic costs, and these costs increase 
with the size of the corporate income tax rate increase. For example, 
when these policy changes are implemented in the model, investment in 
ordinary capital declines by 1.9 percent in the short run, by 1.3 
percent 10 years after enactment, and by 1.6 percent in the long run. 
Employment declines by 0.7 percent in the short run, by 0.1 percent ten 
years after enactment, and is unchanged in the long run. Because our 
model assumes full employment, these employment declines reflect a 
reduction in hours worked in response to the policy-induced changes in 
wages and incomes, including the increases in transfer payments, 
holding the number of employees constant. Suppose instead that labor 
hours worked per individual were held constant. In that case, focusing 
on employment effects over the ten-year budget window immediately 
following reform, the declines in hours worked would be equivalent to 
declines in employment of approximately just over 1.0 million FTE jobs 
two years and five years after enactment, and a decline of 0.1 million 
FTE jobs ten years after enactment. In terms of the duration of the 
reduction in employment over the first ten years after enactment, the 
average annual reduction in employment would be equivalent to a loss of 
roughly 0.6 million jobs, or 5.7 million total ``job years'' lost over 
the ten-year interval.

    The net effects on GDP are declines of 0.5 percent in the short 
run, 0.3 percent ten years after enactment, and 0.4 percent in the long 
run. To capture orders of magnitude, the short run effects of the tax 
change, measured at 2023 levels (two years after assumed enactment in 
2021), correspond to a decline in GDP of $107 billion, a decline in 
investment in ordinary capital of $70 billion, and, to a rough 
approximation, a reduction of 1.0 million jobs, accompanied by an 
increase in transfer payments of $65 billion. These effects translate 
into a reduction of $638 in wage income per household coupled with an 
increase of $585 in transfers per household 2 years after enactment of 
the tax change.

    We conclude with some caveats. In our view, dynamic, overlapping 
generations computable general equilibrium models of the type used in 
this analysis are one of the best tools available to analyze the real 
economic effects of tax policy changes such as those analyzed in this 
study. In particular, such models provide a rich structure based on 
fundamental economic theory that captures many of the complex and 
interacting effects of changes in tax policy, including their dynamic 
and intergenerational effects, in a comprehensive general equilibrium 
framework. Nevertheless, it is clear that the estimated effects of the 
policies presented in this report reflect the results of particular 
simulations within the context of a specific model. The results of any 
study that attempts to model the effects of corporate and individual 
income tax changes in today's highly complex and internationally 
integrated economy are subject to uncertainty, and this report is no 
exception. In particular, such results always depend on the details of 
the policy proposed and how they are modeled, including how the 
revenues are used, the structural assumptions that characterize the 
model, and the specific model parameters that are utilized in the 
simulations.

APPENDIX

    In this Appendix, we provide a listing of the parameter values used 
in our simulations; see Gunning, Diamond and Zodrow (2008) for a 
discussion of the choices of parameter values in CGE models.

             Table A1. Parameter Values Used in the DZ Model
 
       Symbol                      Description                  Value
 
Utility Function
 Parameters
 
r                     Rate of time preference                      0.015
 
sU                    Intertemporal elasticity of                   0.50
                       substitution (EOS)
 
sC                    Intratemporal EOS                             0.80
 
sH                    EOS between composite good, housing           0.30
 
sN                    EOS between corporate composite good          2.00
                       and noncorporate good
 
sNS                   EOS between subsidized and                    2.00
                       nonsubsidized noncorporate good
 
sM                    EOS between M-sector and C-sector             2.00
                       corporate goods
 
sI                    EOS between domestic and foreign              5.00
                       produced goods
 
sR                    EOS between rental and owner-occupied         1.50
                       housing
 
aC                    Utility weight on the composite               0.73
                       consumption good
 
aH                    Utility weight on non-housing                 0.48
                       consumption good
 
aNS                   Utility weight on subsidized non-             0.50
                       corporate consumption good
 
aN                    Utility weight on composite corporate         0.62
                       good
 
aM                    Utility weight on M-sector corporate          0.42
                       good
 
aR                    Utility weight on owner-occupied              0.76
                       housing
 
aLE                   Leisure share parameter of time               0.20
                       endowment
 
Production Function
 Parameters
 
eC, eM                EOS for C-sector and M-sector                 1.00
                       corporate goods
 
eN                    EOS for noncorporate good                     1.00
 
eH, eR                EOS for owner and rental housing              1.00
 
gC                    Capital shares for C-sector corporate         0.27
                       goods
 
gN                    Capital share for noncorporate good           0.30
 
gH, gR                Capital share for owner and rental            0.98
                       housing
 
bX, bN, bH            Capital stock adjustment cost              5.0, 10
                       parameters
 
w                     Dividend payout ratio in corporate            0.40
                       sector
 
bC, bN, bH, bR        Debt-asset ratios                       0.35, 0.40
 
bd                    Cost of excessive debt parameter              0.30
 
gKM                   Capital share parameter in M-sector           0.27
                       composite KEL factor
 
gMK                   KEL share parameter in M-sector               0.66
                       production function
 
gMI                   Intermediate good share in M-sector           0.05
                       production function
 
                      Other Parameters
 
eK                    Portfolio elasticity for ordinary             0.50
                       capital
 
eFSK                  Portfolio elasticity for firm-                 3.0
                       specific capital
 
fIS                   Share of profits shifted abroad as a          0.30
                       fraction of corporate profits
 
n                     Exogenous growth rate (population              2.0
                       plus productivity)
 


DISCLAIMER

This study uses the Diamond-Zodrow model, a dynamic computable general 
equilibrium model copyrighted by Tax Policy Advisers, LLC, in which the 
authors have an ownership interest. The terms of this arrangement have 
been reviewed and approved by Rice University in accordance with its 
conflict-of-interest policies.

REFERENCES

Auerbach, Alan J., and Itai Grinberg, 2017. ``Macroeconomic Modeling of 
Tax Policy: A Comparison of Current Methodologies.'' National Tax 
Journal 70 (4), 819-836.

Auerbach, Alan J., and Michael P. Devereux, 2018. ``Cash Flow Taxes in 
an International Setting.'' American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 
10 (3), 69-94.
Auerbach, Alan J. and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 1987. Dynamic Fiscal 
Policy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Becker, Johannes and Clemens Fuest, 2011. ``Optimal Tax Policy when 
Firms are Internationally Mobile.'' International Tax and Public 
Finance 18 (5), 580-604.

Bettendorf, Leon, Michael P. Devereux, Albert van der Horst, Simon 
Loretz, and Ruud de Mooij 2009. ``Corporate Tax Harmonization in the 
EU.'' CPB Discussion Paper 133. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic 
Policy Analysis, The Hague, Netherlands.

Blouin, Jennifer, and Leslie Robinson, 2020. ``Double Counting 
Accounting: How Much Profit of Multinational Enterprises is Really in 
Tax Havens?'' Working Paper. Wharton School, University of 
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Clausing, Kimberly A., 2020a. ``How Big Is Profit Shifting?'' Working 
Paper. Reed College, Portland, OR.

Clausing, Kimberly A., 2020b. ``Profit Shifting Before and After the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.'' Working Paper. Reed College, Portland, OR.

De Mooij, Ruud A., and Michael P. Devereux, 2011. ``An Applied Analysis 
of ACE and CBIT Reforms in the EU.'' International Tax and Public 
Finance 18 (1), 93-120.

Demmou, Lilas, Irina Stefanescu, and Axelle Arquie, 2019. 
``Productivity Growth and Finance: The Role of Intangible Assets--A 
Sector Level Analysis.'' Economics Department Working Papers No. 1547. 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.

Desai, Mihir, C. Fritz Foley, and James R. Hines Jr., 2009. ``Domestic 
Effects of the Foreign Activities of U.S. Multinationals.'' American 
Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1 (1), 181-203.

Dharmapala, Dhammika, 2014. ``What Do We Know About Base Erosion and 
Profit Shifting? A Review of the Empirical Literature.'' Working Paper 
No. 702. Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics, University of 
Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL.

Dharmapala, Dhammika, 2018. ``The Consequences of the TCJA's 
International Provisions: Lessons from the Trump Administration.'' 
National Tax Journal 71 (4), 707-728.

Diamond, John W., and Pamela H. Moomau, 2003. ``Issues in Analyzing the 
Macroeconomics Effects of Tax Policy.'' National Tax Journal 56 (3), 
447-462.

Diamond, John W., and Alan D. Viard, 2008. ``Welfare and Macroeconomic 
Effects of Deficit-Financed Tax Cuts: Lessons from CGE Models.'' In 
Viard, Alan D. (ed.), Tax Policy Lessons from the 2000s, 145-193. The 
AEI Press, Washington, DC.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2007. ``Economic Effects of a 
Personal Capital Income Tax Add-On to a Consumption Tax.'' Finanzarchiv 
63 (3), 374-395.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2008. ``Consumption Tax Reform: 
Changes in Business Equity and Housing Prices,'' 227-260. In Diamond, 
John W., and George R. Zodrow (eds.), Fundamental Tax Reform: Issues, 
Choices and Implications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2011. ``Fundamental Tax Reform: 
Then and Now,'' Baker Institute for Public Policy Report, Rice 
University, published in the Congressional Record, JCX-28-11, pp. 27-
38. Joint Committee on Taxation, Washington, DC.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2013. ``Promoting Growth, 
Maintaining Progressivity, and Dealing with the Fiscal Crisis: CGE 
Simulations of a Temporary VAT Used for Debt Reduction.'' Public 
Finance Review 41 (6), 852-884.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2014. ``Dynamic Macroeconomic 
Estimates of the Effects of Chairman Camp's 2014 Tax Reform Discussion 
Draft.'' Tax Policy Advisers, LLC, Houston, TX.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2015. ``Modeling U.S. and 
Foreign Multinationals in a Dynamic OLG-CGE Model.'' Rice University, 
Houston, TX.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2018. ``The Effects of Carbon 
Tax Policies on the U.S. Economy and the Welfare of Households.'' 
Center on Global Energy Policy Report, Columbia University School of 
International and Public Affairs, New York, NY.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, 2020. ``Simulating the Economic 
Effects of Wealth Taxes in the United States.'' Baker Institute 
Research Paper, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 
Houston, TX.

Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow, forthcoming. ``Carbon Taxes: 
Macroeconomic and Distributional Effects.'' In John W. Diamond and 
George R. Zodrow (eds.), Prospects for Economic Growth in the United 
States. Cambridge University Press.

Diamond, John W., George R. Zodrow, Thomas S. Neubig, and Robert J. 
Carroll, 2014. ``The Dynamic Economic Effects of a US Corporate Income 
Tax Rate Reduction.'' In Diamond, John W., and George R. Zodrow. 
Pathways to Fiscal Reform in the United States. MIT Press, Cambridge, 
MA.

Ewens, Michael, Ryan H. Peters, and Sean Wang, 2020. ``Measuring 
Intangible Capital with Market Prices.'' NBER Working Paper No. 25960. 
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Fullerton, Don, and Diane L. Rogers, 1993. Who Bears the Lifetime Tax 
Burden? Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Goulder, Lawrence H., 1989. ``Tax Policy, Housing Prices, and Housing 
Investment.'' Regional Science and Urban Economics 19 (2), 281-304.

Goulder, Lawrence H., and Lawrence H. Summers, 1989. ``Tax Policy, 
Asset Prices, and Growth.'' Journal of Public Economics 38 (3), 265-
296.

Gunning, Timothy G., John W. Diamond, and George R. Zodrow, 2008. 
``Selecting Parameter Values for General Equilibrium Model 
Simulations.'' Proceedings of the One Hundredth Annual Conference on 
Taxation, 43-49. National Tax Association, Washington, DC.

Hassett, Kevin A., and Robert J. Shapiro, 2011. ``What Ideas Are Worth: 
The Value of Intellectual Capital and Intangible Assets in the American 
Economy.'' Sonecon, LLC, Washington, DC.

Joint Committee on Taxation, 2005. ``Macroeconomic Analysis of Various 
Proposals to Provide $500 Billion in Tax Relief.'' JCX-4-15. Joint 
Committee on Taxation, Washington, DC.

Keuschnigg, Christian, 1990. ``Corporate Taxation and Growth, Dynamic 
General Equilibrium Simulation Study.'' In Brunner, J., and H. Petersen 
(eds.), Simulation Models in Tax and Transfer Policy, 245-277. Campus 
Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany.

McKeehan, Margaret K., and George R. Zodrow, 2017. ``Balancing Act: 
Weighing the Factors Affecting the Taxation of Capital Income in a 
Small Open Economy.'' International Tax and Public Finance 24 (1), 1-
35.

Mermin, Gordon B., Janet Holtzblatt, Surachai Khitatrakun, Chenxi Lu, 
Thornton Matheson, and Jeffrey Rohaly, 2020. ``An Updated Analysis of 
Former Vice President Biden's Tax Proposals.'' Tax Policy Center, 
Washington, DC.

Nelson, Jaeger, and Kerk Phillips, 2019. ``Macroeconomic Effects of 
Reducing OASI Benefits: A Comparison of Seven Overlapping-Generations 
Models.'' National Tax Journal 73 (4), 671-692.

Peters, Ryan H., and Lucian A. Taylor, 2017. ``Intangible Capital and 
the Investment-Q Relation.'' Journal of Financial Economics 123 (2), 
251-272.

Penn-Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), 2019. ``Senator Elizabeth Warren's 
Wealth Tax: Budgetary and Economic Effects.'' University of 
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Penn-Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), 2020. ``PWBM Analysis of the Biden 
Platform.'' University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Pomerleau, Kyle, Jason DeBacker, and Richard W. Evans, 2020. ``An 
Analysis of Joe Biden's Tax Proposals.'' American Enterprise Institute, 
Washington, DC.

Pomerleau, Kyle, and Grant M. Seiter, 2020. ``An Analysis of Joe 
Biden's Tax Proposals, October 2020 Update.'' American Enterprise 
Institute, Washington, DC.

President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, 2005. Simple, Fair, 
and Pro-Growth: Proposals to Fix America's Tax System. U.S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Zodrow, George R., 2010. ``Capital Mobility and Tax Competition.'' 
National Tax Journal 63 (4, Part 2), 865-902.

Zodrow, George R., and John W. Diamond, 2013. ``Dynamic Overlapping 
Generations Computable General Equilibrium Models and the Analysis of 
Tax Policy.'' In Dixon, Peter B., and Dale W. Jorgenson (eds.), 
Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, Volume 1, 743-813. 
Elsevier Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

John W. Diamond, Ph.D., is the Edward A. and Hermena Hancock Kelly 
Fellow in Public Finance and director of the Center for Public Finance 
at the Baker Institute, an adjunct professor of economics at Rice 
University, and CEO of Tax Policy Advisers, LLC. His research interests 
are federal tax and expenditure policy, state and local public finance, 
and the construction and simulation of computable general equilibrium 
models. His current research focuses on the economic effects of 
corporate tax reform, the economic and distributional effects of 
fundamental tax reform, taxation and housing values, public sector 
pensions, and various other tax and expenditure policy issues. Diamond 
is co-editor of Pathways to Fiscal Reform in the United States (MIT 
Press, 2015) and Fundamental Tax Reform: Issues, Choices and 
Implications (MIT Press, 2008). He has testified before the U.S. House 
Ways and Means Committee, the U.S. House Budget Committee, the Senate 
Finance Committee, the Joint Economic Committee and other federal and 
state committees on issues related to tax policy and the U.S. economy. 
Diamond served as forum editor for the National Tax Journal (2009-2017) 
and on the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, U.S. Congress 
(2000-2004). He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank on 
the efficacy of structural adjustment programs. He received his Ph.D. 
in economics from Rice University in 2000.

George R. Zodrow is Allyn R. and Gladys M. Cline Professor of Economics 
and Faculty Scholar, Center for Public Finance, Baker Institute for 
Public Policy, at Rice University. He is also the Chair of the 
Economics Department at Rice, an International Research Fellow at the 
Centre for Business Taxation at Oxford University, and the President of 
Tax Policy Advisers, LLC. Zodrow is the recipient of the 2009 Steven D. 
Gold Award, presented by the National Tax Association to recognize 
significant contributions to state and local fiscal policy and a 
capacity to cross the boundaries between academic research and public 
policy making. His research interests are tax reform in the United 
States and in developing countries, state and local public finance, and 
computable general equilibrium models of the effects of tax reforms. 
His articles have appeared in numerous scholarly publications and 
collective volumes on taxation, and he is the author or editor of 
several books on the topic. Zodrow recently served for 10 years as 
editor of the National Tax Journal and has also been an editor of the 
``Policy Watch'' section of International Tax and Public Finance. He 
was a visiting economist at the U.S. Treasury Office of Tax Analysis in 
1984-85 during the preparation of Treasury I, the precursor to the Tax 
Reform Act of 1986, and has been involved in tax reform projects in 
numerous countries.

                                 ______
                                 

              Strengthening the Manufacturing Supply Chain

              PART OF THE NAM AMERICAN RENEWAL ACTION PLAN

Across America, the men and women of the manufacturing industry have 
stepped up to lead our country through the COVID-19 pandemic response, 
and the industry is committed to supporting our recovery and long-term 
renewal. The health and economic crises that we face are unlike 
anything witnessed in modern history. We know we can build a more 
prosperous future, but that demands decisive action and bold thinking.

Strengthening the modern manufacturing supply chain is a core part of 
the path forward, as laid out in the National Association of 
Manufacturers' ``American Renewal Action Plan.'' Growing the 
manufacturing base in the United States and onshoring production is 
vital not only for America's economic strength and job creation but 
also to prepare for future health crises.

Lawmakers and the administration must act swiftly on these 
recommendations, to incentivize and catalyze change and to lay the 
foundation for a renewed modern manufacturing industry in America and a 
stronger, healthier nation.

                 CREATE NEW INCENTIVES TO SUPPORT THE 
                 ONSHORING OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES

Adopting policies that grow the U.S. industrial base will result in 
more American jobs, increase GDP and bolster our national security. 
Targeted incentives will make the U.S. more attractive for 
manufacturing investment. A new tax credit that encourages companies to 
make domestic investments in manufacturing is one such tool. The key 
elements of an effective credit are as follows:

  Broad applicability--The credit must be available to all 
companies that invest in manufacturing activities in the United States, 
irrespective of the current location of their operations or place of 
organization. Any expansion of the U.S. industrial base should be 
encouraged.

  Stimulate new investments--Investments in workforce, machinery, 
equipment and innovation are key to the long-term success of 
manufacturing. To encourage onshoring, the credit must be equal to 16% 
or more of these costs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A forthcoming study by KPMG and The Manufacturing Institute 
analyzes the primary costs (compensation, property, utilities, taxes 
and interest rates) associated with manufacturing, finding that U.S. 
costs are on average 16% higher than a peer group of countries.

  Seamless integration into existing law--To be effective, the 
credit must be as simple as possible to calculate, easy to claim and 
complement existing tax incentives that are available to all 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
manufacturers, irrespective of size or form.

  Time-limited--The credit needs to be available for a limited 
period to encourage immediate investment in America. Specifically, the 
credit should be applicable to investments made in the next five years.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO HELP COMPANIES RECRUIT, 
        TRAIN AND RETAIN SKILLED WORKERS

One of the key challenges facing manufacturers is access to a skilled 
workforce. The industry suffers from a ``skills gap,'' in which too 
many Americans lack the specialized training necessary to immediately 
step into a modern manufacturing job. One recent study by Deloitte and 
The Manufacturing Institute, the workforce and education partner of the 
NAM, found that more than 2.4 million U.S. manufacturing jobs would go 
unfilled from 2018 to 2028 due to this skills gap and retirements.\2\ 
While that number will likely be reduced in the aftermath of the 
current crisis, it will not be eliminated because those who are 
unemployed will still not possess the necessary skills. To encourage 
onshoring, policymakers should take steps to build a pipeline of 
workers with the skills needed to operate a modern manufacturing 
facility. Without these policies, the U.S. will lack the manpower 
needed to grow the manufacturing base, keeping potential American jobs 
offshore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, Skills Gap and Future 
of Work Study (2018), available at http://
www.themanufacturinginstitute.org//media/E323C4D8F75A470E8C96D7A
07F0A14FB/DI_2018_Deloitte_MFI_skills_gap_FoW_study.pdf.

Accordingly, measures to increase investment and job creation in 
manufacturing in the United States must be accompanied by policies that 
expand the pool of skilled workers and assist companies in attracting 
and retaining talent. In the fierce competition for skilled domestic 
labor, these incentives will help ensure that manufacturing is the job 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of choice for a new generation of workers.

A reduction in costs associated with training is a key incentive that 
policymakers can offer to quickly build a pipeline of skilled U.S. 
workers. The Manufacturing Institute recommends two tax law changes 
that would immediately reduce these costs:

  First, high-quality earn-and-learn models are essential to staff 
new manufacturing facilities effectively. To defray the costs 
associated with these programs, new deductions should be put in place 
for items such as the initial set-up costs, cost of wages for learners 
and trainers and other direct costs associated with these programs.

