Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • The President: Well, good morning, everybody.

  • Happy holidays.

  • I hope sales are good.

  • (laughter)

  • I want to spend most of my time, as I usually

  • do, taking questions.

  • I want to thank Randall and the rest

  • of the executive committee for the opportunity

  • to speak with you here today.

  • Let me just give you a sense of where I think

  • our economy currently is, what's happening around

  • the world and where I think it should be,

  • and the chances for us here in Washington

  • to accelerate rather than impede some of the progress

  • that we've made.

  • Around this time six years ago, America's businesses

  • were shedding about 800,000 jobs per month.

  • Today, our businesses, including some of the most

  • important businesses in the world that are represented

  • here today, have created over 10.6 million

  • new jobs; 56 months of uninterrupted job growth,

  • which is the longest private sector job growth

  • in our history.

  • We just saw the best six-month period

  • of economic growth in over a decade.

  • For the first time in six years, the unemployment rate

  • is under 6 percent.

  • All told, the United States of America,

  • over the last six years, has put more people back

  • to work than Europe, Japan, and the rest

  • of the advanced world combined.

  • And that's a record for us to build on.

  • At the same time, what we've been doing is working

  • on restructuring and rebuilding our economy

  • for sustained long-term growth.

  • Manufacturing has grown.

  • The auto industry has the strongest sales since 2007.

  • Our deficits have shrunk by about two-thirds,

  • something that very few people, I suspect,

  • in the BRT would have anticipated in some

  • of our conversations three or four years ago.

  • When it comes to health care costs,

  • premiums have gone up at the lowest pace on record,

  • which means that a lot of the businesses here are

  • saving money, as are a lot of consumers.

  • On the education front, high school graduations

  • are up, college enrollments are up, math and reading

  • scores have improved.

  • Internationally, our exports continue to hit record levels.

  • On energy, we have seen a revolution that is changing

  • not just the economy but also changing geopolitics.

  • Not only is oil and natural gas production up --

  • in part because of technological changes

  • that have taken place -- but we've also doubled

  • our production of clean energy.

  • And solar energy is up about tenfold;

  • wind energy is up threefold.

  • Unit costs for the production of clean energy

  • are dropping down to where they're getting close

  • to being competitive to fossil fuels.

  • And as a consequence, we've also been able to reduce

  • carbon emissions that cause climate change faster

  • than most of the other industrialized countries.

  • So the bottom line is, is that America continues to lead.

  • I was -- Andrew Liveris and I were talking -- I was with

  • his people in Brisbane, Australia, and at the G20,

  • what was striking was the degree of optimism that the world

  • felt about the American economy -- an optimism that

  • in some ways is greater than how Americans sometimes

  • feel about the American economy.

  • I think what you saw among world leaders was consistent

  • with