  Second, employees should not be penalized for investments that 
employers make in their skills. Existing guidance in Internal Revenue 
Code Section 127 only allows for $5,250 of educational assistance to an 
employee to be excluded from an employee's gross income. This amount 
should be adjusted to $11,500 to increase participation in approved 
training programs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the House of 
Representatives that would implement this policy (H.R. 4849).

On-the-job training will help reduce the skills gap, but a rapid 
onshoring of activity will require manufacturers to quickly get workers 
into jobs. To ensure that the industry can attract the number of 
workers needed to fuel an expansion of the U.S. industrial base, new 
policies to reduce the financial burden on employers need to be 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adopted:

  Lawmakers can temporarily reduce the employer's share of the 
payroll tax by at least 25% for the first year of a newly hired 
manufacturing worker's employment.

  Policymakers should create a new federal fund of at least $3.1 
billion per year, for two fiscal years, to help manufacturers reduce 
the cost of providing health care and retirement benefits to workers. 
This amount assumes that the manufacturing workforce grows by 20% as a 
result of onshoring. With that level of growth, $3.1 billion represents 
federal assistance of 10%, meaning the employers would pay 90% of 
benefit costs for newly hired manufacturing workers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ In 2018, manufacturers spent $155.8 billion on health and 
retirement benefits. If we grow the manufacturing sector through 
onshoring by 20%, manufacturers would spend an additional $31.2 billion 
per year in benefits payments.

This aid would help reduce the cost of new investments and act as an 
incentive to onshoring manufacturing. This assistance should be 
narrowly tailored to aid recently constructed, upgraded or expanded 
facilities that increase their manufacturing workforce and limited to 
benefits payments for new workers. Enacting these policies will reduce 
the costs associated with locating a new investment in the United 
States and allow manufacturers to continue providing generous wage and 
benefit packages to American workers.

                ENHANCE AMERICA'S SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION

Innovation is the lifeblood of the manufacturing industry. New 
technologies, materials, products and processes drive the industry 
forward. To make America a competitive location for onshoring, 
policymakers must make a strong federal commitment to innovation.

The importance of research to manufacturers cannot be overstated: the 
industry accounts for 63% of all U.S. private-sector R&D, spending more 
than $271.3 billion in 2018.\5\ Yet, the U.S. lags far behind others in 
incentives for private-sector R&D, ranking 26th among advanced 
economies for R&D tax incentives.\6\ In the competition for industrial 
investment, other countries have recognized the importance of research 
and have moved aggressively to encourage these high-value activities to 
relocate within their borders. For example, the Chinese government has 
committed hundreds of billions of dollars to directly boost 
innovation.\7\ Alarmingly, the U.S. tax incentives for research are 
scheduled to shrink significantly, exacerbating the disparity and 
making it less likely that companies will onshore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    \6\ Ernst and Young, Impact of the Amortization of Certain R&D 
Expenditures on R&D Spending in the United States (October 2019), 
available at https://investinamericasfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/10/EY-RD-Coalition-TCJA-R-and-Damortization-report-Oct-2019-1.pdf 
(EY Report).
    \7\ See James McBride and Andrew Chatzky, Is ``Made in China 2025'' 
a Threat to Global Trade?, Council on Foreign Relations, available at 
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/made-china-2025-threat-global-trade.

Beginning in 2022, companies will no longer be allowed to immediately 
deduct their R&D spending. Instead, they will be required to deduct 
their spending over a period of years, making it more expensive to 
undertake research. Economists have predicted that this change will 
cost tens of thousands of U.S. jobs over the next decade and reduce R&D 
spending by billions of dollars each year.\8\ To ensure that America is 
the most attractive place in the world to start and grow a 
manufacturing business, lawmakers should immediately reverse this 
policy.\9\ There is an urgent need to fix this issue as significant 
research investments are often approved years in advance. Accordingly, 
the longer America waits to reverse this policy, the more likely it 
becomes that investments in innovation are either foregone or driven 
abroad. In addition, lawmakers should simplify the R&D tax credit as 
well as expand its applicability to other job-creating activities 
related to R&D. Moreover, the U.S. government can ensure that America 
remains an attractive environment for R&D by taking a strategic and 
tailored approach to controls on exports to maintain both our security 
and competitiveness goals. This way, U.S. manufacturers can continue 
our nation's leadership in innovative technologies and compete on a 
level playing field in the international marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See EY Report, supra.
    \9\ Members of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means have 
introduced bipartisan legislation (H.R. 4549) to address this issue.

The NAM believes that America should establish a revolving $1 billion 
public-
private investment vehicle to provide funding and financing to 
companies of all sizes to support research into advanced manufacturing 
technologies. This fund would support domestic innovation by requiring 
U.S.-based workforce and production for development of new technologies 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and ensuring U.S.-backed IP protection for innovation.

Companies conduct a vast amount of R&D in the United States.\10\ They 
use U.S. intellectual property laws and U.S. courts to protect and 
defend new ideas and valuable innovations, but global market factors 
lead companies to manufacture the products elsewhere. We can make the 
United States the country where companies want to both develop new 
ideas and manufacture the resulting products. Federal policies should 
use our strengths to offset those global market factors. In particular, 
lawmakers must create and fund a program to speed the delivery of 
valuable patent rights to companies that agree to conduct the 
operations for their innovative ideas in the United States. There is 
currently a backlog of more than 550,000 applications at the U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ As of 2016, the U.S. remained the world's single largest 
funder of R&D at $511.1 billion, which is more than 28% of the global 
total. Congressional Research Service, The Global Research and 
Development Landscape and Implications for the Department of Defense 
(updated Nov. 18, 2019), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/
R45403.pdf. The 2019 Global Innovation Index ranks the United States as 
third globally based on innovation capabilities, citing strengths in 
R&D and the presence of R&D companies. World Intellectual Property 
Organization, Global Innovation Index 2019: The United States of 
America (July 2019), available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/
en/wipo_pub_gii_2019/us.pdf.
    \11\ See U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, FY 2019 Performance and 
Accountability Report, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/USPTOFY19PAR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                ENSURE THAT BUSINESS LOANS AND CAPITAL 
                 EQUIPMENT PURCHASES REMAIN AFFORDABLE

Small and medium-sized companies comprise the backbone of the supply 
chain and are critical to a vibrant manufacturing sector. Policies that 
encourage domestication of manufacturing activities will likely require 
an expansion of domestic supply chain capacity. Small American 
manufacturers must be ready to expand their facilities, hire more 
workers and upgrade their machinery. Yet, looming tax law changes will 
make these required investments more expensive.

Small and medium-sized manufacturers are typically not publicly traded 
and must borrow funds to invest and grow. Currently, companies may 
deduct a portion of the interest paid on business loans. This deduction 
is limited to 30% of a company's earnings before interest, tax, 
depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). Beginning in 2022, an EBIT 
standard takes effect. This change will burden manufacturers 
disproportionately. By necessity, the industry invests heavily in 
depreciable equipment and machinery as well as amortizable assets, such 
as patents, formulas, licenses and trademarks. Excluding the 
depreciation and amortization associated with these investments from 
the base upon which the maximum interest expense is calculated will 
result in fewer deductions, making it more expensive for small and 
medium-sized manufacturers to make critical investments in their 
businesses.

Similarly, a tax change that will take effect in 2023 will reduce--and 
ultimately eliminate--the benefit of ``bonus depreciation,'' a policy 
that allows purchasers of machinery and equipment to deduct the cost of 
the item immediately. Accelerating the tax benefits associated with 
investments in the property needed to manufacture goods can 
dramatically reduce the cost of acquiring new machinery and spur 
investments in more efficient technologies, particularly among small 
and medium-sized companies.\12\ When bonus depreciation expires, the 
cost of capital investments will be deducted in smaller amounts over a 
longer period of time--immediately increasing the after-tax cost of 
purchasing machinery and equipment necessary to fuel manufacturing 
growth.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ In a 2018 economic study, the Tax Foundation found that making 
bonus depreciation permanent would grow the economy by 0.9% and create 
172,300 additional full-time equivalent jobs. Tax Foundation, The 
TCJA's Expensing Provision Alleviates the Tax Code's Bias Against 
Certain Investments (September 5, 2018), available at https://
taxfoundation.org/tcja-expensing-provision-benefits/.
    \13\ Legislation has been introduced in the Senate (S. 3296) and 
House (H.R. 6802) that would make bonus depreciation permanent.

When these policies take effect, they will create an incentive for 
manufacturers to produce goods overseas, rather than in the United 
States. Congress and the administration must work together to pass 
legislation to prevent these tax law changes from occurring and avoid 
the resulting decrease in domestic investment.

              OPEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PORTFOLIO OF 
                   SURPLUS PROPERTY TO MANUFACTURERS

Facilities costs are among the key factors in deciding where to locate 
manufacturing activities, and yet the cost of acquiring property 
suitable for industrial development is higher in the United States than 
in other advanced countries.\14\ The federal government has tools at 
its disposal to directly reduce these costs, which could help spur 
investment in new factories and, in turn, create new jobs. 
Specifically, the General Services Administration maintains a portfolio 
of government-owned unused property and already has in place a 
framework that can be utilized to transfer this property to industry at 
reduced costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ A 2016 KPMG study examining a limited pool of advanced 
economies found that industrial land acquisition costs were lower in 
France, Canada and Mexico than in the United States. KPMG, Competitive 
Alternatives (2016), available at http://mmkconsulting.com/compalts/.

While the GSA's process for disposing of federally owned real estate is 
straightforward, it is often quite lengthy.\15\ If a federal agency 
needs property, it can receive a transfer of the asset from GSA. If no 
federal agency expresses a need for the real estate, however, GSA, 
through the Public Benefit Conveyance Program, is authorized to 
transfer property to certain public entities and nonprofits, such as 
state and local government, for discounts of up to 100% for certain 
uses that are authorized by statute.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ From January to September 30, 2019, only 138 public sales of 
federal real property took place. See General Services Administration, 
FY 2019 Performance Overview: Office of Real Property Utilization and 
Disposal, available at https://disposal.gsa.gov/s/whatwedo.
    \16\ The PBC program requires GSA to prioritize certain public 
uses, such as addressing homelessness, before the agency can sell to 
states and local governments.

To encourage investment in factories and new jobs, policymakers need to 
authorize state and local governments to sell the property--for the 
discounted rate at which it was acquired--to companies that agree to 
construct manufacturing facilities on the land or use the property for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
manufacturing purposes.

Moreover, to speed the delivery of these assets, federal agencies can 
identify and publicly list all available property useful for 
manufacturers (e.g., land, warehouses, office space, labs) and identify 
ways to streamline the sale of these federal properties.\17\ In 
addition, agencies should work to identify underutilized federal real 
property sites suitable for public-private partnership opportunities 
and expedite the review of such agreements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ For example, the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (Pub. 
Law No. 114-287) provides an expedited route for the government to 
dispose of certain properties and requires agencies to develop lists of 
disposal recommendations. This provides a model upon which the federal 
government could build a manufacturing-focused program.
    \18\ A 2016 GAO document indicates that public-private partnerships 
may be an underutilized tool available to speed the distribution of 
property. Government Accountability Office Letter to Senator Ron 
Johnson and Senator James Lankford, Federal Real Property: Public-
Private Partnerships Have a Limited Role in Disposal and Management of 
Unneeded Property (August 30, 2016), available at https://www.gao.gov/
assets/680/679352.pdf.

The NAM believes that these programs should be open to all companies 
that seek to build manufacturing facilities in the United States, 
including companies that already operate domestically as well as those 
that seek to move production to America.

                  ANNUALLY REVIEW U.S. COMPETITIVENESS

More than 30 years passed between the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and 
enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In the intervening decades, our 
tax code became a drag on American businesses. Prior to enactment of 
the TCJA, our high corporate tax rate and outdated model for taxing 
income earned abroad created a strong incentive to keep earnings 
overseas and in fact caused some companies to flee America.\19\ 
Similarly, since the modern U.S. federal regulatory state was born in 
the 1930s, regulations have accumulated year after year at an 
increasing pace, imposing costs on firms of all sizes and across all 
industries. Some credible analyses have estimated that the U.S. economy 
would be 25% larger if regulatory burdens had remained constant since 
1980.\20\ The recent focus on right-sizing the regulatory regime helps 
reverse this trend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ See, e.g., Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of 
Corporate Inversions (September 2017) (``Tax rates and other provisions 
in the tax system influence multinational corporations' choices about 
how and where to invest, particularly as corporations assess whether it 
is more profitable to locate business operations in the United States 
or abroad.'').
    \20\ See Bentley Coffey, Patrick A. McLaughlin and Pietro Peretto, 
The Cumulative Costs of Regulation, Mercatus Center (2016), available 
at https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Coffey-Cumulative-Cost-Regs-
v3.pdf.

The NAM believes that the policies in this plan, if adopted, will make 
the U.S. a more attractive place to start and grow a manufacturing 
enterprise. However, other nations will respond with policy changes of 
their own. America should protect its industrial base by ensuring that 
our national policies are the most competitive in the world. That will 
require an annual report on the relative burdens imposed by the U.S. 
tax and regulatory regimes. This review should be conducted by the 
Department of Commerce and include recommended policy changes to 
enhance U.S. competitiveness. These changes should be afforded 
expedited congressional consideration.

                    HARMONIZE SUSTAINABLE PERMITTING

America has established a strong track record in environmental 
protection; growth in the U.S. industrial base as a result of onshoring 
should be consistent with these protections. Onshoring manufacturing 
supply chains that currently lack a domestic presence requires a 
renewed focus on sustainability that modernizes all levels of 
permitting. However, it currently can take years to obtain regulatory 
approvals for investments in certain manufacturing sectors--far longer 
than in other advanced countries. While well intentioned, this 
complicated, multilayered permitting regime acts as a significant 
barrier to developing new industries in America and a disincentive to 
onshoring. U.S. policymakers can modernize and strengthen permitting by 
encouraging early engagement and open collaboration among permitting 
authorities, as well as taking steps to speed the delivery of permits 
while at the same time continuing to protect our environment.

To further harmonize our environmental needs and economic challenges, 
Congress should take steps to promote early engagement and open 
collaboration between stakeholders and federal, state, tribal and local 
permitting authorities:

  Providing $300 million in additional resources to assist states, 
tribes and localities in addressing staffing and resource constraints 
to accelerate project delivery.

  Increasing funding for permit processing, assistance and 
approval by at least 25% at federal agencies.

Onshoring manufacturing requires first establishing basic 
infrastructure--from water and energy delivery to transportation--
before ground can ever be broken on a major facility. Obtaining permits 
for these items can take years, especially when reviews are piecemeal. 
Immediate action can be taken, utilizing existing authority and without 
weakening reviews, to reduce the time necessary to obtain permits and 
set the stage for onshoring. Congress established the Federal 
Permitting Improvement Steering Council four years ago to coordinate 
permitting activities among agencies and stakeholders.\21\ FPISC simply 
facilitates concurrent reviews; it does not eliminate required 
environmental reviews. The following steps should be taken for the 
streamlined, job-creating tools of FPISC to serve as powerful 
incentives in the global battle for manufacturing investment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ As an initial matter, Congress should reauthorize and fully 
fund the FPISC.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The President should issue an executive order that:

      Reaffirms the FPISC's existing authority to oversee and 
coordinate with all applicable agencies and levels of government to 
identify, prioritize and set timelines that avoid unnecessary delays;

      Empowers the FPISC, in partnership with states, to align 
overlapping and conflicting federal and state environmental review and 
permitting processes;

      Reprograms existing federal resources to fully fund the FPISC's 
environmental permitting support; and

      Directs the FPISC to identify large-scale critical 
infrastructure projects, with demonstrated short-term high economic 
impact, as ``covered'' projects, across a broad range of infrastructure 
sectors, including manufacturing.

                            AMERICAN RENEWAL

The time to act is now. America's recovery and renewal following the 
COVID-19 crisis will be a long journey. Policymakers must prioritize 
strengthening the manufacturing supply chain, and taking these steps, 
alongside the rest of the NAM's ``American Renewal Action Plan,'' is 
the way to do so successfully. The work can begin today, laying the 
foundation for a stronger, more prosperous America.

                                 ______
                                 
                 National Association of Manufacturers

                     733 10th Street, NW, Suite 700

                          Washington, DC 20001

                             P 202-637-3178

                             F 202-637-3182

                              www.nam.org

STEPHANIE HALL

DIRECTOR

INNOVATION POLICY

                             April 5, 2021

Matthew S. Borman
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230

Re: Risks in the Semiconductor Manufacturing and Advanced Packaging 
        Supply Chain (BIS-2021-0011; Docket No. 210310-0052)

    The National Association of Manufacturers is pleased to provide the 
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, with these 
comments on Risks in the Semiconductor Manufacturing and Advanced 
Packaging Supply Chain, a 100-day review called for by Executive Order 
14017 on America's Supply Chains.

    The NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the United 
States representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 
50 states. Manufacturing employs 12.2 million men and women, 
contributes more than $2 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the 
largest economic impact of any major sector, and accounts for nearly 
62% of private-sector research and development.\1\ The NAM is the 
powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate 
for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global 
economy and create jobs across the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nam.org/facts-about-manufacturing/.

    Manufacturing in the United States depends on resilient, diverse 
and secure supply chains. In the past year, the COVID-19 global 
pandemic has brought into focus the complexities, interdependencies and 
certain risks of global supply chains. The NAM is committed to 
supporting manufacturers navigate an unpredictable global market while 
advocating for a policy and regulatory environment that reduces 
uncertainty and grows the manufacturing base in the United States. 
Manufacturers' response to the health and economic crisis of a global 
pandemic has demonstrated that innovation in industry paired with 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
decisive policy action can yield solutions at record speeds.

    We are encouraged by the administration's focus on identifying 
risks in semiconductor manufacturing supply chains and policy solutions 
to address those risks, and manufacturers support government and 
industry collaboration to provide bold progress to strengthen 
semiconductor supply chains to support our country's economic 
leadership and national security. The policy solution includes 
increasing domestic chip manufacturing capacity in the long-term and 
reducing risks in global supply chains in the short-term by engaging 
with allies and partners. Manufacturers recognize that it is not 
feasible to shift full, complex semiconductor supply chains to the 
United States overnight, and global companies will continue to 
carefully manage risks through geographically diversified supply 
chains. The U.S. government's strategy must include both of these 
approaches.

    The NAM represents the key aspects of the semiconductor 
manufacturing supply chain, from research and development to design, 
fabrication, packaging and end-use production. Chip manufacturing is 
among the most complex, costly and precise processes in the world, and 
semiconductors amount to a half-trillion-dollar global supply chain.\2\ 
Today's semiconductor industry depends on an intricate global network. 
According to Accenture, ``each segment of the semiconductor value chain 
has, on average, 25 countries involved in the direct supply chain and 
23 countries involved in supporting market functions''\3\ Semiconductor 
products can cross international borders 70 times before the end-
product reaches a customer.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/The-
Semiconductor-Supply-Chain-Issue-Brief.pdf.
    \3\ https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-119/Accenture-
Globality-Semiconductor-Industry.pdf.
    \4\ https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-119/Accenture-
Globality-Semiconductor-Industry.pdf.

    In addition to providing significant manufacturing capacity as a 
sector itself, semiconductors are a core component driving innovation 
and production across the full manufacturing ecosystem. Manufacturers 
depend on both legacy and cutting-edge chips for their products and 
processes. Chips are integrated into everyday essential products, 
including but not limited to phones, laptops, water heaters and 
automobiles. These chips not just ubiquitous in our day-to-day products 
but also enable critical infrastructure such as power grids, 
communications networks and cloud computing. Chips are integral to U.S. 
aerospace and defense system, and they are a key component powering the 
digital transformation in Manufacturing 4.0 as manufacturers develop 
and embrace advanced technologies that are more reliant on data, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
including the Internet of things and automation.

    As an essential component in manufacturing, disruptions to the 
supply of semiconductors can result in impacts across the supply chain 
of specific products and entire sectors. For example, passenger and 
commercial vehicles use chip-enabled electronics for essential and 
required components of their systems, including engine control systems, 
collision avoidance censors and emission control modules. Semiconductor 
supply disruptions have recently interrupted delivery of these 
technical components and caused ripple effects across the broader 
manufacturing supply chains of automotive vehicles and heavy-duty 
trucks, leading manufacturers to reduce output and institute rolling 
production delays. This further disrupts predictability for the large 
and small suppliers that provide other inputs and component products to 
equipment manufacturers.

    Other sectors are also experiencing uncertainty in semiconductor 
supply chains that ripple across their supply chains. Persistent 
challenges with access to semiconductors can undermine COVID-19 
response efforts, as chips are necessary across the range of sectors 
that are delivering vaccines, medical devices, agricultural goods and 
essential supplies. Shortages can impede anticipated increases in 
production and sales in COVID-19 recovery and threaten to delay 
progress on bold infrastructure and digital transformation initiatives.

    The gap between chip demand and the available supply is expected to 
grow over the next five years. Manufacturers' competitiveness will 
depend on ensuring the chip supply chain does not stall the delivery 
and adoption of advanced technologies. For example, according to a 
recent study from The Manufacturing Institute, the workforce 
development and education partner of the NAM, over 50% of manufacturers 
report they will be testing or using 5G in some capacity within their 
facilities by the end of 2021, and 91% of manufacturers indicated the 
speed of 5G deployment will have a positive impact on their ability to 
compete globally.\5\ For manufacturers, chip-enabled technologies are 
crucial for enabling the factories of the future and for delivering 
innovation in autonomous vehicles and defense technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/03/Manufacturing-Institute-5G-study.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy Recommendations

Given the complex, global nature of semiconductor supply chains, many 
policy options will be targeted toward making long-term improvements to 
the security and reliability of these supply chains. This current 100-
day review and the year-long sectoral supply chain review required by 
Executive Order 14017 are important opportunities to identify and 
develop these policy solutions that will take time to implement. 
However, to address immediate and acute shortages, end users and 
consumers should work collaboratively with semiconductor manufacturers 
to plan and pursue reasonable efforts to relieve immediate supply chain 
disruptions to the greatest extent possible.

The federal government must begin acting on solutions now, and the 
following recommendations would address the critical national need for 
reliable, resilient and secure semiconductor supply chains and increase 
chips manufacturing capacity in the United States:

Pursue programs and policies that encourage the expansion of domestic 
semiconductor supply chains. The NAM's Strengthening Manufacturing 
Supply Chains proposal provides a clear set of recommendations for 
growing domestic manufacturing, and it recognizes that onshoring 
production across manufacturing sectors is vital for America's economic 
strength and job creation.\6\ The full plan is included as an 
attachment to this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ http://documents.nam.org/COVID/NAM%20-
%20Strengthening%20the%20Manufacturing%
20Supply%20Chain.pdf?_zs=K1Jwd1&_zl=gVGo6.

Among the plan's recommendations are specific proposals that should 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
guide policy solutions for semiconductor supply chains, including:

    -  Enact a new tax credit that encourages domestic investments in 
manufacturing and make tax law changes that reduce costs for 
manufacturers to hire and retain a pipeline of skilled U.S. workers.
    -  Support U.S. private-sector R&D by immediately reversing the R&D 
amortization tax change set to go into effect in 2022 that will prevent 
companies from being allowed to immediately deduct their R&D spending, 
and simplify the tax credit and expand its application.
    -  Establish a bold public-private investment vehicle to provide 
funding and financing to companies of all sizes to support research 
into advanced manufacturing technologies. Speed the delivery of 
intellectual property protections for companies that conduct operations 
for their innovative ideas in the United States.
    -  Open the federal government's portfolio of surplus property to 
manufacturers to build manufacturing facilities in the United States, 
which would reduce costs and spur investments.
    -  Harmonize sustainable permitting required to establish basic 
infrastructure that must be in place before companies can break ground 
on major facilities.

Fully fund programs authorized by Congress in the CHIPS for America Act 
and speed their implementation to boost domestic chip manufacturing. 
Establishing and expanding domestic chip manufacturing requires 
significant upfront capital expense. U.S. policies should incentivize 
the capital investments that support domestic manufacturing, as well as 
the research and development and design efforts that supports the 
semiconductor manufacturing ecosystem.

Congress included provisions of the CHIPS for America Act in Sections 
9902 and 9903 of the William M (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, which became law on January 1, 
2021. The law authorizes programs targeted to help manufacturers build 
and modernize chip manufacturing facilities in the United States. 
Congress should fully fund the enacted programs. It should further 
support the industry by providing an investment tax credit for these 
investments.

Domestic manufacturing incentives should support the full range of 
chips that commercial and public sector entities rely on, including 
next generation wafers designed to support advanced processing 
performance and legacy chips that continue to support multiple 
commercial and government applications. Policies should build on the 
United States' leadership in producing advanced chips and improve 
reliable access for older chipsets.

Domestic manufacturing incentives should identify and prioritize 
foreign dependencies and bottlenecks in the semiconductor supply chain, 
adding capacity, improving quality and creating stable regulatory 
environments for domestic production of these critical components.

Provide robust funding for R&D initiatives underway at the Departments 
of Commerce, Defense and Energy. These efforts should prioritize 
identification of the infrastructure and technical capabilities in 
domestic semiconductor supply chains, gaps in existing capabilities and 
the roll of strategic R&D investments to fill gaps, accounting for 
government and private sector demands and capabilities.

Streamline export control policies to support U.S. competitiveness in 
semiconductor manufacturing. Manufacturers fully recognize and support 
the need to safeguard critical technologies from foreign actors that 
pose identified threats to the United States. Equally important to U.S. 
national security is the ability to maintain and strengthen the 
innovation, competitiveness and leadership of the U.S. manufacturing 
and defense industrial base.

Currently, domestic semiconductor manufacturers can be deterred from 
taking on a project that is heavily controlled due to the burdensome 
and costly nature of complying with existing export control 
regulations. This can force domestic manufacturers to source 
semiconductor products offshore, or require them to downgrade to an 
older technology, resulting in an inferior and less competitive final 
product. Where possible without sacrificing national security goals, 
manufacturers encourage the Departments of Commerce and State to 
streamline export control policies, especially as they relate to deemed 
exports, to allow companies within the U.S. manufacturing and defense 
industrial base to be able to obtain semiconductor components from 
foundries located in the United States.

Strengthen the manufacturing workforce, especially in the science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields that support the 
chips manufacturing ecosystem.

Manufacturing in the United States, including semiconductor 
manufacturing, depends on a strong workforce to innovate and succeed, 
and manufacturers continue to face a workforce crisis, with 65.8% of 
respondents to the most recent NAM Manufacturers' Outlook Survey 
indicating that they continue struggling to find sufficient talent.\7\ 
The workforce challenge is expected to get worse in the coming years, 
with a study by Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute showing that 
nearly half of the estimated 4.6 million jobs manufacturers will need 
to fill over the next decade could go unfilled.\8\ According to the Ml, 
job openings in manufacturing are highly technical, workers require 
specialized skills training and credentials to qualify for these jobs 
and manufacturers need to attract a diverse set of workers with 
technical backgrounds in STEM disciplines.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.nam.org/2021-1st-quarter-manufacturers-outlook-
survey/.
    \8\ https://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/03/MI-Deloitte-skills-gap-Future-of-Workforce-study-2018.pdf.
    \9\ https://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/03/MI-Hiring-Engine-Job-Opening-Paper.pdf.

Policymakers should work with manufacturers on solutions to close the 
skills gap and encourage competitiveness: which includes, earn-and 
learn programs, certifications, two- and four-year degrees, on-the-job 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
training, upskilling, and second chances.

Boost cooperation with allied countries to improve semiconductor supply 
chain reliability. The concentration of chips production in a small 
number of overseas locations creates economic and security risks to the 
entire supply chain. Boosting U.S. domestic capacity should be pursued 
along with prioritizing strategic collaboration with allies to support 
short-term supply needs of industry and government and to enhance 
reliable, diversified supply chains the support U.S. semiconductor 
companies. Geographically diversified supply chains among allied 
countries can improve supply chain resiliency and help ensure U.S. 
manufacturers' access to the global market.

Conclusion

Manufacturers recognize that building resilient semiconductor supply 
chains and boosting domestic manufacturing capacity will require 
multiple policy solutions and sustained investments over time. The 
policy approach should include measures to build our domestic 
semiconductor manufacturing capabilities over time, as well as 
immediate efforts to support reliable supply chains among international 
allies. These solutions are essential to long-term economic 
competitiveness and national security, and it is critical to act to 
pursue these solutions now. The federal government can help catalyze 
this transition by enacting the policy recommendations above while also 
pursuing a policy environment-in trade, tax, regulatory policy, 
intellectual property protections and immigration reforms-that supports 
manufacturers' ability to quickly innovate and build. The NAM looks 
forward to continued engagement with the administration and 
policymakers on the ongoing work to strengthen manufacturing supply 
chains.

Stephanie Hall
Director of Innovation Policy

                                 ______
                                 
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Oregon
    The Finance Committee has worked hard over the last year to tackle 
the public health and jobs crises brought on by COVID-19. Today the 
committee meets to discuss another challenge that the pandemic exposed: 
the fragility of our supply chains, and the need to boost manufacturing 
in America.

    When COVID-19 exploded, factories around the globe shut down and 
supply chains were cut. Most Americans would recognize the effect of 
the supply chain crisis as something I'll call a toilet paper problem. 
It seemed like the supply ran out in the blink of an eye, and overnight 
nobody could get their hands on a package of toilet paper. Some sellers 
raised prices, others restricted the marketplace to compensate for the 
shortages, but the shelves still emptied and Americans were facing a 
panic.

    Household paper products are one thing, but the reality is, huge 
and vitally important parts of our economy are suffering from their own 
version of a toilet paper problem too. For example, over the last year 
there have been concerns about the supply of batteries, medications, 
and minerals used in electronics.

    There are still shortages of personal protective equipment that 
doctors and nurses need badly. Domestic producers, including one in 
Oregon, have begun making high-quality respirators and other PPE, but 
it's still a market dominated by producers in China.

    The supply chain crisis setting off the most alarm bells deals with 
semiconductors. They are a key component of cars, medical devices, 
appliances, phones and computers, defense technologies, you name it. 
Americans don't roll out of bed without flipping some switch or 
checking some device that relies on semiconductors.

    Disruptions at a single Taiwanese producer of semiconductors have 
caused major headaches for manufacturers across the U.S., as well as 
for American consumers. Factories here in the U.S. have gone quiet as a 
result of the shortage. The shock waves of this blow to the modern 
global economy are continuing to ripple out and will cause further 
problems in the weeks and months to come.

    It is a recipe for trouble when one single pandemic, natural 
disaster, or terrorist attack can sever brittle supply chains and 
hobble our economy, threaten American jobs, and weaken our national 
security.

    That's why there's bipartisan interest in building up our domestic 
manufacturing to bolster the supply of semiconductors and other 
critical components and products. President Biden ordered a 
comprehensive review of supply chains in several different areas of our 
economy and national defense. The administration has made it clear that 
nothing is off the table when it comes to making our supply chains and 
our economy more resilient.

    In addition to America's national and economic security, this is 
also about high-skill, high-wage jobs. A lot of communities around the 
country have endured a steady decline since manufacturing jobs peaked 
decades ago. Our manufacturing economy never fully recovered from the 
Great Recession before the pandemic hit.

    There is a big opportunity to begin to turn that around when you 
look at high-tech manufacturing. This is an area where my home State of 
Oregon is a national leader. Intel is one of our biggest employers. Our 
State is known for the innovation that comes out of the Silicon Forest. 
Oregonians know that investments in R&D and advanced manufacturing 
bring about high-wage, high-skill jobs. Those are exactly the kind of 
jobs this country needs to create a lot more of.

    This committee has a host of economic tools in the kit that can 
help shore up domestic manufacturing. For example, Senator Stabenow and 
Senator Daines are working with Senator Manchin on the advanced 
manufacturing credit. Senators Warner and Cornyn and others are working 
on the issue of chips. In my view, it's also going to be important to 
look at changes to the 2017 Trump tax law, which in fact created a 
disincentive for R&D. Fixing that issue--and creating strong and 
reliable long-term incentives--is going to be key, because the U.S. 
will not out-
compete China and other countries with short-term legislation and 
never-ending uncertainty.

    So I want to keep working with members and with the administration 
on this issue, because the fact is, this economic challenge is also a 
job-creation opportunity. The committee is joined this morning by a 
panel of witnesses who will be able to examine this issue from just 
about every angle. I want to thank them for joining us, and I look 
forward to Q&A.

                                 ______
                                 
       Submitted by Hon. Todd Young, a U.S. Senator From Indiana
                            Robert Bosch LLC

                         38000 Hills Tech Drive

                       Farmington Hills, MI 48331

                         https://www.bosch.us/

March 15, 2021

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chairman                            Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Building      Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6200           Washington, DC 20510-6200

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:

On behalf of Robert Bosch LLC (``Bosch''), a leading global supplier of 
technology and services, I am pleased to submit these comments for the 
record for the March 16, 2021 hearing entitled, ``Made in America: 
Effect of the U.S. Tax Code on Domestic Manufacturing.''

Since 1954, the U.S. has allowed companies to deduct qualified R&D 
expenses from their taxable income in the same year in which they are 
incurred. This policy has incentivized innovation and encouraged 
companies to locate their R&D investments, facilities and jobs in the 
U.S. Bosch urges the Committee to repeal the change made in the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act and to preserve this critical policy as part of the 
overall initiative to maintain and enhance the U.S.'s global 
competitiveness. If the current change is allowed to proceed and take 
effect in 2022, then the U.S. would be one of only two developed 
countries with such a punitive approach to R&D investments.

Research and innovation are essential components of Bosch's DNA as a 
company. For the last two decades, Bosch Research has been shaping the 
future, playing a key role in the development of technologies such as 
artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, human-machine interaction, 
automated driving systems, robotics, advanced circuits and sensors.

Having established a presence in the U.S. in 1906, the Bosch group of 
companies employ approximately 18,000 associates across the country, 
operate 25 manufacturing sites, and maintain three dedicated Research 
and Development Centers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Sunnyvale, 
California and Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bosch has a significant 
presence in Michigan, South Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and 
Kentucky, and we are also proud to highlight Bosch's Electric Drives 
manufacturing facility in Albion, Indiana. Established in 1993, the 
Albion facility produces several automotive parts and components for 
domestic vehicle manufacturers, and employs more than 260 associates.

The Silicon Valley and Pittsburgh sites have a long tradition of 
community engagement, which includes strong collaborations with local 
universities as well as local grants to support STEM-related activities 
through the Bosch Community Fund (BCF), the company's U.S.-based 
charitable foundation.

Bosch is committed to providing technologies and systems for the four 
business sectors of our company--Mobility Solutions, Energy and 
Building Technology, Industrial Technology and Consumer Goods. To 
prepare for future challenges across every area of our business, we 
rely on the ability to conduct research domestically, which includes 
collaboration with top universities and industry partners across the 
United States.

That is why it is so crucial that the U.S. tax code continue to provide 
sufficient incentives for businesses to invest in research and 
development of new products and ideas. As noted above, since 1954, the 
U.S. has allowed companies to deduct qualified R&D expenses from their 
taxable income in the same year in which they are incurred.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 26 U.S. Code Sec. 174--Research and experimental expenditures.

Due to a change made through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, beginning in 
2022, businesses in the U.S. will no longer be able to immediately 
deduct their R&D expenses and will instead be required to amortize, or 
deduct, these expenses over several years. If this is not addressed by 
Congress in 2021, R&D costs for Bosch and other companies will 
radically increase, and create a significant disincentive for companies 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to maintain and grow their critical R&D investments.

Bosch respectfully requests that the Committee consider legislation 
that would ensure the U.S. tax code continues to support R&D by 
repealing the amortization provision. We welcome this opportunity to 
submit comments for the record and look forward to working with the 
Committee and other stakeholders to address this extremely important 
issue.

Sincerely,

Mike Mansuetti
President, Bosch in North America

                                 ______
                                 
                        Cook Group Incorporated

                            750 Daniels Way

                              P.O. Box1608

                       Bloomington, IN 47402-1608

                          Phone: 812-331-1025

                           Fax: 812-331-8990

                       https://www.cookgroup.com/

                             March 15, 2021

The Honorable Todd Young
Finance Committee
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Young:

    The COVID-19 pandemic has affected nearly all aspects of American 
life. As you move forward examining what policies are needed to 
strengthen America and stimulate our economy, I wanted to share my 
suggestions on policies affecting the device industry. It has been my 
privilege to be associated with Cook for more than 50 years and I offer 
these thoughts in that context, but also as a husband, father, 
grandfather, patient, and, finally, as an employee myself.

    Since 1963, Cook has grown from its birth in a spare bedroom in 
Bill and Gayle Cook's apartment to a world leader in advancing medical 
care for patients worldwide. There were many setbacks and countless 
challenges that threatened the success of Cook as our founder, Bill 
Cook, sought to build an innovative American company that would improve 
patient care. But Bill was resilient and had the same entrepreneurial 
spirit that makes this country so unique. These traits, combined with 
his focus on the patient, are the foundation of Cook's success. The 
company has been the first to introduce new medical devices 
contributing to more than 70 new procedures.

    For over 50 years, Cook Medical has been inventing, manufacturing, 
and delivering a unique portfolio of medical devices to healthcare 
systems around the world. We work closely with physicians to develop 
technologies that improve patients' lives. Serving over 40 medical 
specialties and every area of the hospital, we provide treatments in 
almost every body system. Because we remain family owned, we have the 
freedom to focus on what we care about: our patients, our employees, 
and our communities.

    Cook is headquartered in Bloomington, Indiana with its U.S. 
manufacturing plants in Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Illinois 
and California. We also have manufacturing facilities in Ireland, 
Denmark and Australia. We have direct sales in most of the world where 
the health care system is developed. Our company employs about 11,600 
people around the world with approximately 9,600 of these employees 
based in the United States. While more than 56 percent of our sales are 
outside the United States, more than 72 percent of the devices are 
manufactured in this country.

The Medical Device Industry

    In my lifetime, health care has advanced from limited antibiotics 
and vaccines, exploratory surgery, go-home-and-rest following a heart 
attack to modern medicine that includes more targeted, minimally 
invasive medical procedures and treatments that extend lives, improve 
the quality of life often with better outcomes and greater value. The 
device industry has been at the center of these advances and offers 
clean, well-paying jobs with benefits. It is the envy of the world and 
countries around the world are competing to dominate this industry and 
workforce and have made gains in recent years.

    For many decades, the U.S. medical device industry was one of the 
few manufacturing and technology industries that consistently maintains 
a trade surplus. However, that surplus is threatened by competition 
from other countries that have put in place policies to provide 
favorable tax, reimbursement and regulatory treatment. As Congress 
looks to enact policies that stimulate our economy and make America 
more competitive and resilient, policymakers on both sides of the aisle 
agree that a key component is to invest in technology, manufacturing, 
and growth industries of the future.

Cook Policy Suggestions

Supply Chain
    As a global company, Cook serves patients around the world, which 
depends on and benefits from a global supply chain. In some cases, 
there are certain inputs that we, through our suppliers, must source 
from outside the United States. The global pandemic tested--but did not 
break--the supply chain for medical devices. Of course, certain 
products were in short supply, and I urge policy makers to consider 
future steps to mitigate the risks and severity of such shortages in 
future events. Any policy changes related to the supply chain should be 
targeted to the specific problem that we are seeking to address. Please 
see the below suggestions:

      Products used in the critical care setting should be made in 
America--By definition, those products used in the critical care 
setting are essential to caring for patients in dire circumstances. To 
ensure that we have ongoing access to these needed products, these most 
essential of products should be domestically manufactured, with 
critical inputs also domestically sourced or inventoried in sufficient 
quantities to support defined surge capacity.
      Medicare payment should recognize and incentivize those products 
to be made in America--Medicare, due to its size and scope, exerts a 
great deal of influence in the U.S. health care market. To encourage 
more domestic manufacturing of needed medical products, there should be 
an added incentive for those products made in the U.S. via increased 
reimbursement.
      The United States should invest in capacity to manufacture 
critical items--Not only do we need to ensure that we as a country have 
access to needed products, we need to ensure that we have the ability 
to manufacture them in the U.S., and be able to handle a surge capacity 
situation. This can be encouraged through increased grant 
opportunities, tax credits and consideration of strategic, long-term 
contracts for maintenance and upkeep of critical production surge 
capabilities beyond existing market requirements.
Tax Incentives
    Our tax structure should support U.S. manufacturing of devices and 
these incentives should apply to all, not just those who re-shore. 
Incentives drive jobs and investment, and because wages and benefits 
are much higher in the U.S. these countries start with a cost 
advantage, other countries are increasing their efforts to attract jobs 
and investment through the use of various incentives, including cash 
grants.

      The NOL carryback provision should be maintained--Cook strongly 
supports the current net operating loss (NOL) carryback provision, 
which has been key to infusing cash into mid-size companies as it 
allows losses generated in tax years 2018, 2019, and 2020 to be carried 
back five years. While the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for 
smaller companies and other liquidity measures for larger companies 
were generally very successful, the Main Street Program, which was 
targeted to create liquidity for mid-sized companies, was not very 
effective as intended so the NOL provision really filled that void. We 
remain concerned about the House-passed HEREOS Act provision 
resurfacing in future reconciliation legislation or an infrastructure 
bill that would include a revenue offset to significantly curtail the 
CARES Act NOL provision and require companies to pay back money that 
might have already been spent to stay afloat during the pandemic.
      The U.S. must keep a competitive tax rate--It is important the 
U.S. keep a competitive tax rate in order to encourage domestic 
manufacturing. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) change lowered the U.S. 
corporate rate to 21% making the U.S. competitive with the rest of the 
world, which today the OECD rate average is below 24%. Maintaining this 
rate will help the U.S. continue to be competitive.
      R&D should be supported through the tax code--Cook supports the 
``American Innovation and Jobs Act'' as introduced by Senators Hassan, 
Young, Cortez Masto and Portman. As written, the legislation would 
restore immediate deductions for research and development (R&D) 
investments and expand the refundable R&D tax credit for startups by 
raising the existing credit cap. Based on an OECD analysis, the U.S. 
ranks twelfth in government funding and tax support for R&D trailing 
such countries as Russia, the UK, and Italy. The U.S. ranking likely 
decreases further if companies are required to capitalize and amortize 
R&D expenses. Manufacturing and jobs located where research develops 
new technology.
      Cost recovery model should be examined. An immediate cost 
recovery is arguably the best policy to spur economic growth and jobs 
according to the Tax Foundation's General Equilibrium Model. Cook 
supports an extension of 100% expensing for qualifying equipment 
purchases.

Finally, thank you for your efforts to repeal the medical devices 
excise tax. It has made a difference, particularly during 2020 when 
elective procedures came to a halt.
Medicare Reimbursement
    Seniors are the biggest end-users of medical technology given both 
the acute and chronic needs of this more fragile demographic. As a 
result, Medicare is our most important payer and the private sector 
looks to Medicare's reimbursement models for guidance. Suggested 
reforms that would improve seniors' access to innovative technologies 
and encourage domestic manufacturing include:

      Telehealth should be expanded and incentivized--Since last 
March, Medicare providers can use telehealth services for certain 
medically reasonable purposes from offices and places of residence. 
This has enabled patients to consult with their physicians on needed 
health issues and in rural areas it has provided improved 
accessibility. Congress should consider further easing Medicare 
telehealth restrictions, expanding these services in the future and 
incentivizing physician offices to adopt needed technology, including 
programs that will assist seniors when accessing these virtual 
appointments.
      The Coverage for Evidence Development (CED) process should be 
reformed--While Medicare provides certain conditional coverage for 
medical devices or services while additional clinical or scientific 
information is collected, the system needs to become more transparent 
and predictable so safe, innovative technologies reach patients in a 
more timely manner.
      Coordination is key for patients--Finally, we need to improve 
the collaboration between CMS and FDA on reaching Medicare 
reimbursement decisions more timely using agile principles and updated 
digital transformational processes. When FDA approval or clears a 
device then CMS should accept the approval for coverage and determine 
reimbursement.
FDA/Regulatory
    The Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the healthcare 
system and has required all stakeholders to transcend traditional 
boundaries and work together. The FDA has stepped up to lead through 
these challenges and should be commended for its work to get safe and 
effective COVID-related tests and treatments to patients, all while 
continuing its non-pandemic work.

    In addressing the pandemic, FDA has reassessed its models and 
practices, related to its evaluation of a product's safety and 
effectiveness. For those treatments with demonstrated safety, the 
Agency has permitted accelerated clinical development using agile 
principles, regulatory flexibility, new trial designs using real world 
data, and integrated evidence generation in a test, learn and scale 
mode with the hopes of saving more lives.

    As one example of changes in the process, FDA has established The 
Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP) which uses every 
available method to move new treatments to patients as quickly as 
possible, while at the same time assuring those treatments are helpful 
and not harmful. Clinical trials are being expedited for COVID patients 
who need urgent care--more than 420 reviewed by FDA as safe to proceed. 
Product authorizations under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) have 
permitted thousands of lives to be saved. New vaccines approved in 
record time are now available globally.

    As we move into a new stage of the pandemic, it is important to 
keep in mind that there are thousands of patients who are in desperate 
need of new medical technologies and treatments designed to alleviate 
suffering. We need to be able to deliver these treatments to patients 
with a continued mindset of urgency. To that end, we suggest:

      FDA use lessons learned from the pandemic in its approach to 
regulation of medical devices in general--There are numerous patients 
with horrible diseases who suffer daily with serious and deadly unmet 
clinical need. These patients could benefit from efforts to use every 
available method to move new treatments to patients as quickly as 
possible.
      FDA continue efforts to support development of devices 
specifically indicated for use in pediatric populations--This important 
group of patients is being underserved by the current device regulatory 
framework, but their needs are just as urgent as other groups of 
patients.
      Congress should fund the Pediatric Device Consortia--Cook has 
long supported increased funding for the Pediatric Device Consortia 
(PDC) Grant Program at the Office of Orphan Products Development at the 
FDA. We recognize the significant achievements of the PDC and the 
ongoing needs of children, where medical devices often lag five to ten 
years behind those for adults due to factors that include differences 
in size, weight and metabolism rate. Increased funding for the program 
is necessary to achieve continued improvements.
Education and Workforce Development
    While many factors impact the strength and competitiveness of U.S. 
manufacturing, none is more important than access to a highly prepared 
workforce. This requires a high-quality educational system starting in 
early childhood and extending through high school graduation to 
postsecondary education and beyond, including effective employer-driven 
workforce development strategies.

    This means America's employers have a vested interest in the 
caliber and opportunity offered by the schools in their communities--
including elementary schools. For example, it is well established that 
students who can't read proficiently by grade three have dramatically 
diminished potential for future success and are far more likely to drop 
out of high school. The ability to read well is a critical early 
building block and one we must all support to secure collective success 
and individual opportunity for all children.

    At Cook, we have worked hard to grow our business, positively 
impact the healthcare industry and the patients it serves and develop a 
skilled and ready workforce. We have learned that we will only succeed 
if we can reach all potential pools of talent. In Indiana, that meant 
finding ways to elevate the 29,000 people age 18-64 in our multicounty 
employment region without a high school diploma or equivalency.

    As part of our ``My Cook Pathway'' employee development effort, we 
created a targeted program that hires eligible candidates without a 
high school diploma and offers them a full-time, 40-hour paycheck while 
they work toward their high school equivalency certificate. They spend 
half their time working at Cook and half their time in classes studying 
for the high school equivalency exam. Cook pays for tutors, materials 
and test taking and upon successful completion of their HSE testing, 
those employees move into full time, full benefit positions throughout 
the company.

    We also have learned that the key to company and individual success 
in today's economy depends on employees who are able and willing to 
advance their knowledge and move to higher levels of interest and 
potential. For that reason, we added critical components to our ``My 
Cook Pathway'' program that support employees' continued advancement in 
our company, including up-front tuition assistance to help employees 
earn up to a master's degree at virtually no out-of-pocket cost. Cook 
works with the higher ed institutions to pay upfront (up to max of 
$5,250 annual support limit) or to defer payment until completion. The 
results of this initiative have been truly impressive: The number of 
Cook employees continuing their education has grown from 100 per year 
to more than 1,000 per year. The need for a trained educated workforce 
depends on the nations ability to get working age individuals to pursue 
certificates, HSE, complete the secondary education. How do we 
incentivize them? We have found connecting the job with the training or 
education is essential.

    Our efforts at Cook along with those of many important education 
and workforce partners are elevating the importance of aligned and 
high-quality education and workforce development--for individuals, 
communities and our nation's economy. In our opinion, the COVID-19 
pandemic has exacerbated the challenge and created an additional sense 
of urgency to focus on these issues.

    We would propose that the critical elements of focus on the 
workforce development front include the following:

      Increase the maximum allowable annual tuition assistance 
support. The maximum allowable support for tuition assistance programs 
has not been increased from the $5,250 level since 1996 (Section 127--
in today's dollars would be $8,700). Increasing that number would be a 
key first step in advancing important continued advancement for our 
individuals and industries.
      Support direct industry engagement with educational partners. 
Many examples exist of industry working collaboratively with 
educational partners to align curriculum, provide awareness, relevancy 
and work-based learning opportunities for students. These best 
practices should be supported and duplicated pervasively across the 
country. At the K-12 level in Indiana, career and technical education 
programs have been realigned to focus on high-demand industry sectors 
and embed industry and workforce certificates.
      U.S. Manufacturing sector needs more industry-recognized 
credentials. There should be a coordinated effort to advance more 
targeted manufacturing industry recognized credentials in addition to 
AA, BA, BS higher education degrees. A coordinated effort between the 
leading US manufacturing industry organizations and U.S. Department of 
Education among others should promote and incentivize best practice 
programs across the country. As an example, Indiana through its Next 
Level Jobs initiative offers Hoosiers high-demand industry 
certifications in five key sectors, including advanced manufacturing, 
tuition free.
      Advance upskilling of the current generation of working age 
adults. In Indiana alone there are 500,000 adults with no HS diploma/
GED/HSE and more than 1.5M without education beyond high school. We 
must advance programs and support efforts to completion. As an example, 
the Indiana Commission for Higher Education in conjunction with 
Indiana's colleges and universities have developed a successful program 
called You Can. Go Back. that helps adults return and finish degrees 
they started. Additionally, Governor Holcomb's Next Level Jobs 
initiative has helped more than 21,000 Hoosiers earn certificates in 
high-demand industries at no cost.
      Expand experiential work-based learning programs and 
requirements. Experiential learning is critical for both individual 
success and overall American competitiveness--internships, 
apprenticeships, co-ops, etc., must become the norm rather than the 
exceptions at both the high school and postsecondary level. All 
programs within higher education should include some required element 
of career experience/engagement.
      Expand digital learning and awareness. American competitiveness 
is dependent on our ability to lead in the digitally enabled economy; 
we must focus on expanding experience and basic skill development for 
all students. Indiana, as an example, is working to embed digital 
literacy skills and competencies into its statewide college core (30 
general education college-level credits that transfer seamlessly to any 
public state institution).
      Align leadership of education and workforce development 
leadership. As we are doing in Indiana, our K-12, higher education, 
workforce development and industry leadership must be totally aligned 
and focused on achieving collective goals to grow our economy and 
improve the lives of individuals and families.

    Thank you for all that you are doing for our country. I am 
passionate about this industry, our country and the patients we serve. 
I stand ready to be helpful in any way that I can.

            Respectfully,

            Stephen L. Ferguson
            Chairman of the Board

                                 ______
                                 

                             Communications

                              ----------                              


                              alliantgroup

                1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300

                          Washington, DC 20004

                          Phone: 832-389-1695

                   Email: [email protected]

         Statement of Dean A. Zerbe, National Managing Director

Introduction

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished Members of the 
Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to submit written 
comments in response to your important hearing to discuss the effect of 
the U.S. tax code on domestic manufacturing.

My name is Dean A. Zerbe and I am alliantgroup's National Managing 
Director based in Washington, DC. alliantgroup serves a broad spectrum 
of clients, from start-ups to the largest Fortune 1,000 companies in 
nearly every industry. Our professionals consist of CPAs (including 
former partners at ``Big Four'' accounting firms) and attorneys, in 
addition to individuals from a wide array of disciplines. alliantgroup 
works with businesses and their CPA firms to identify powerful, 
government-sponsored, cash-generating credits, incentives, and 
deductions. As background, I had the honor to serve as Senior Counsel 
and Tax Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee from 2001-2008.

I want to thank all of the Committee members for bringing forward this 
critically important discussion. The effect that the tax code, 
particularly the Research and Development Tax Credit (R&D Credit), has 
on American businesses cannot be understated. Even more so, the 
potential this tax incentive has for growing important businesses in 
the U.S. to compete globally is vast. The Finance Committee, under the 
current leadership and under the previous leadership of Chairman 
Grassley, has been a strong advocate for the R&D Credit and ensuring 
that the credit works for small and medium businesses (SMBs). I 
particularly commend the Finance Committee for championing changing the 
law to allow SMBs to take the R&D Credit against AMT, a seemingly small 
change that has made an enormous difference for thousands of innovative 
SMBs to utilize and benefit from the R&D Credit that translated into a 
great number of good jobs at good wages for many Americans. The Finance 
Committee now has the chance to build on its excellent work.

Testimony

It is vitally important to the U.S. economy and to your constituents 
that Congress helps American businesses, particularly those small and 
medium in size, remain and become financially viable. Enhancing certain 
aspects of our tax code can be the key to more employees getting hired, 
better pay and more equipment being bought, built or exported. 
Unfortunately, the U.S. tax code has created barriers that have 
limited--or will limit in the near future--businesses from enjoying the 
full benefit of the R&D Credit.

It was, however, encouraging to hear many during the panel acknowledge 
the harms wrought by the amortization provision of IRC Sec. 174. The 
provision, which was included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (``TCJA'') 
as a revenue raiser, will stifle innovation, be incredibly costly for 
job creators, reduce employment and cause massive administrative 
headaches for both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service 
(``IRS''). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
amortization of R&D expenses will result in a 17-percentage point 
increase in the effective tax rate on R&D investments at the end of 
this year. The requirement of amortizing all research and experimental 
expenditures over five years only serves to penalize taxpayers who 
perform research by disallowing immediate deductions of their R&D 
expenditures that could put necessary capital into business owners' 
hands in the short term.

As an example, imagine an Automotive Parts Co. (``APC'') in Ohio that 
has $40 million in annual revenue, 150 employees, and income of $4 
million. Assume APC is an S-corporation with a single shareholder who 
is married and will be filing jointly. The total IRC Sec. 41 qualified 
research expenditures (``QREs'') total $2.5 million, the IRC Sec. 41 
credit (after reduction) totals $200,000, and the total IRC Sec. 174 
expenditures total $4 million.

Under the current law, the total taxable income would be approximately 
$3.2 million ($4,000,000 - $800,000 IRC Sec. 199A). The total tax 
liability for APC would be approximately $915,000 ($1,125,000 - 
$200,000 R&D Credit). Under the new IRC Sec. 174 provision, the taxable 
income would be approximately $5.76 million ($4,000,000 + $4,000,000 
IRC Sec. 174 Cost*.8 - $1,440,000 Sec. 199A). This would leave APC with 
an approximately $1.87 million tax liability ($2,070,000 - $200,000 R&D 
Credit).

The above example isn't a one-off, as we look at our clients we see a 
similar story repeated again and again across the country. Amortization 
of R&D will be crushing for businesses and jobs. Given my experience at 
alliantgroup working with thousands of businesses to claim the R&D 
Credit, I am certain that companies will refuse to take the credit if 
the current amortization rules, scheduled to take place in 2022, 
remain. alliantgroup has worked with companies in nearly every industry 
and through our work we have seen the tremendous impact that the R&D 
Credit has had on these businesses' ability to hire and retain 
technical talent and invest in themselves to innovate at a higher 
level. From automotive companies in Ohio to agricultural businesses in 
Idaho, I have been amazed at the innovations brought forward by 
companies who have been able to leverage this incentive in order to 
make themselves more competitive. The Committee should strongly 
consider any legislation that will remove the amortization provision 
and allow for the continuation of the long-held practice of immediate 
R&D expensing that will allow companies to utilize the R&D Credit 
incentive to its full potential.

The Committee and hearing witnesses were also correct in acknowledging 
the ways in which COVID-19 exposed the weaknesses in America's supply 
chain. The manufacturing sector is a crucial component of our country's 
economic engine, and there are tools that Congress can implement to 
help ensure that the industry is operating at maximum capacity.

alliantgroup has long supported a more generous tax credit to support 
domestic manufacturing. The Committee should encourage R&D that 
translates into U.S. manufacturing jobs by providing a greater R&D 
Credit to those companies that conduct a significant percentage of 
their manufacturing domestically. An enhanced R&D Credit for domestic 
manufacturers would particularly benefit SMBs and would potentially 
create tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs domestically while 
discouraging companies from moving offshore.

There are several proposed bills that I encourage the Finance Committee 
to give hard consideration. Those include, introduced in the previous 
Congress, the FORWARD Act introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), 
Pat Roberts (R-KS), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NE), Todd Young (R-IN), 
Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Steve Daines (R-MT), along with U.S. 
Representatives Suzan DelBene (D-WA) and Jackie Walorski (R-IN). The 
FORWARD Act provides an enhanced R&D Credit for U.S. companies to the 
extent they also manufacture in this country. The bill also proposes to 
expand the ability of start-ups to take advantage of the refundable R&D 
Credit.

The American Innovation and Jobs Act, introduced by Senators Todd Young 
(R-IN), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Rob 
Portman (R-OH), and Ben Sasse (R-NE), is also a great start to 
bolstering the R&D Credit. The proposed bill would restore immediate 
expensing for R&D expenditures for tax years beginning after December 
31, 2021, and would also expand the refundable research credit for 
small businesses.

These bipartisan proposals offer Congress a way to significantly 
strengthen one of the most powerful tools for success available to 
American SMBs. China currently plans to significantly increase its 
available R&D Credit as part of its ``14th Five-Year Plan for Economic 
and Social Development.'' China will continue to allow for a 75 percent 
deduction for corporate R&D expenses, while increasing the allowable 
deductions of manufacturing firms to 100 percent and offering other tax 
incentives to increase R&D investments. If the U.S. wants to remain a 
world leader in innovation, we must keep pace with other countries in 
terms of available tax incentives that allow more monies to be 
allocated toward research and development efforts.

In closing, I wanted to also thank the Committee for acknowledging the 
STEM crisis that America faces. Hundreds of thousands of technical jobs 
go unfilled every year because American businesses are not able to find 
qualified talent. To date, alliantgroup has provided more than $640,000 
in scholarships to young students who have committed themselves to a 
STEM career. The strengthening of the R&D Credit is only as powerful as 
the amount of technical workers that can leverage the incentive. I'm 
proud of alliantgroup's leadership in encouraging young people to 
embrace a STEM career.

I want to again thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment on 
the topics covered during the hearing, and for its historic leadership 
in making the R&D Credit an effective tool for small and medium sized 
American businesses across the country.

                                 ______
                                 
                       American Chemistry Council

                           700 Second St., NE

                          Washington, DC 20002

March 29, 2021

The Honorable Chairman Wyden
The Honorable Ranking Member Crapo
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6200

      Re: Made in America: Effect of the U.S. Tax Code on Domestic 
            Manufacturing--Hearing Tuesday March 16, 2021 10:00 am

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies 
engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC member companies apply the 
science of chemistry to create and manufacture innovative products that 
make people's lives better, healthier, and safer. The business of 
chemistry is a $526 billion enterprise and a key element of the 
nation's economy. Over 25% of U.S. GDP is generated from industries 
that rely on chemistry, ranging from agriculture to oil and gas 
production, from semiconductors and electronics to textiles and 
vehicles, and from pharmaceuticals to residential and commercial energy 
efficiency products.

ACC appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in response to the 
Committee's hearing last week on the effect of the tax code on domestic 
manufacturing. Since 2010, the chemical industry has invested $97 
billion in new or expanded facilities in the United States. These 229 
projects are completed and operating. Another 40 projects cumulatively 
valued at $31 billion are under construction, while 80 projects valued 
at $81 billion are in the planning phase. This investment in facilities 
drives business and job growth in the United States.

We agree with the sentiment expressed by many members during the 
hearing and echo the messaging of the witnesses--the lowering of the 
corporate tax rate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was a 
critical component driving growth in the manufacturing sector--and in 
the chemical industry in particular, was a driving factor in the 
renaissance we are now witnessing.

Like many witnesses, we are deeply concerned about the changes to the 
research and development deduction (R&D), interest deductibility under 
section 163(j), and full expensing that will take effect without 
congressional intervention. To that end, we support the American 
Innovation and Jobs Act recently introduced. On top of the concern over 
scheduled changes, we continue to see signs that increasing the 
corporate tax rate is under serious consideration. Reversing course by 
increasing the corporate tax rate to 28% renders the U.S. 
uncompetitive, particularly when also considering the application of 
additional state and local taxes. Such an increase is also inherently 
contrary to a ``Made in America'' policy objective.

All of these changes will negatively impact ACC members and harm U.S. 
manufacturing. Although we appreciate tough decisions may be necessary, 
we urge Congress to continue to be mindful about modifying the tax code 
to ensure the United States remains competitive and U.S. manufacturing 
continues to play a critical role in America's recovery. We look 
forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Flagg
Senior Director, Federal Affairs

                                 ______
                                 
                  Association for Accessible Medicines

                   601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Suite 850

                          Washington, DC 20001

                              202-249-7100

                        [email protected]

                      https://accessiblemeds.org/

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo and members of the Senate Finance 
Committee, we appreciate the committee's attention to the impact of 
federal policies, in particular the tax code, on the manufacturing 
sector in the United States. The Association for Accessible Medicines 
(AAM) is the nation's leading trade association for the developers, 
manufacturers and distributors of FDA-approved generic and biosimilar 
prescription medicines. AAM and its members are committed to the secure 
and consistent supply of critical medicines to improve the health of 
America's patients and as a critical tool in the effort to lower 
prescription drug costs.

The COVID-19 pandemic reminds us of the incredible value offered by the 
generics and biosimilars industry, the benefits of a reliable and 
resilient global supply chain, and the industry's daily commitment to 
manufacturing safe, effective and high-
quality medicines. AAM's members experienced substantially increased 
demand for certain medicines that far exceeded historical trends,\1\ 
navigated export restrictions on active pharmaceutical ingredients 
(API) and finished dose (FD) generic medicines,\2\ re-routed the 
delivery of medicine as air travel was significantly curtailed around 
the globe \3\ and absorbed much of the increased costs charged for the 
transportation of medical products to ensure that America's patients 
were able to access critically needed medicines during the coronavirus 
pandemic.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Ellen Gabler and Michael Keller, ``Prescriptions Surged as 
Trump Praised Drugs in Coronavirus Fight,'' New York Times, April 25, 
2020, Updated May 19, 2020.
    \2\ Rajesh Roy, ``India Again Allows Export of Antimalarial Drug 
Touted for Coronavirus,'' Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2020.
    \3\ Ian Duncan, ``Drug Industry Warns That Cuts to Passenger 
Airline Service Have Put Medical Supplies at Risk,'' Washington Post, 
May 2, 2020.
    \4\ AAM Survey of Biosimilar and Generic Drug Manufacturers, 
``Pharmaceutical Shipping Costs Spike in Response to Global COVID-19 
Pandemic,'' April 30, 2020.

In summary, AAM's member companies stepped up to ensure continued 
patient access to medicines throughout the global pandemic.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ AAM, ``Generics and Biosimilars Industry Supply Chain & 
Response to COVID-19,'' April 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generic Medicines Are the Bridge to Ongoing COVID-19 Containment

Generic and biosimilar manufacturers are committed partners in 
responding to and helping to treat patients with COVID-19. As the virus 
and its variants remain active in the U.S. and around the world, AAM 
and its member companies understand the important role we serve in the 
continuing public health response. Generic medicines approved by FDA 
and on the market are currently being used to care for and treat 
patients with COVID-19. While we await the wide distribution of safe, 
effective vaccines, generic injectables are being used to place a 
patient on a ventilator and generic steroids have been shown to reduce 
the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by one-third.\6\ Proven, 
reliable generics are playing a critical role in the treatment of 
patients afflicted with the virus and throughout a patient's recovery 
period. Access to these treatments will continue to serve as a bridge 
until an FDA-approved vaccine is distributed broadly and every American 
is vaccinated from COVID-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ World Health Organization, ``WHO welcomes preliminary results 
about dexamethasone use in treating critically ill COVID-19 patients,'' 
June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Enhancing the U.S. Pharmaceutical Supply Chain 
                       Ahead of the Next Pandemic

AAM welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress to apply lessons 
learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to help ensure uninterrupted 
patient access to life-
saving medicines now and in the future. We believe there are important 
steps that Congress can and should take and, to that end, we released 
our recommendations, A Blueprint for Enhancing the Security of the U.S. 
Pharmaceutical Supply Chain (https://accessiblemeds.org/sites/default/
files/2020-04/AAM-Blueprint-US-Pharma
-Supply-Chain.pdf), last year.

President Donald J. Trump's August 2020 executive order and President 
Joseph R. Biden's February 2021 executive order each included important 
steps toward strengthening the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain. In the 
first, FDA was directed to establish a list of essential medicines, 
medical countermeasures and critical inputs that are considered 
priorities for domestic manufacturing. FDA published the list on 
October 30, 2020.\7\ Under the second, the Department of Health and 
Human Services will undertake a 100-day assessment of the 
pharmaceutical and active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) supply chain. 
This review will help evaluate the scope and capacity of current U.S. 
pharmaceutical manufacturing, while identifying specific 
vulnerabilities that can be targeted for resolution both immediately 
with the COVID-19 pandemic and longer-term as the country prepares for 
future public health challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ FDA, ``List of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures and 
Critical Inputs,'' October 2020.

AAM's recommendations, as outlined in the Blueprint, include both of 
those elements: identifying the list of medicines of highest priority 
for domestic manufacturing and completing a vulnerability assessment of 
the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain. As additional actions are 
considered, it will be critical for Congress to adopt incentives to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
increase and expand the domestic manufacturing of essential medicines.

Creating the conditions that support and encourage these investments is 
necessary to ensuring the most critical medicines are manufactured in 
the U.S. To establish and maintain this environment, AAM's Blueprint 
recommends:

      Enacting new tax incentives to secure the U.S. supply chain and 
enhance domestic manufacturing;
      Providing long-term guaranteed contracts to supply the Strategic 
National Stockpile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the 
Department of Defense;
      Reducing regulatory inefficiencies to streamline the approval 
for U.S.-based facilities to manufacture medicines; and
      Promoting a global, cooperative approach to diversifying the 
supply chain.

    Tax Incentives to Support U.S.-Based Manufacturing of Essential 
                               Medicines

Given the important role the U.S. government plays in encouraging the 
conditions that support domestic manufacturing, the tax code can be a 
powerful tool to support the U.S.-based manufacturing of essential 
medicines. AAM supports two tax incentives to help facilitate greater 
domestic production:

    1.  A 50% tax credit to offset the costs of manufacturing 
medications on the list of ``Essential Medicines'' in the United 
States. The credit should be available for as long as the medicine in 
on the list of essential medicines and for five years thereafter.
    2.  An increase in the simplified R&D tax credit to 20%.

AAM and our member companies believe that these tax incentives, 
combined with the other proposals included in AAM's Blueprint, are 
necessary to incentivize further U.S. manufacturing of essential 
medicines in the United States. Given that the medicines included on 
the FDA List of Essential Medicines are mostly high-volume, low-margin 
products, the tax credits are critical to helping to offset the 
significant marginal cost advantages enjoyed by competitive foreign 
producers of the same products. Similarly, as AAM members invest in 
research and development to innovate new ways to produce these and 
other medicines, it will be critical that the R&D tax credit is 
expanded.

We would be glad to discuss these recommendations as the committee 
determines next steps on the supply chain in preparation for the next 
pandemic and future public health emergencies.

Conclusion

AAM and our members are committed to the secure and consistent supply 
of critical medicines for America's patients. The Blueprint's 
recommendations include actionable, short-term steps to expedite more 
U.S.-based production of essential medicines, while putting in place a 
series of incentives to enhance the security of the U.S. pharmaceutical 
supply chain. Given that modern manufacturing facilities can take 5-7 
years and cost up to $1 billion to build, a long-term, consistent 
commitment from the federal government is critical to harnessing 
existing U.S. manufacturing and building an expanded generic 
manufacturing base in the U.S.

We welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to take the lessons 
learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and apply those toward policies to 
help ensure patient access to life-saving medicines continues 
uninterrupted. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our views.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Center for Fiscal Equity

                      14448 Parkvale Road, Suite 6

                          Rockville, MD 20853

                      [email protected]

                    Statement of Michael G. Bindner

Chairman Wyden and the Ranking Member Crapo, thank you for the 
opportunity to submit these comments for the record to the Committee on 
Finance. Our comments are mainly an update of those delivered to this 
Committee and the Ways and Means Committee over the past few years. You 
can find these in four attachments.

Attachment One comes from comments meant for the Senate Budget 
Committee on Large Corporations. They were never delivered because 
Senate Budget does not accept comments. Attachment Two addresses 
taxpayer fairness. Attachment Three is our updated tax reform plan, 
which now includes a summary listing individual actions. Attachment 
Four addresses the question of how tax reform impacts trade.

The public discourse on manufacturing uses large corporations as a 
stand-in for capitalism. Talking about capitalism carries Cold War 
connotations. For those who are confused, and many are, the Soviet 
Union was dissolved over twenty years ago. It had not been socialist 
since the time of the revolution. Because Marx believed that workers 
would figure everything out, little thought was given to how it would 
work. It truly has never been tried. The system of state capitalism in 
the Soviet era has been supplanted by oligarchy in Russia (six on one, 
half dozen of the other) and it is thriving in China.

Marx focused on capitalism. His main contribution was describing the 
exploitation of factory workers. In a modern enterprise, creative 
branding is as important as design and more important than production. 
Sales is always important, as are company services. The explosion of 
innovation centers in China are now competing with America on all 
fronts, not just manufacturing.

In October of last year, we delivered comments to the House Ways and 
Means Oversight Subcommittee on tax fairness. In it we discuss the 
causes of the decline in wages as compared to productivity. This 
started in 1965, which cut post-war high marginal tax rates from 91% to 
70 %. This cut took away the disincentive for wage theft by the CEO 
class. This accelerated with the Reagan tax cuts.

The 1986 tax reform gave us the current system. It has changed round 
the edges since then, but has not been significantly reformed. The 
Clinton and Bush to capital gains and dividend rates set up the 2008 
Great Recession, delivering too much money to the speculation sector 
(it is not investment as understood as a factor of GDP). President 
Obama reversed the Bush cuts and the economy recovered because of them.

The Ryan-Brady-Ryan cuts started us back the other way, but seem to 
have shown enough restraint to indicate there was more bipartisanship 
involved than anyone will admit. The main contribution of the Act was 
bringing corporate and business rates into relative parity. It did 
nothing for workers and did not bring money home, as promised. No 
studies have been done on executive compensation subsequent to the Act, 
although the growth rate one year after passage fell by one whole point 
of GDP before the Pandemic.

As in the 2000s, monetary policy was providing us with the perfect 
storm of tax cuts leveraging speculation, this time in Cryptocurrency 
and securities created so that providers of single family rental 
housing (which boomed in the foreclosure crisis) could cash out, with 
these funds packaged, again as AAA bonds, into Exchange Traded Funds. 
As we exit the pandemic, expect a financial crisis having nothing to do 
with COVID. This crisis will be used as an excuse to further move 
operations off-shore.

The President has put forwarded reasonable rate corrections that may 
stop the coming crisis, or make it less severe. Still, the proposals 
are nibbling around the edges. More basic reform is needed.

Loading almost all taxation into payroll and income taxes continues the 
advantages of the CEO donor class. Splitting the elements of these 
taxes into a system of consumption and asset value-added tax, as we 
propose in Attachment Three, extracts revenue at multiple points. Most 
taxpayers will only be hit once by goods and services and employee 
payroll OASI taxes and will benefit from making American Recovery Act 
subsidies for families both permanent and more generous.

Higher tier subtraction VAT rates and residual income surtaxes will 
reduce wage theft. Offering high income taxpayers an opportunity to 
purchase tax prepayment bonds, and generally using salary surtaxes to 
pay down the debt is essential to making sure our economy is 
competitive when other nations duplicate our system of tax backed debt 
backing currency. These bonds also avoid interest payments--the item 
which causes most of the danger of an expanding debt.

Our proposed Asset Value-Added Tax simplifies income tax filing greatly 
and expands tax breaks for funding Employee Stock Ownership Programs 
(as well as Cooperatives--which are simply an ESOP with one voting 
share per employee-owner, with the balance of ownership in preferred 
shares.) Currently, only sole proprietors can take advantage of the 
ESOP exclusion from Capital Gains Taxes. Allowing shareholders the same 
privilege, especially heirs whose Asset VATs are marked to market when 
sold, will accelerate employee-ownership.

Attachment Four discusses how tax reform affects trade, both in terms 
of union rights and in joining everyone else in using the zero rating 
of value-added taxes for export, making American manufacturing more 
attractive. We also note how internationally based employee ownership 
of both subsidiaries and supply chains discourages wage and currency 
arbitrage, which is the best way to share the gains of reform with 
workers internationally while removing the incentive to send production 
outside our borders.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. We are, of 
course, available for direct testimony or to answer questions by 
members and staff.

Attachment One--Large Corporations, February 25, 2021

Corporations vs. Capitalism

One of the great over-generalizations in economic discussion is to 
assume that all large firms are corporations or that one form of 
ownership is bad, while others are good, Capitalism can occur in large 
and small firms, in corporations, partnerships and sole 
proprietorships. Use of the term ``corporations'' is a way not to be 
seen as a Marxist and a Russian sympathizer. What we used to call big 
businesses are now referred to as corporations.

The rise of Putin shows that capitalist authoritarianism can take many 
forms, from state capitalism to oligarchs. In the United States, the 
old Soviet Union and modern (?) Russia, the form of organization of a 
firm has no bearing on its true nature. The only difference in recent 
times is that a modern Republican President brought sympathy with 
Russian authoritarianism, and its methods, to the White House.

The term capitalism is widely misused. Many conflate it with free 
markets. They are not the same thing. The key feature of capitalism is 
the exploitation of workers, consumers, suppliers and (in corporations) 
shareholders. The key feature of that exploitation is not size, it is 
the withholding of information. Entrepreneurs, whether they are in the 
C Suite, Trump Tower or the back office is the ability to monopolize 
information.

In the information age, firms like Wal-Mart and McDonald's track 
product preferences at the transaction level. They leverage their 
information to give the people what they want and their relationships 
to do this at the lowest possible price. Lower prices bring in 
customers. Like gerrymandering, where politicians pick their voters, 
information age firms pick their customers.

Firms can become monopolies for many reasons. For some, it is because 
they have control of an invention or production process. If they don't 
control something, they use their resources to buy off the competition. 
This ability dampens innovation, which sets the purpose of the patent 
and trademark power in the Constitution on its head. The other way 
monopolies and oligopolies exist is in control over suppliers and of 
the workforce.

Perfect competition requires everyone knowing everything. Such 
competition is rare in real life. Imperfect competition exists in both 
selling (monopoly) and buying (monopsony). These forms range from total 
Monopoly and Monopsony to Oligopoly and Oligopsony to Monopolistic and 
Monopsonistic Competition. The less imperfect forms, where there is a 
degree of branding but a freer market is what defenders of capitalism 
like to assume. Big business gives us more monopoly and less 
competition.

Labor Markets

On the labor side, monopsonistic competition means lower prices and the 
ability of workers to move from one employer to another to demand 
better pay, working conditions and management, or to find another job 
where a fresh start can be made--that is, that some kind of permanent 
record does not follow the employee around. The perception that there 
is such a record is used to keep some employees in line.

In monopsonistic and oligopolistic labor markets, such a record does 
exist, especially on those who attempt to organize their fellow workers 
into the union movement. With the rise of Internet background services, 
including their use by larger employers, the concept of a permanent 
record is becoming more real than dystopian fiction.

There are two ways in which big business fights unionization. One is 
that they threaten to and go through with closing stores rather than 
letting workers organize at their store. Their actions on the supply 
side are equally harsh. Unionized suppliers are simply not used when 
possible, with foreign governments, from China to Latin America, doing 
the dirty work to dissuade union organizing, from blacklisting to 
actual violence.

The other method is franchising. By treating local operations as 
franchisees, no store is big enough to unionize. These firms earn the 
label ``small business'' in government statistics, even when they must 
abide by corporate rules, from personnel to suppliers. Franchisees 
often complain, in response to minimum wage hikes, that they will earn 
less than their employees if the wage hike is passed. More about that 
below. Franchisees are often sole proprietorships, not corporations. We 
cannot continue to demonize corporations when small businesses share 
the sins of capitalism.

Government, by not enforcing labor laws, has become part of the 
problem--both in not enforcing fair pay and in dropping the ball in 
helping workers organize.

Undocumented Workers

Opposition to reform provides a supply of undocumented labor forces 
immigrants into the shadows of the low wage world as well. Undocumented 
workers do not unionize. Right to work laws are, in fact, right to 
employ undocumented labor laws.

This is a one-two punch at undocumented workers. The demand for 
undocumented workers would dry up if they were allowed to unionize and 
did not face deportation for doing so. Union power would drive wages 
up, with or without a decent minimum wage. The presence of these 
workers keeps wages low for domestic workers, which causes friction 
between poorer American workers and immigrants.

Perverse Incentives

Studies have shown that paying workers more is an incentive toward 
self-betterment. The theory that low wages and benefits lead to the 
desire to pull one up by one's bootstraps is a canard. The reality is 
that keeping people in poverty is an excuse to create and maintain a 
ready supply of low wage workers.

This is also the rationale for keeping the child tax credit low. A 
higher credit, preferably one distributed with pay, would help workers 
to get out of poverty, lower the abortion rate and leave the low wage 
market.

Solutions

The ultimate cure for low-wage work and the need for government 
programs to make it possible is employee ownership. The only way for 
workers to know their productive output is to own the company. Ideally, 
this does more to provide competition for wages, especially management 
wages, than any form of capitalism--be it corporate, sole proprietor or 
governmental. Please see my standard attachment on employee ownership 
for more details on this option.

Attachment Two--Taxpayer Fairness, October 13, 2020

To start, we must distinguish between fairness and justice. Fairness is 
having your say. Justice is getting or paying what is due to or for 
you.

Lower-income taxpayers depend on the fairness of the system, rather 
than individual fairness. It is costly to make one's case to the IRS 
when disputes arise. To an extent, they must pay and obey. As long as 
they can provide information when it is lacking or work out payment 
arrangements when they do not have funds available the system is fair. 
Generally, they do, although currently the unopened mail resulting from 
the pandemic stretches that fairness, as Chairman Neal noted in August 
(2020).

Higher-income taxpayers have more room to argue, as well as more to 
argue about. Sometimes their attempts to hide income are too clever by 
half. If they succeed in beating the system, the result for all of us 
is both less fair and unjust. A wealth tax, because the elements are 
both debatable and gameable, compound the problems inherent in current 
capital gains taxation.

The tax rate on capital gains is seen as unfair because it is lower 
than the rate for labor. This is technically true, however it is only 
the richest taxpayers who face a marginal rate problem. For most 
households, the marginal rate for wages is less than that for capital 
gains. Higher-income workers are, as the saying goes, crying all the 
way to the bank.

The injustice in the system is baked in by the maldistribution of 
income in the economy at large. Prior to the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts, 
high marginal rates prevented the extraction of economic rent from 
workers. Any labor cost savings went to the government, so gains in the 
economy were shared by all. In 1981, the problem got worse and in 1986, 
higher marginal rates were traded for reduced tax benefits, with 
corporations taking the hit. The class warfare which began in 1965 was 
over twenty years later. Labor lost, both organized and otherwise.

Recently, tax rates for corporations and pass-through income were 
reduced, generally, to capital gains and capital income levels. This is 
only fair and may or may not be just. The field of battle has narrowed 
between the parties. The current marginal and capital rates are seeking 
a center point, as most as if the recent tax law was based on 
negotiations, even as arguments flared publicly. Of course, that would 
never happen in Washington. Never, ever.

Compromise on rates makes compromise on form possible. If the Pease and 
Affordable Care Act provisions are repealed, a rate of 26% is a good 
stopping point for pass-through, corporate, capital gains and capital 
income. A single rate also makes conversion from self-reporting to 
automatic collection through an asset value added tax levied at point 
of sale or distribution possible. This would be both just and fair, 
although absolute fairness is absolute unfairness, because there would 
be little room to argue about what is due and when.

Ending the machinery of self-reporting also puts an end to the Quixotic 
campaign to enact a wealth tax. Out of fairness, if the revenue 
committees do give its proponents and opportunity to testify, it must 
hear from me as well. It would only be fair.

Attachment Three--Tax Reform, March 5, 2021

Individual payroll taxes. These are optional taxes for Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance after age 60 for widows or 62 for retirees. We say 
optional because the collection of these taxes occurs if an income 
sensitive retirement income is deemed necessary for program acceptance. 
Higher incomes for most seniors would result if an employer 
contribution funded by the Subtraction VAT described below were 
credited on an equal dollar basis to all workers. If employee taxes are 
retained, the ceiling should be lowered to $85,000 to reduce benefits 
paid to wealthier individuals and a $16,000 floor should be established 
so that Earned Income Tax Credits are no longer needed. Subsidies for 
single workers should be abandoned in favor of radically higher minimum 
wages.

Wage Surtaxes. Individual income taxes on salaries, which exclude 
business taxes, above an individual standard deduction of $85,000 per 
year, will range from 6.5% to 26%. This tax will fund net interest on 
the debt (which will no longer be rolled over into new borrowing), 
redemption of the Social Security Trust Fund, strategic, sea and non-
continental U.S. military deployments, veterans' health benefits as the 
result of battlefield injuries, including mental health and addiction 
and eventual debt reduction. Transferring OASDI employer funding from 
existing payroll taxes would increase the rate but would allow it to 
decline over time. So would peace.

Asset Value-Added Tax (A-VAT). A replacement for capital gains taxes, 
dividend taxes, and the estate tax. It will apply to asset sales, 
dividend distributions, exercised options, rental income, inherited and 
gifted assets and the profits from short sales. Tax payments for option 
exercises and inherited assets will be reset, with prior tax payments 
for that asset eliminated so that the seller gets no benefit from them. 
In this perspective, it is the owner's increase in value that is taxed.

As with any sale of liquid or real assets, sales to a qualified broad-
based Employee Stock Ownership Plan will be tax free. These taxes will 
fund the same spending items as income or S-VAT surtaxes. This tax will 
end Tax Gap issues owed by high-income individuals. A 26% rate is 
between the GOP 24% rate (including ACA-SM and Pease surtaxes) and the 
Democratic 28% rate. It's time to quit playing football with tax rates 
to attract side bets.

Subtraction Value-Added Tax (S-VAT). These are employer paid Net 
Business Receipts Taxes. S-VAT is a vehicle for tax benefits, including

      Health insurance or direct care, including veterans' health care 
for non-
battlefield injuries and long term care.
      Employer paid educational costs in lieu of taxes are provided as 
either 
employee-directed contributions to the public or private unionized 
school of their choice or direct tuition payments for employee children 
or for workers (including ESL and remedial skills). Wages will be paid 
to students to meet opportunity costs.
      Most importantly, a refundable child tax credit at median income 
levels (with inflation adjustments) distributed with pay.

Subsistence level benefits force the poor into servile labor. Wages and 
benefits must be high enough to provide justice and human dignity. This 
allows the ending of state administered subsidy programs and 
discourages abortions, and as such enactment must be scored as a must 
pass in voting rankings by pro-life organizations (and feminist 
organizations as well). To assure child subsidies are distributed, S-
VAT will not be border adjustable.

The S-VAT is also used for personal accounts in Social Security, 
provided that these accounts are insured through an insurance fund for 
all such accounts, that accounts go toward employee-ownership rather 
than for a subsidy for the investment industry. Both employers and 
employees must consent to a shift to these accounts, which will occur 
if corporate democracy in existing ESOPs is given a thorough test. So 
far it has not. S-VAT funded retirement accounts will be equal-dollar 
credited for every worker. They also have the advantage of drawing on 
both payroll and profit, making it less regressive.

A multi-tier S-VAT could replace income surtaxes in the same range. 
Some will use corporations to avoid these taxes, but that corporation 
would then pay all invoice and subtraction VAT payments (which would 
distribute tax benefits. Distributions from such corporations will be 
considered salary, not dividends.

Invoice Value-Added Tax (I-VAT). Border adjustable taxes will appear on 
purchase invoices. The rate varies according to what is being financed. 
If Medicare for All does not contain offsets for employers who fund 
their own medical personnel or for personal retirement accounts, both 
of which would otherwise be funded by an S-VAT, then they would be 
funded by the I-VAT to take advantage of border adjustability. I-VAT 
also forces everyone, from the working poor to the beneficiaries of 
inherited wealth, to pay taxes and share in the cost of government. 
Enactment of both the A-VAT and I-VAT ends the need for capital gains 
and inheritance taxes (apart from any initial payout). This tax would 
take care of the low-income Tax Gap.

I-VAT will fund domestic discretionary spending, equal dollar employer 
OASI contributions, and non-nuclear, non-deployed military spending, 
possibly on a regional basis. Regional I-VAT would both require a 
constitutional amendment to change the requirement that all excises be 
national and to discourage unnecessary spending, especially when 
allocated for electoral reasons rather than program needs. The latter 
could also be funded by the asset VAT (decreasing the rate by from 
19.5% to 13%).

As part of enactment, gross wages will be reduced to take into account 
the shift to S-VAT and I-VAT, however net income will be increased by 
the same percentage as the I-VAT. Adoption of S-VAT and I-VAT will 
replace pass-through and proprietary business and corporate income 
taxes.

Carbon Value-Added Tax (C-VAT). A Carbon tax with receipt visibility, 
which allows comparison shopping based on carbon content, even if it 
means a more expensive item with lower carbon is purchased. C-VAT would 
also replace fuel taxes. It will fund transportation costs, including 
mass transit, and research into alternative fuels (including fusion). 
This tax would not be border adjustable.

Summary

This plan can be summarized as a list of specific actions:

1.  Increase the standard deduction to workers making salaried income 
of $425,001 and over, shifting business filing to a separate tax on 
employers and eliminating all credits and deductions--starting at 6.5%, 
going up to 26%, in $85,000 brackets.

2.  Shift special rate taxes on capital income and gains from the 
income tax to an asset VAT. Expand the exclusion for sales to an ESOP 
to cooperatives and include sales of common and preferred stock. Mark 
option exercise and the first sale after inheritance, gift or donation 
to market.

3.  End personal filing for incomes under $425,000.

4.  Employers distribute the child tax credit with wages as an offset 
to their quarterly tax filing (ending annual filings).

5.  Employers collect and pay lower tier income taxes, starting at 
$85,000 at 6.5%, with an increase to 13% for all salary payments over 
$170,000 going up 6.5% for every $85,000--up to $340,000.

6.  Shift payment of HI, DI, SM (ACA) payroll taxes employee taxes to 
employers, remove caps on employer payroll taxes and credit them to 
workers on an equal dollar basis.

7.  Employer paid taxes could as easily be called a subtraction VAT, 
abolishing corporate income taxes. These should not be zero rated at 
the border.

8.  Expand current state/federal intergovernmental subtraction VAT to a 
full GST with limited exclusions (food would be taxed) and add a 
federal portion, which would also be collected by the states. Make 
these taxes zero rated at the border. Rate should be 19.5% and. replace 
employer OASI contributions. Credit workers on an equal dollar basis.

9.  Change employee OASI of 6.5% from $18,000 to $85,000 income.

Attachment Four--Trade Policy

Consumption taxes could have a big impact on workers, industry and 
consumers. Enacting an I-VAT is far superior to a tariff. The more 
government costs are loaded onto an I-VAT the better.

If the employer portion of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, as well as 
all of disability and hospital insurance are decoupled from income and 
credited equally and personal retirement accounts are not used, there 
is no reason not to load them onto an I-VAT. This tax is zero rated at 
export and fully burdens imports.

Seen another way, to not put as much taxation into VAT as possible is 
to enact an unconstitutional export tax. Adopting an I-VAT is superior 
to it's weak sister, the Destination Based Cash Flow Tax that was 
contemplated for inclusion in the TCJA. It would have run afoul of WTO 
rules on taxing corporate income. I-VAT, which taxes both labor and 
profit, does not.

The second tax applicable to trade is a Subtraction VAT or S-VAT. This 
tax is designed to benefit the families of workers through direct 
subsidies, such as an enlarged child tax credit, or indirect subsidies 
used by employers to provide health insurance or tuition reimbursement, 
even including direct medical care and elementary school tuition. As 
such , S-VAT cannot be border adjustable. Doing so would take away 
needed family benefits. As such, it is really part of compensation. 
While we could run all compensation through the public sector.

The S-VAT could have a huge impact on long term trade policy, probably 
much more than trade treaties, if one of the deductions from the tax is 
purchase of employer voting stock (in equal dollar amounts for each 
worker). Over a fairly short period of time, much of American industry, 
if not employee-owned outright (and there are other policies to 
accelerate this, like ESOP conversion) will give workers enough of a 
share to greatly impact wages, management hiring and compensation and 
dealing with overseas subsidiaries and the supply chain--as well as 
impacting certain legal provisions that limit the fiduciary impact of 
management decision to improving short-term profitability (at least 
that is the excuse managers give for not privileging job retention) .

Employee owners will find it in their own interest to give their 
overseas subsidiaries and their supply chain's employees the same deal 
that they get as far as employee-ownership plus an equivalent standard 
of living. The same pay is not necessary, currency markets will adjust 
once worker standards of living rise. Attachment Three further 
discusses employee ownership .

Over time, ownership will change the economies of the nations we trade 
with, as working in employee-owned companies will become the market 
preference and force other firms to adopt similar policies (in much the 
same way that, even without a tax benefit for purchasing stock, 
employee-owned companies that become more democratic or even more 
socialistic, will force all other employers to adopt similar measures 
to compete for the best workers and professionals).

In the long run, trade will no longer be an issue. Internal company 
dynamics will replace the need for trade agreements as capitalists lose 
the ability to pit the interest of one nation's workers against the 
others. This approach is also the most effective way to deal with the 
advance of robotics. If the workers own the robots, wages are swapped 
for profits with the profits going where they will enhance consumption 
without such devices as a guaranteed income.

                                 ______
                                 
                Health Industry Distributors Association

                         310 Montgomery Street

                          Alexandria, VA 22314

            Statement of Matthew J. Rowan, President and CEO

Thank you, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, for convening the 
recent Senate Finance Committee hearing, ``Made in America: Effect of 
the U.S. Tax Code on Domestic Manufacturing.'' The Health Industry 
Distributors Association (HIDA) is pleased to submit this statement for 
the record as this hearing can play an important role in identifying 
lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and developing thoughtful 
strategies for future public health preparedness--including sustainable 
domestic production of pandemic supplies.

Based on our distributors' experience and expertise, HIDA is providing 
a link to our white paper: ``Building A More Robust Supply Chain: A 
Public-Private Framework to Create A Pandemic Response 
Infrastructure,'' that outlines steps to strengthen our medical 
products supply chain. We believe the public and private sectors must 
work together to:

    1.  Make the supply chain more robust, utilizing the nation's 500 
commercial medical distribution centers to forward deploy critical 
products;
    2.  Diversify sourcing;
    3.  Expand and support surge manufacturing capacity; and
    4.  Prevent development of a fraudulent opportunistic marketplace.

The framework of this strategy was the basis for bipartisan legislation 
S. 3827: The Medical Supplies for Pandemics Act introduced in the 
Senate last year.

HIDA supports expansion of domestic and nearshored manufacturing 
capacity for critical products to augment global sources. Leveraging 
the strengths of each manufacturing location (U.S., regional and 
global) will result in the highest level of supply chain resilience at 
the lowest overall cost. These policies should apply to all products 
important for pandemic response including: personal protective 
equipment (PPE), testing supplies, needles/syringes and infection 
prevention products, among others.

Domestic production is often more expensive than global sources and 
will require a strong public/private partnership for long term 
sustainability. HIDA recommends:

    1.  Prioritize companies with experience in healthcare--
Manufacturing medical grade products requires specialized expertise and 
capability. Companies selected to receive government support to on-
shore production must have an extensive track record of meeting FDA-
quality standards for medical grade products.

    2.  Leverage the established public/private partnerships--The 
private sector is already actively ramping up investments in U.S. 
manufacturing. Government incentives and commercial market investments 
should complement and reinforce each other in a comprehensive plan that 
includes:

        a.  Assessment of on-shoring viability--A detailed plan is 
needed to target critical supply categories, assess viability of U.S. 
manufacturing such as raw materials, cost and regulatory issues. A 
baseline of global production needs to be established to enable setting 
and monitoring progress against clear production targets for U.S. 
manufacturing.

        b.  Meaningful incentives--Any plan should include 
infrastructure investments, tax incentives, loan programs and grants. 
These incentives provide guidance to industry to expand and establish 
industrial capability, foster research and development and enhance 
private sector investments.

    3.  Support the existing supply chain--Payment and trade policies 
can be used to provide a consistent demand signal to the commercial 
market for long term viability. Policies should include:

        a.  Direct procurement--The government should structure their 
own purchases of medical products through long term, multi-year 
contracts of committed purchases with manufacturers and distributors.

        b.  Trade agreements--Leverage existing regional trade 
agreements to facilitate U.S. and regional production opportunities.

        c.  Reimbursement--Assess Medicare and Medicaid payment 
policies across the continuum of care to identify opportunities to 
incentivize domestic purchasing.

        d.  Avoid unintended consequences--Federal government purchases 
can be so large they move markets and disrupt the supply chain. 
Whenever possible, these purchases should be done in a planned, 
measured way with regard to quantities and timing.

The Health Industry Distributor's Association (HIDA) is the national 
trade association that represents medical product distribution 
companies with 500 medical distribution centers across the care 
continuum nationwide. HIDA members deliver medical products and 
supplies, manage logistics, and offer advanced services to virtually 
every provider across the U.S. Medical-surgical wholesalers distribute 
items used in everyday medical services and procedures, ranging from 
gauze and gloves to diagnostic laboratory tests and capital equipment. 
Their customers include over 230,000 physician offices, 6,000 
hospitals, and 41,500 nursing homes and assisted living facilities 
throughout the country.

Throughout this pandemic, America's healthcare distributors have 
collaborated with the federal government as trusted partners. Every 
day, our distributors are using their existing infrastructure to 
reliably deliver essential medical supplies the last mile to providers. 
In 2020, HIDA members distributed more than 51 billion units of PPE 
including 1200% more N95 respirators and 150% more face masks.

HIDA appreciates the important work being done in the Senate Finance 
Committee, and we look forward to working with you on long-term policy 
solutions. If you have any questions or need additional information, 
please reach out to HIDA's Vice President of Government Affairs, Linda 
Rouse O'Neill at [email protected]. Thank you for your leadership on these 
issues.

                                 ______
                                 
                      Huntsman Building Solutions

                       10003 Woodloch Forest Dr.

                        The Woodlands, TX, 77380

              https://huntsmanbuildingsolutions.com/en-US/

 Ability of the U.S. Tax Code to Incentivize Domestic Manufacturing of 
                      Energy Efficiency Technology

    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee, 
Huntsman Corporation is pleased to provide this submission for the 
record for the Committee's hearing ``Made in America: Effect of the 
U.S. Tax Code on Domestic Manufacturing.''

    Huntsman is a leading U.S. producer of spray polyurethane foam 
insulation (SPF) and the upstream chemicals that are critical to SPF 
production. We have invested over $1 billion to expand production of 
SPF and its critical inputs. We have over 1,000 employees involved in 
R&D and production across seven facilities in Arlington, Houston and 
The Woodlands, Texas; Derry, New Hampshire; Auburn Hills, Michigan; 
Ringwood, Illinois; and Geismar, Louisiana.

    SPF is the most efficient and cutting-edge insulation technology 
available today and it is made in America by American workers. Congress 
can incentivize the continued development and production of this 
technology and enable significant improvements in energy efficiency and 
reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by extending and expanding 
the Section 25C tax credit.

    The application of SPF in a commercial or residential building 
blocks the loss of conditioned (heated or cooled) air out of the 
building. The more significant the loss of conditioned air from the 
building the more frequently the air in the building must be re-heated 
or re-cooled. The Department of Energy estimates that up to 40% of a 
building's heating and cooling energy is lost due to air leaks.\1\ The 
application of SPF drastically reduces that air loss resulting in a 
dramatic reduction in the amount of energy used to keep the building 
heated or cooled. Combined, commercial and residential buildings 
account for nearly 40 percent of total energy consumption in the US. 
Thus, widespread adoption of SPF can drastically reduce energy usage in 
buildings. These energy savings translate directly into reductions in 
GHG emissions. According to analysis by the American Chemistry Council 
the energy savings that could be achieved from the widespread adoption 
of SPF technology could reduce GHG emissions from residential buildings 
by as much as 17 percent and total US GHG emissions by as much as 3.5 
percent.\2\ This is the equivalent of taking 39 million cars off the 
road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.energystar.gov/ia/home_improvement/home_sealing/
AirSealingFS_2005.pdf.
    \2\ https://www.sprayfoam.org/files/SPFA%20LCA%20-
%20Residential%20Energy%20Model
ing%20Analysis%20[Jan%202021].pdf.

    Thus, the expansion and extension of the Section 25C tax credit can 
simultaneously further the Committee's goal of incentivizing domestic 
manufacturing and support significant gains in energy efficiency which 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
will translate into significant reductions in GHG emissions.

    As currently designed, the Section 25C credit does not incentivize 
the use of the best available insulation technology. Thus, the US 
government is devoting tax credits to insulation that does not achieve 
the energy efficiency and GHG emissions reductions described above. 
Huntsman recommends that the Committee and Congress extend and expand 
on the current 25C credit prior its expiration in December. More 
specifically, Huntsman recommends that the 25C credit be increased and 
the full amount of credit be made available to homeowners who install 
SPF in their home. A proposed amendment to the 25C credit is attached 
as Attachment 1 to this submission.

    Adoption of this proposed amendment would encourage and support US 
manufacturing and employment and help achieve important climate and 
energy goals. Huntsman Corporation, 10003 Woodloch Forest Dr., The 
Woodlands, TX, 77380.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 
                                 
                        National Taxpayers Union

                        122 C St., NW, Suite 650

                          Washington, DC 20001

                         Phone: (703) 683-5700

                          Fax: (703) 683-5722

                          https://www.ntu.org/

The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 
Committee:

On behalf of National Taxpayers Union (NTU), the nation's oldest 
taxpayer advocacy organization, I wish to submit this letter for the 
record ahead of your March 16 hearing, ``Made in America: Effect of the 
U.S. Tax Code on Domestic Manufacturing.'' Thank you for your attention 
to these critical issues and your consideration of NTU's views.

For decades, NTU has been invested in a tax code that is simple, fair, 
and oriented towards economic growth, a federal budget that is 
responsible, restrained and--when possible--balanced, and a U.S. 
economy that affords the most opportunities and rewards to the largest 
possible group of Americans.

To that end, we would like to share our thoughts with the Committee on 
how lawmakers can best position U.S. manufacturers for success on a 
domestic and global scale in the post-COVID economic recovery, with 
some recommendations for policies to promote and for policies to avoid 
in the months and years ahead.

First, Do No Harm

Like many stakeholders, we are deeply concerned by the following 
proposals from lawmakers and Biden administration officials in the tax 
space that would actively harm domestic manufacturing efforts in the 
post-COVID economy.

Increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent: On the campaign trail, 
President Biden pledged to raise the corporate rate by a third, from 
its current 21-
percent rate to 28 percent.\1\ It is hard to imagine a policy that 
could make the U.S. less globally competitive in the short and long 
term than a corporate rate hike, and policymakers should abandon any 
efforts to raise the corporate rate--especially during a fragile 
economic recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Biden-Harris. (September 2020). ``The Biden-Harris Plan to 
Fight for Workers by Delivering on Buy America and Make It in 
America.'' Retrieved from: https://joebiden.com/the-biden-harris-plan-
to-fight-for-workers-by-delivering-on-buy-america-and-make-it-in-
america/. (Accessed March 11, 2021.)

In 2020, the 21-percent U.S. corporate tax rate ranked tied for 16th-
lowest among 36 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development 
(OECD) nations.\2\ While our corporate rate is not in an ideal 
competitive position when compared with our economic peers, it is in a 
much better position than when the corporate rate was 35 percent in 
2017--at the time the second-highest among OECD nations.\3\ A 28-
percent corporate rate would give the U.S. the third-highest rate in 
the OECD (along with New Zealand), but an average state corporate tax 
rate of 6.03 percent would actually bump the U.S. above France for the 
highest combined corporate tax rate (national and sub-national) among 
highly developed economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ OECD.Stat. ``Table II.1. Statutory corporate income tax rate.'' 
Retrieved from: https://stats.oecd.org/
Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_II1. (Accessed March 11, 2021.)
    \3\ Ibid.

As global and domestic businesses look to recover and invest in growth 
in a post-COVID world, the U.S. would put itself in a severely 
uncompetitive position by raising its corporate rate by more than 33 
percent. It is also worth noting that a significant portion of the tax 
hike would be borne by workers--between 50 and 100 percent, according 
to experts at the Tax Foundation.\4\ Even alternative estimates from 
the Tax Policy Center, which assume that shareholders in a company bear 
a majority of corporate taxes (around 80 percent), find that workers 
bear 20 percent of the corporate tax.\5\ Regardless of the wide range 
of estimates here, it is clear that a corporate tax hike is, in part, a 
tax hike on workers as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Entin, Stephen J. ``Labor Bears Much of the Cost of the 
Corporate Tax.'' Tax Foundation, October 24, 2017. Retrieved from: 
https://taxfoundation.org/labor-bears-corporate-tax/
#::text=Indeed%2C%20Mnuchin%20has%20said%20that,tax%20is%20borne%20by%2
0workers. 
(Accessed March 11, 2021.)
    \5\ Tax Policy Center. ``Who bears the burden of the corporate 
income tax?'' Retrieved from: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-
book/who-bears-burden-corporate-income-tax. (Accessed March 11, 2021.)

``Buy America'' and Protectionism: Though ``Buy America'' initiatives 
are often politically popular, they are neither an efficient use of 
taxpayer dollars nor the most effective way for American businesses 
large and small to purchase goods. With ``Buy America'' directives 
popular in the COVID-19 context, NTU led more than 250 economists last 
year in writing to former President Trump, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McConnell:

        Diversifying supply sources and increasing inventories will be 
        costly, but a broad Buy America regime will be more costly. The 
        variety, supply, and price of goods available to Americans will 
        suffer under a broad Buy America regime. Taxpayers and patients 
        will pay more for drugs and medical supplies. Smart policies 
        such as federal government stockpiling look more promising.

        A Buy America directive can also hamstring the ability of U.S. 
        pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers to meet our 
        future needs if firms are denied access to essential foreign 
        supplies.

        Moreover, we can expect our trading partners to adopt 
        retaliatory ``Don't Buy American'' barriers targeting U.S. 
        exports as this type of retaliation is already occurring 
        between other countries.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ National Taxpayers Union. (May 13, 2020). ``More than 250 
Leading Economists Warn Trump Administration: `Buy America' Provision 
Would Harm American Response to Coronavirus.'' Retrieved from: https://
www.ntu.org/publications/detail/more-than-250-leading-economists-warn-
trump-administration-buy-america-provision-would-harm-american-
response-to-coronavirus. (Accessed March 11, 2021.)

Similarly, NTU has encouraged lawmakers and the Biden administration 
(and, previously, the Trump administration) to exercise significant 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
caution when utilizing the Defense Production Act (DPA):

        The DPA, which allows presidents to mandate and prioritize 
        manufacturing of certain goods in service of the ``national 
        defense,'' is a 70-year-old law that NTU believes should be 
        used sparingly. NTU and its sister organization NTU Foundation 
        have regularly urged the federal government to exhibit 
        significant caution when invoking the DPA, because ``in areas 
        where [the Trump administration] did use the DPA to intervene 
        in the economy [during COVID], the results were predictably 
        disastrous.'' We have also seen proposals to use the DPA to 
        protect certain parochial interests and favored industries 
        (unrelated to COVID) and we have seen DPA money wasted at the 
        Pentagon in the past year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Lautz, Andrew. ``A Taxpayer- and Market-Oriented Path Forward 
for Federal Prescription Drug Policy.'' National Taxpayers Union, 
February 25, 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/
detail/a-taxpayer-and-market-oriented-path-forward-for-federal-
prescription-drug-policy. (Accessed March 12, 2021.)

Misplaced and Costly Surtaxes: NTU is also significantly concerned with 
a proposal that President Biden released on the campaign trail last 
year to attach a ``10% Offshoring Penalty surtax . . . on profits of 
any production by a United States company overseas for sales back to 
the United States,'' effectively bringing the corporate rate for those 
business profits to 30.8 percent.\8\ Though some details of the 
proposal are unclear, we worry that President Biden's surtax idea 
denies the economic reality of global supply chains, and could harm 
some of the American companies and workers that the President is trying 
to support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Biden-Harris. (September 2020). ``The Biden-Harris Plan to 
Fight for Workers by Delivering on Buy America and Make It in 
America.'' Retrieved from: https://joebiden.com/the-biden-harris-plan-
to-fight-for-workers-by-delivering-on-buy-america-and-make-it-in-
america/. (Accessed March 12, 2021.)

Consider some of the several U.S. companies that created and are 
producing COVID-19 vaccines, including Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & 
Johnson, and Novavax. All four companies have global manufacturing 
partners at various stages of vaccine development, production, and 
distribution, in several countries across Europe, Asia, and Africa.\9\ 
While it is unclear based if any of these companies would be subject to 
President Biden's offshoring surtax, on their inputs or finished 
products, we raise the example of these manufacturers to demonstrate 
that supply chains are and will continue to be global--for many U.S. 
industries that employ Americans in high-quality, well-paying jobs--and 
punishing these companies for simply having global supply chains and a 
global presence will also punish the American workers employed by these 
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Kansteiner, Fraiser, and Sagonowsky, Eric. ``What does it take 
to supply COVID-19 vaccines across the globe? Here's how the leading 
players are working it.'' FiercePharma, March 3, 2021. Retrieved from: 
https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-reports/vaccine-supply-chains-
holding-line-against-covid-19. (Accessed March 12, 2021.)

In summary, sweeping, top-down industrial policy will only raise costs 
for taxpayers in the long run, while potentially propping up 
industries, sectors, or businesses that might be less than efficient 
for a robust 21st-century American economy. ``Buy America'' and the DPA 
both risk falling into this trap, by failing to acknowledge the reality 
that not every good and input used in America will be made in America. 
Tax hikes like a corporate rate increase and an ``Offshoring Penalty 
surtax'' will also harm economic growth and recovery efforts, 
especially since workers and consumers bear significant portions of the 
taxes levied on businesses. Instead, policymakers should pursue simple 
incentives for multinational and U.S.-based businesses to invest in 
America, with a particular focus on accelerating cost recovery for 
companies that make the investments that will drive economic, job, and 
wage growth.

 For Businesses, Focus on Simplicity, Cost Recovery, and Incentives for 
                    Investment

To better help U.S. manufacturers recover in the post-COVID economy, 
lawmakers should focus on simple changes to the tax code that reward 
investments in economic, job, and wage growth. To that end, we 
recommend four ideas that may seem obscure but are nonetheless critical 
to helping businesses recover the costs of their investments in growth.

Undo five-year R&D amortization, which begins Jan. 1, 2022: According 
to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), 
businesses performed a ``total [of] $441 billion [in] R&D'' in the U.S. 
in 2018, 86 percent of which ($377.8 billion) was ``funded primarily by 
the performing companies.''\10\ More than half the $441 billion total 
($274 billion, or 62 percent) was in manufacturing industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Shackelford, Brandon. ``Health-Related Applications Account 
for One-Quarter of 2018 U.S. Business R&D Most Pharmaceutical R&D 
Focused on Biotechnology.'' NCSES, January 6, 2021. Retrieved from: 
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21316. (Accessed March 12, 2021.)

Immediate and full cost recovery for businesses' R&D expenditures is an 
important principle of the U.S. tax code, since R&D investments will 
spur innovation and growth in the technologies and sectors that will 
dominate the global economy in the coming decades. Unfortunately, a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
looming change to the tax code could threaten that progress.

As NTU wrote in a recent issue brief:

        The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which passed in 2017, made 
        several positive and pro-growth changes to the U.S. tax code. 
        One provision of the law that Congress should repeal, though, 
        is the shift in how the code treats businesses' research and 
        development (R&D) expenditures. Under current law, U.S. 
        companies can immediately write their R&D costs off their tax 
        bill, which provides a major incentive for businesses to invest 
        in innovations that grow the U.S. economy and create jobs. 
        Under TCJA, though, businesses must amortize their R&D costs 
        beginning in 2022--spreading the tax benefit out over five 
        years instead of one. This will crib U.S. efforts, including 
        those in the R&D-intensive biopharmaceutical industry, to dig 
        out of the COVID economic hole and innovate in the years to 
        come. Fortunately, the American Innovation and Competitiveness 
        Act (AICA) from Reps. John Larson (D-CT) and Ron Estes (R-KS) 
        is a popular, bipartisan bill in Congress that would repeal R&D 
        amortization. Congress should pass it in 2021.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Lautz, Andrew. ``A Taxpayer- and Market-Oriented Path Forward 
for Federal Prescription Drug Policy.'' National Taxpayers Union, 
February 25, 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/
detail/a-taxpayer-and-market-oriented-path-forward-for-federal-
prescription-drug-policy. (Accessed March 12, 2021.)

Extend full and immediate expensing for short-lived assets: A separate 
provision of TCJA is critical to businesses' ability to quickly recover 
the costs of their investments, and Congress should extend this full 
and immediate expensing provision of the law before it begins to phase 
down in 2023. Legislation in the Senate and the House last year, the 
ALIGN Act from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
would accomplish just that.

As NTU wrote of the legislation at the time:

        While lawmakers recognized the benefits of full expensing by 
        including a 100-percent first-year expensing allowance for 
        qualified assets like machinery and software in Section 168(k) 
        of the TCJA, up from a 50-percent expensing allowance under 
        prior law, they phased out the 100-percent allowance starting 
        in 2023.2 This phase-out could have the effect of decreasing 
        business investment, blunting the positive effects the TCJA has 
        had on the American economy. The ALIGN Act would solve this 
        problem by making the 100-percent allowance permanent.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Arnold, Brandon. ``Toomey Bill to Make Full Expensing 
Permanent Would Fuel Economic Growth.'' National Taxpayers Union, 
February 13, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/
detail/toomey-bill-to-make-full-expensing-permanent-would-fuel-
economic-growth. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)

Both the ALIGN Act and the aforementioned AICA would fit well with 
President Biden's focus on revitalizing domestic manufacturing and 
would help companies more confidently invest in American workers and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American ingenuity as the country emerges from the COVID-19 crisis.

Explore full and immediate expensing for structures: The final piece of 
our focus on cost recovery is a more expensive proposition for 
lawmakers, in terms of foregone revenue, but would nonetheless 
significantly help businesses open and expand the kinds of facilities 
that will employ Americans in domestic manufacturing for decades to 
come.

Experts at the Tax Foundation have pointed out that ``when a business 
purchases a structure, it has to deduct the cost over a period of up to 
27.5 years (for residential buildings) or 39 years (for nonresidential 
buildings).''\13\ At NTU, we have noted that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ York, Erica, and Li, Huaqun. ``Reviewing the Economic and 
Revenue Implications of Cost Recovery Options.'' Tax Foundation, April 
28, 2020. Retrieved from: https://taxfoundation.org/full-immediate-
expensing/
#::text=An%20alternative%20to%20full%20expensing,the%20tax%20
treatment%20of%20structures. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)

        This greatly reduces the value of investments in structures, 
        due to inflation and the time value of money. [We support] 
        allowing businesses to fully and immediately deduct the value 
        of their investments in structures in the year they make the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        investment.

        . . . Some critics of full and immediate expensing point out 
        (correctly) that expanding this treatment to structures would 
        result in significant lost revenue for the federal government. 
        Tax Foundation has a thoughtful alternative addressing those 
        concerns, called neutral cost recovery [NCR].\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Lautz, Andrew. ``How Improving the Tax Code's Treatment of 
Structures Could Help Aid America's Economic Recovery.'' National 
Taxpayers Union, June 30, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/
publications/detail/how-improving-the-tax-codes-treatment-of-
structures-could-help-aid-americas-economic-recovery. (Accessed March 
15, 2021.)

Under NCR, businesses would still deduct the cost of investments in 
structures over 27.5 or 39 years, but the value of the deduction would 
increase over time to account for inflation and the time value of 
money. Therefore, total deductions over the life of the asset would 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
equal the first-year value of the investment.

NTU continues to prefer full and immediate expensing for structures, 
and we believe it could help manufacturers more quickly and confidently 
build and expand new facilities for American workers. NCR for 
structures, though, could be a point of potential compromise for 
members of Congress who are concerned about expensing's deficit impact 
but still want to help reduce the cost of domestic investments for 
businesses.

Extend the EBITDA definition in Section 163(j): A final measure 
Congress should consider--somewhat unrelated to cost recovery but 
important for the American manufacturing sector regardless--is the 
pending expiration of a certain method businesses use to calculate 
their income for the purposes of deducting interest payments from their 
tax bill. This provision, Section 163(j) of the tax code, allows 
businesses to deduct interest up to a certain limit, which includes 30 
percent of adjusted taxable income (ATI). Under current law, ATI is 
calculated by taking a business's earnings before interest, taxes, 
depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). Starting in 2022, ATI is 
limited to 30 percent of earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), 
which reduces the amount of interest deductions some businesses in some 
sectors can take.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the U.S. 
manufacturing industry was the top industry (among C corporations) to 
take advantage of the interest deduction in 2016, with interest 
deductions valued at more than $180 billion.\15\ A separate JCT 
estimate finds the changes will more than double the tax revenue 
brought in by the federal government from these businesses, from $4.8 
billion in 2021 to $11.4 billion in 2022, escalating to $15.9 billion 
in 2023 and $18.1 billion in 2024.\16\ That tax revenue could be put to 
better use by these businesses investing in their workers, new 
equipment, R&D, and more, and Congress should consider extending the 
EBITDA definition in Section 163(j) beyond 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Joint Committee on Taxation. (March 2019). ``Overview of 
Limitation on Deduction of Business Interest: Section 163(j).'' 
Retrieved from: https://www.jct.gov/publications/2019/overview-of-
limitation-on-deduction-of-business-in/. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)
    \16\ Joint Committee on Taxation. (November 5, 2020). ``Estimates 
of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2020-2024.'' Retrieved 
from: https://www.jct.gov/publications/2020/jcx-23-
20/. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Workers, Focus on a Safe Return to High-Quality Jobs

While it is critically important that policymakers make it easier and 
less expensive for businesses to quickly invest in the American economy 
in the months and years ahead, support for U.S. businesses--and for the 
domestic manufacturing sector specifically--should not be an end 
itself, but a means to an end or to several ends. One of those ends 
should be making it easier for workers to obtain high-paying, quality 
jobs in America. Americans are better off when the tax code rewards 
work, and when the tax code makes it easier for working adults to 
balance a number of priorities in their lives such as health care 
needs, child care expenses, and saving for retirement. To that end, NTU 
believes Congress should consider several of the succeeding policy 
proposals, and should avoid expensive, unlimited expansions of 
struggling taxpayer-funded legacy programs.

Consider a limited, temporary back-to-work bonus for workers coming off 
UI: Ten million Americans are still out of work from the COVID-19 
recession.\17\ Last year, when the unemployment situation was even 
worse, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Ways and Means Committee Ranking 
Member Kevin Brady (R-TX) suggested a ``back-to-work'' bonus that 
effectively rewards people for finding a job and coming off 
unemployment insurance (UI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. (March 5, 2021). ``The Employment 
Situation--February 2021.'' Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)

Congress should still consider such a proposal, given 10 million people 
are out of work, but the design and implementation of the proposal 
should be carefully considered. First, any proposal that rushes people 
back into work too quickly could run counter to public health advice 
and the pressing need to get the virus under control. Scientists and 
health experts should still be the first parties that policymakers are 
turning to for advice when it comes to safely reopening the economy. 
Second, a ``back-to-work'' bonus should be targeted at low- and middle-
income workers who have been on the labor market sidelines for a 
significant amount of time. In other words, individuals who were making 
(and one day again will make) six figures per year do not need access 
to an additional federal benefit to return to work, nor does someone 
who experienced or experiences a temporary, 2- or 4-week long blip in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
their employment situation.

With proper targeting and continued vaccine distribution and the 
abatement of the virus, a back-to-work bonus could give low- and 
middle-income workers the additional resources needed to meet family 
needs during a transition to work, while also providing employers with 
a larger pool of applicants for in-demand positions.

Continue supporting working families through the Child Tax Credit, but 
offset the costs: The American Rescue Plan (ARP) expands the Child Tax 
Credit in a significant way, increasing the value of the credit by 
$1,000 per child per year (and $1,600 per child per year for children 
under six) while also making the credit a monthly benefit for the first 
time (rather than an annual lump sum).

According to reporting, the benefit may cut child poverty in half and 
could support millions of working families, but it is also expensive. 
JCT estimates that just one year of the expansion will cost taxpayers 
nearly $110 billion in foregone revenues.\18\ Expanding the CTC 
permanently, as some policymakers now want to do,\19\ is a trillion-
dollar proposition each decade, and lawmakers serious about making the 
more generous CTC permanent should offset the costs to taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Joint Committee on Taxation. (March 9, 2021). ``Estimated 
Revenue Effects of H.R. 1319, The ``American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,'' 
as Amended by the Senate, Scheduled for Consideration by the House of 
Representatives.'' Retrieved from: https://www.jct.gov/publications/
2021/jcx-14-21/. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)
    \19\ Rubin, Richard. ``Democrats Seek Temporary Expansion of Child 
Tax Credit, but Making It Permanent Is Real Goal.'' The Wall Street 
Journal, March 3, 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/
democrats-seek-temporary-expansion-of-child-tax-credit-but-making-it-
permanent-is-real-goal-11614776401. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)

Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) outlined a thoughtful CTC expansion plan 
earlier this year that would have fully offset the cost of expansion 
with changes to some social programs, duplicative tax credits, and more 
regressive tax expenditures like the state and local tax (SALT) 
deduction.\20\ Congress should consider this plan, which could be 
improved by further offsetting its costs by reducing the amount of CTC 
benefits that flow to very high-income households (such as those making 
$150,000 or $250,000 or $400,000 per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Lautz, Andrew. ``Romney Child Tax Credit Plan a Thoughtful 
Addition to COVID Relief Talks.'' National Taxpayers Union, February 9, 
2021. Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/romney-
child-tax-credit-plan-a-thoughtful-addition-to-covid-relief-talks. 
(Accessed March 15, 2021.)

Make it easier for workers to set aside tax-free dollars for health and 
child care needs: Many workers have access to tax-advantaged savings 
accounts for health and child care needs, such as health savings 
accounts (HSAs) and flexible spending arrangements (FSAs). Sometimes, 
though, workers are tied up by outdated or unnecessarily restrictive 
rules around contributing to and rolling over these funds from year to 
year. NTU supports bipartisan legislation from Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-
OH) and Cindy Axne (D-IA) to increase the HSA contribution limit 
(currently only $3,550 for individuals and $7,100 for families),\21\ 
increase rollover limits for FSAs,\22\ and bipartisan legislation from 
Reps. Katie Porter (D-CA) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA) to increase 
a contribution limit for dependent care FSAs that has not been updated 
since the 1980s.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Lautz, Andrew. ``Bipartisan Bill Would Provide Needed FSA 
Flexibility for Millions.'' National Taxpayers Union, May 28, 2020. 
Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/bipartisan-
bill-would-provide-needed-fsa-flexibility-for-millions#. (Accessed 
March 15, 2021.)
    \22\ Ibid.
    \23\ Porter, Katie. (February 4, 2021). ``Rep. Porter Reintroduces 
Bill to Help Families Pay for Childcare.'' Retrieved from: https://
porter.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=
280. (Accessed March 15, 2021.)

Any of these options would help workers save money on their health and 
child care expenses by making a larger portion of those contributions 
tax-free, and would also help employers by making these fringe benefit 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
offerings more attractive to potential workers.

Follow up on the work of the SECURE Act: Key to a healthy and vibrant 
workforce is the option for workers to save for retirement, and 
Congress took a big step forward with its passage of the Setting Every 
Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act in 2019.

NTU wrote of the SECURE Act at the time:

        . . . the SECURE Act would increase the accessibility and 
        affordability of retirement products for millions of workers, 
        thereby making it easier for people to grow their savings. 
        Specifically, the SECURE Act makes it easier for small 
        businesses to band together to offer retirement plans, enables 
        part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans, and raises 
        the required distribution age for individual retirement 
        accounts from 70\1/2\ to 72. Additionally, the SECURE Act 
        allows employers who offer retirement plans with automatic 
        enrollment to be eligible for tax credits. These meaningful 
        reforms will help families save more and earlier for their 
        future.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Aiello, Thomas. ``NTU Urges Representatives to Support the 
SECURE Act of 2019.'' National Taxpayers Union, May 23, 2019. Retrieved 
from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/ntu-urges-
representatives-to-support-the-secure-act-of-2019. (Accessed March 15, 
2021.)

        Important work remains to be done, including making it easier 
        for small employers to offer retirement options, making it 
        easier for low- and middle-income workers to save for 
        retirement on their own, shoring up Social Security for the 
        decades to come so that it is there for those who most need it, 
        and ensuring that ARP's multiemployer pension plan bailout does 
        not leave taxpayers on the hook for pension plan managers' 
        mistakes for decades to come. NTU looks forward to working with 
        members of both parties to achieve these goals.

Conclusion

America's economic recovery from COVID-19 is underway, and Congress has 
a unique opportunity to help pave the way for businesses and workers to 
participate in a manufacturing renaissance that bolsters America's 
position in the global economy for decades to come. It is clear to us 
that there are several policy proposals that would work actively 
against this goal, such as a corporate rate hike or top-down, 
inefficient federal government industrial policies like ``Buy America'' 
and aggressive use of the Defense Production Act.

Equally clear is the path forward for lawmakers: incentivize business 
investment in America by making cost recovery quicker and more 
efficient, and support workers with policies that make it easier for 
families to balance competing priorities with employment in the private 
sector.

We look forward to working with you and your colleagues on some or all 
of these priorities. We always welcome your feedback, and if we can 
answer any questions I am at your service. Thank you for your 
consideration and for your attention to these critical issues.

Sincerely,

Andrew Lautz
Director of Federal Policy

                                 ______
                                 
                 Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association

                            P.O. Box 195477

                        San Juan, PR 00919-5477

                           Tel. 787-641-4455

                           Fax. 787-641-2535

                    https://www.industrialespr.org/

                Statement of Carlos Rodriguez, President

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Finance 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit my Statement on 
behalf of the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association (PRMA). My name is 
Carlos Rodriguez. I am President of the PRMA, Puerto Rico's largest and 
most important business organization whose members are responsible for 
350,000 well paying, middle class jobs and one-half of our island's 
GDP. We also represent over one third of Puerto Rico's tax revenues.

Certainly, manufacturing in Puerto Rico is domestic manufacturing. We 
operate on U.S. soil, play a key role in the U.S. supply and logistics 
chain and we employ U.S. Citizens helping the U.S. compete in today's 
global economy. Our employees also contribute to both the Federal and 
local tax base. As Congress looks to understand the impact of U.S. tax 
reform on manufacturing and address the need for new policy designed to 
reshore manufacturing, we ask that Puerto Rico be included in this new 
strategy.

We hope to draw your attention to what we hope is an unintended 
consequence of the provisions of the recently enacted Tax Cut and Jobs 
Act of 2017 (TCJA), that Senate Majority Leader Schumer once aptly 
described as: ``[a] devastating new business tax that treats Puerto 
Rico as if it is a foreign country, which could encourage manufacturers 
to leave the island. This tax could cost thousands of jobs and decimate 
Puerto Rico's economy at exactly the time when Puerto Rico is hurting 
from the hurricanes and needs all the help it can get.''

It is important to provide some background. As an unincorporated 
territory, Puerto Rico and its millions of U.S. citizens residing in it 
have been subject to almost every federal law and its regulations. To 
that end, Puerto Rico has been included in the U.S. Customs Zone since 
1917 and since the 1920s, Congress has enacted tax provisions which 
actively encouraged U.S. manufacturers to locate in Puerto Rico. And 
this policy produced results making Puerto Rico a manufacturing center; 
especially in pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturing.

Up to 1996, a federal corporate income tax credit--the possessions tax 
credit--was available to certain U.S. corporations that located in 
Puerto Rico. In general, the credit equaled the full amount of federal 
tax liability related to an eligible corporation's income from its 
operations in a possession--including Puerto Rico--effectively making 
Puerto Rico an attractive location for manufacturing. In 1996, the tax 
credit was repealed, although corporations that were existing credit 
claimants were eligible to claim reduced credits through 2005.

The result of this policy change did not produce additional revenues to 
the U.S. and created significant adverse consequences for Puerto Rico, 
as between 2005 and 2016 Puerto Rico's economy suffered year-over-year 
declines in real output measured by real gross domestic product (GDP). 
From 2005 to 2016, Puerto Rico's real GDP fell by more than 9 percent 
(from $82.8 billion to $75.0 billion in 2005 dollars). Puerto Rico's 
gross national product (GNP) followed a similar pattern over the same 
period, declining by more than 11 percent from 2005 to 2016 (from $53.8 
billion to $47.7 billion in 2005 dollars) with significant job loss to 
the island. What is more significant is the loss of close to 100,000 
well-paid manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2019.

As a result of a contracting economy, shrinking tax base and growing 
demands on it, Puerto Rico's government has operated with a deficit, 
placing itself in an unsustainable financial situation with a $72B 
debt. As pointed out in a letter from the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs 
Administration to the Government Accounting Office in response to its 
report on how Puerto Rico got to this situation, the reasons are not 
all attributable to deficient self-governance. Under Puerto Rico's 
territorial status, Congress can and historically has treated the 
island disparately under multiple federal laws and programs (such as 
Medicaid, Medicare, Highway funding, Earned Income Tax Credits, 
participation in tax treaties). However, various requirements are 
imposed in the same manner as other states such as Federal Minimum 
Wages, EPA requirements and OSHA regulations.

Contrary to widespread belief, the majority of federal transfers to 
Puerto Rico are earned, that is, they are benefits for which the 
recipients have paid and represent 70% of total receipts, consisting 
mostly of Social Security and Medicare payments to the federal 
government by Puerto Rico residents. In fiscal year 2017 (which runs 
from July to June), total federal transfers to Puerto Rico amounted to 
$21.5 billion, of which $15.1 billion were earned. The majority of 
federal transfers to Puerto Rico are received by individuals, 
representing $18.1 billion, of which 83% are earned and consist mostly 
of Social Security, Medicare Benefits and Veterans benefits. Grants, 
such as Nutritional Assistance and scholarships (Pell Grants), 
represent the remaining 17% of total receipts by individuals in Puerto 
Rico.

This means that Puerto Rico cannot count on the same amount of federal 
support that State governments and mainland residents receive. Thus the 
Island's economy must evolve in an uneven playing field. These 
inequitable policies also lead to an overall quality of life and 
standard of living in Puerto Rico that is below the standard in the 
states in multiple respects. This structural inequality explains, in 
great measure, why Puerto Rico is in the situation it now finds itself.

The TCJA was enacted without adequately addressing Puerto Rico's 
specific conditions and it treats Puerto Rico as if it were a foreign 
country and not part of the United States. We do not believe the 
Congress intended to turn its back on 3.2 million U.S. citizens by 
ending, without any transitional relief, decades of tax policy that 
successfully encouraged economic progress in Puerto Rico. Annex 1 to 
this statement describes the prospects for the Puerto Rican economy 
post Hurricane Maria and takes into consideration information provided 
by the Federal Fiscal Oversight and Management Board created by the 
Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA).

    The TCJA generates additional pressures on the Island's economy and 
particularly manufacturing, due to the combination of a lowered 
statutory rate (21%) that will translate to a lower effective tax rate 
for manufacturing firms on the mainland, estimated to be 9.0% with the 
new law, and the new tax policies regarding international operations 
(in which Puerto Rico is included). For instance, a new tax has been 
established with respect to ``global intangible low-taxed income'' 
(GILTI), which imposes a new burden on what could be a significant 
portion of the income derived from Puerto Rico operations. Obviously, 
if these new international tax policies continue to apply to Puerto 
Rico, as if it were one more foreign jurisdiction, instead of a U.S. 
territory, the decades long economic development model that has been 
implemented in Puerto Rico will have to be altered significantly. This 
will take time and Puerto Rico needs transitional support in order to 
assure the success of this transition. Otherwise, Puerto Rico's 
manufacturing sector may well die a not-so slow death and take the 
Island's economy with it.

We hope and have to assume that this was not Congress's goal but, by 
treating the income of U.S. multinational companies operating as 
Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs) in Puerto Rico in the same 
manner as if they are operating in competing foreign jurisdictions, 
such as the Dominican Republic, Ireland or Costa Rica, we have been 
placed at a competitive disadvantage by this new tax law. Economists 
expect operations to slowly transition to lower cost foreign 
jurisdictions and little new investment will flow to current operations 
in Puerto Rico. These jurisdictions are in a favorable competitive 
position because they do not have to comply with U.S. environmental, 
labor and other regulatory requirements with which firms in Puerto Rico 
must comply. It's important to remember that Puerto Rico is the only 
place in the world where U.S. CFCs employ U.S. Citizens, pay U.S. FICA 
taxes and operate under U.S. Law and Regulations.

The TCJA does not change the above conditions but places Puerto Rico's 
manufacturers at a disadvantage without consideration of its impact on 
U.S. jobs in a Territory that has a population larger than that of 20 
States, with a manufacturing sector that is a vital component of the 
U.S. supply and value chains.

We urge Congress to correct this error and ensure a competitive 
differential vis-a-vis international destination under Federal tax law 
regarding income earned in Puerto Rico. This will allow us to 
effectively compete with foreign jurisdictions seeking to attract the 
operations of CFCs to their countries. In simple terms, a meaningful 
reduction or exemption is required from the GILTI provisions imposed on 
CFC income in Puerto Rico if we are to be competitive with our foreign 
competition.

We must stress the fact that support in providing a solution to Puerto 
Rico's economic and social problems is not only the fair and equitable 
thing to do for the millions of U.S. citizens that have been and/or 
reside in America's largest territory. It is also Congress' 
responsibility because it alone exercises constitutional control of the 
territory and as such it must assume the responsibilities that come 
with that control, recognize the damage that the TCJA can cause, take 
steps to mitigate such damages and provide the residents of the Island 
with the means to a better economic and social existence.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our statement on behalf of 
PRMA. We look forward to working with you to enact Federal policy 
designed to foster economic growth and the welfare of the 3.3 million 
U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.

ANNEX 1

Prospects for the Puerto Rican economy post-Hurricane Maria

The recently certified Fiscal Plan formulated by the Financial 
Oversight and Management Board projects a contraction of 13% in the 
economy (real GNP) for fiscal 2018, with positive growth for fiscal 
2019 and the return to trend for years following 2020. What this means 
is that Puerto Rico's GNP will not return to the 2006 level until late 
in the next decade.

This projection is accompanied by a dramatic loss in population that 
has pushed the population of Puerto Rico from 3.8 million in 2000 to a 
projected 2.9 million by 2025, again the number projected in the Fiscal 
Plan. The loss in population is mostly due to net out-migration that 
has averaged over 60,000 per year since 2014 and in fiscal 2018 will be 
at least 150,000.

A characteristic of this migratory phenomenon is that close to two 
thirds of emigrants from the Island are younger than 40 years and 
includes a substantial number of professionals and those with 
university degrees. A consequent condition is that in many critical 
occupations, Puerto Rico's human capital has been severely eroded. This 
is particularly so in medical specialties, trained nursing personnel, 
skilled construction workers and bilingual teachers and policemen. The 
implications for the social and economic development of the Island are 
immense and very negative.

Another consequence of the demographic shift is the fact that the 
population remaining in the Island will have a major component of 
elderly persons. In fact, by 2025, Puerto Rico's population will be 
characterized by an inverted pyramid with more persons ages 65 and 
above than 19 or below. The implications of this are also very 
significant for a number of reasons. It will be a very low income 
elderly population, the demand for social services, particularly 
health, will increases substantially and the government, should present 
trends be maintained will simply not have the resources to meet these 
needs. The median age of the population has surpassed the age of forty 
and is projected to continue moving rapidly towards an even higher 
median age in the next decade.

The most significant manifestation of the very fragile economic and 
social situation of the Island is the fact that since 2007 over 200,000 
jobs have been lost and, even with a very low labor force participation 
rate of 40%, the unemployment rate has hovered around 12%. In the 
manufacturing sector, responsible for a major component of GDP, 
employment has fallen from a high of 165,000 in the mid-nineties to a 
current level of some 70,000.

                                 ______
                                 
                       Policy and Taxation Group

                             P.O. Box 17693

                        Anaheim Hills, CA 92817

                             (714) 357-3140

            https://policyandtaxationgroup.com/contact-us-2/

                             March 16, 2021

The Honorable Ron Wyden
Senator, State of Oregon
Chairman
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mike Crapo
Senator, State of Idaho
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo,

I submit this statement for the record for the March 16, 2021, Senate 
Finance Committee hearing titled ``Made in America: Effect of the U.S. 
Tax Code on Domestic Manufacturing'' on behalf of the Policy and 
Taxation Group, which is an organization comprised of family-held 
businesses from throughout the country that are dedicated to reform of 
the estate tax. We appreciate the Committee's renewed efforts to 
examine the effect of the U.S. Tax Code on U.S. businesses, including 
the domestic manufacturing industry. Our members represent an array of 
different industries and include a number of manufacturers from around 
the country, thus we very much understand the challenges presented by 
our current Tax Code.

At the outset, it is important to note that family-held businesses--
including U.S. domestic manufacturers throughout the United States--
make up 59 percent of the private sector workforce and are responsible 
for more than 83 million jobs.\1\ Collectively, these businesses make 
up 54 percent of the private sector GDP and add $7.7 trillion to the 
U.S. economy.\2\ As such, as the Committee examines the effect of the 
U.S. Tax Code on domestic manufacturers and other industries, it should 
also be mindful of how current tax policies effect family-held 
businesses, generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Update 2021: Family Businesses' Contribution to the U.S. 
Economy, Family Enterprise USA (Feb. 2021).
    \2\ Id.

Amidst the various tax policy challenges that already exist for family-
held businesses, there is one challenge that Congress appears 
increasingly willing to create: reverting the doubled estate tax 
exemption to pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 levels. We believe this 
is a critical policy change that should not be reversed, but instead, 
be made permanent. While we believe that eliminating the estate tax is 
ultimately the best approach, making permanent the doubled exemption as 
enacted as part of the 2017 tax law would be a step in the right 
direction. Nevertheless, we believe that more than just a doubling of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the exemption is needed.

If the Committee is genuinely concerned about how the Tax Code is 
negatively effecting U.S. businesses, it must take bold action--
especially as relates to protecting family-held businesses. One 
legislative option that will help all family-held businesses subject to 
the estate tax: reduce the rate--which is arbitrarily the highest rate 
in the Tax Code--to the capital gains tax rate, while maintaining step-
up in basis.

In addition to a reduction in the estate tax rate, there are various 
other policy changes that could be implemented to protect family-held 
businesses from the unfair and disastrous consequences of the estate 
tax. As the Committee continues to examine such policies, we stand 
ready to serve as a resource to you, your fellow Committee members, and 
staff and are happy to provide additional information or answer any 
questions that you may have.

Thank you for your consideration of these important tax policies and 
your continued efforts to improve our nation's Tax Code.

Sincerely,

Pat Soldano
Founder

                                 ______
                                 
                  Solar Energy Industries Association

                    1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000

                          Washington, DC 20005

                         https://www.seia.org/

Hon. Ron Wyden
Chairman
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Hon. Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo,

The Solar Energy Industries Association (``SEIA'') submits this letter 
in support of the Senate Finance Committee's March 16 hearing ``Made in 
America: Effect of the U.S. Tax Code on Domestic Manufacturing.'' SEIA 
applauds the Committee for holding this critical hearing. Manufacturing 
is one of the backbones of the United States economy and the 
Committee's work will be crucial in strengthening the United States' 
manufacturing capabilities. A strong manufacturing base not only 
supports U.S. jobs and infrastructure but also the development needs of 
our friends and allies. Any new economic or infrastructure agenda must 
include federal manufacturing incentives, and SEIA stands ready to work 
with Congress in crafting supportive policies.

As the national trade association for the solar industry, SEIA is 
leading the transformation to a clean energy economy and creating the 
framework for solar to achieve 20% of U.S. electricity generation by 
2030. Achieving this goal will result in hundreds of thousands of new 
U.S. jobs, more than 14 million solar rooftops, and 500 million metric 
tons of avoided CO2 emission. To date, however, while the 
broader U.S. solar industry has and will continue to flourish, U.S. 
solar manufacturing has languished.

In September 2020, SEIA released a whitepaper laying out an ambitious 
vision for U.S. manufacturing, including a goal of 100 Gigawatts (GW) 
of renewable energy manufacturing capacity by 2030. This target 
includes solar, energy storage, and wind manufacturing and recognizes 
that investments in clean energy manufacturing will promote energy 
security, decarbonization, and jobs.

In the solar sector, we must confront the reality of years of 
underinvesting in our own manufacturing capabilities. While we have 
significant capacity to produce polysilicon, racking and mounting 
equipment, and some balance of system components, we have no domestic 
capacity for other key elements of the solar supply chain, including 
silicon wafers, solar cells, and inverters. Simply put, there is a 
great opportunity for Congress to help grow the solar manufacturing 
base throughout the United States.

We must also recognize, however, that expanding the U.S. solar supply 
chain is not going to be easy and will take time, several years in 
fact. If we are to meet the Administration's ambitious climate goals, 
we must therefore find a balance between growing the domestic supply 
chain while continuing to rely upon global inputs.

While we are confident we can reach our 100 GW goal, it is going to 
take unprecedented, long-term investments by the federal government, as 
well as a suite of policy incentives focused on: (i) demand drivers, 
such as a long-term extension of the Investment Tax Credit and federal 
procurement; (ii) expanding production capacity, e.g., low-cost loans 
and a manufacturing tax credit; and (iii) ongoing support for factories 
as they scale and lower costs, e.g., factory production or output tax 
credit. To be successful, it is essential that we invest in all three 
areas. The reality is that costs for domestic producers are going to be 
higher than in competing countries, particularly as we scale up our 
manufacturing base.

SEIA believes these policies together offer meaningful support for 
manufacturers. We therefore urge the Subcommittee to include 
manufacturing incentives in any new economic or infrastructure package.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Abigail Ross Hopper, Esq.
President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                                 Suniva

              5775 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Building 3

                           Norcross, GA 30092

                          404-477-2700 (Main)

                           404-477-2709 (Fax)

                             www.suniva.com

Ability of the U.S. Tax Code to Incentivize the Domestic Manufacturing 
                    of Energy Efficiency Technology

    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee, 
Suniva is pleased to provide this submission for the record for the 
Committee's hearing ``Made in America: Effect of the U.S. Tax Code on 
Domestic Manufacturing.'' Suniva is the sole remaining large-scale U.S. 
producer of solar cells. Every other major solar cell producer in the 
United States has been wiped out as a result of competition from 
imports from producers in China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Many 
of these other producers in Southeast Asia are simply transplants who 
moved out of China to avoid anti-dumping and countervailing duties 
imposed by the U.S. on dumped and subsidized imports.\1\ While Suniva 
and other U.S. solar equipment producers have successfully sought trade 
protection from these imports, this trade protection is undermined by a 
fundamental flaw in U.S. tax policy that incentivizes the use of 
imported solar cells and modules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. International Trade Commission, Crystalline Silicon 
Photovoltaic Cells, Inv. No. TA-201-75, Vol. I: Determination and Views 
of Commissioners, Publication 4739, Nov. 2017, at 40.

    As currently constructed, in combination Sections 25D and 48 of the 
Internal Revenue Code, the solar Investment Tax Credit (solar ITC), 
provides a tax credit based on the amount of solar generation equipment 
installed.\2\ Thus, the cheaper the equipment the further the benefits 
of the solar ITC go. Therefore, the solar ITC creates the incentive to 
obtain solar cells and modules at the lowest possible price in order to 
maximize the amount of the credit available. This incentive to procure 
the cheapest solar cells possible has driven developers to pursue solar 
cells, modules and their components from China and its Southeast Asian 
proxies where producers are heavily subsidized and in some cases rely 
on forced labor.\3\ In fact, independent analysis has determined that 
``a significant share'' of tax credits paid out under the solar ITC 
have gone to pay for solar cells and modules imported from China.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), Solar Energy Industries 
Association, available at https://www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-
investment-tax-credit-itc.
    \3\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/business/economy/china-
solar-companies-forced-labor-xinjiang.html.
    \4\ Reclaiming the U.S. Solar Supply Chain from China, Coalition 
for Prosperous America, March 2021.

    Two members of this Committee, Senators Schumer and Brown, were 
prescient when they called for the solar ITC to be available only to 
U.S. produced solar cells and modules or risk that the overwhelming 
subsidies provided by the Chinese government would enable imports from 
China to wipe out the U.S. solar industry.\5\ Because the solar ITC was 
not limited to only U.S. produced products, that is effectively what 
happened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/senate-democrats-
exclude-chinese-solar-panels-from-itc/#gref.

    Only a small fraction of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry 
survived the onslaught of imports from China and only as a result of 
aggressive use of trade remedy laws. However, even in the face of 
antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard remedies imports of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
solar cells and solar panels still dominate the U.S. market.

    U.S. imports of solar cells and modules rose from just over 6 GW in 
2018, the first year of the global safeguard, to over 16 GW in 2019 and 
nearly 25 GW in 2020.\6\ Part of the reason for the continued dominance 
of imports in the U.S. market is because the tariffs imposed under this 
global safeguard have not been enough to offset the incentive the solar 
ITC creates to use cheap, subsidized imports. In 2018, the solar ITC 
was 30% and the tariff on modules was 30% while the tariff on solar 
cells was effectively zero.\7\ In 2019, the solar ITC remained at 30% 
but the tariff on modules declined to 25% while the tariff on solar 
cells remained effectively zero. In 2020. the solar ITC declined to 26% 
but the tariff on modules declined further to 20% and the effective 
tariff on cells remained at zero. In 2021, the solar ITC will remain at 
26% while the tariff on modules declines to 18% and based on current 
projections, the tariff on cells will remain effectively zero. The 
minimal protection afforded by the tariffs will lapse when the 
safeguard expires in February, 2022 while the solar ITC will remain in 
place through at least 2023 for both residential and commercial 
installations. Thus, the incentive caused by the solar ITC to use 
imports over American made solar cells and modules will continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. International Trade Commission, Dataweb, imports for 
consumption, HTS 8541.40.60.
    \7\ The 201 remedy for solar cells imposed a tariff only after the 
volume of imported solar cells exceeds 2.5GW. See U.S. International 
Trade Commission, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Monitoring 
Developments in the Domestic Industry, Prehearing Report, Inv. NO. TA-
201-75 (Monitoring).

    Therefore, the solar ITC continues to strongly incentivize the use 
of imported of solar cells and modules over solar cells and modules 
made in America. As has been noted by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission and other third-party analysts the solar cell is actually 
what generates electricity, accounts for most of the R&D and is ``the 
heart of photovoltaic energy production.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Reclaiming the U.S. Solar Supply Chain from China, Coalition 
for Prosperous America, March 2021.

    Suniva recognizes that at this point limiting the solar ITC to only 
U.S. produced solar cells and modules may not be feasible. Therefore, 
Suniva strongly encourages Congress to amend the solar ITC to provide 
an additional tax credit to support the restoration of U.S. solar 
manufacturing. This credit must be significant enough to offset the 
incentives provided by the solar ITC to use cheap and subsidized 
imports. Suniva recommends that such a credit be based on actual 
production or production costs rather than revenue or income in order 
to effectively combat the advantage in marginal production costs 
foreign producers enjoy. Such a credit would complement the recent 
bipartisan proposal American Jobs in Energy Manufacturing Act. Suniva 
stands ready to work with you and the Committee to develop such a 
credit and support consideration of the American Jobs in Energy 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing Act.

                                   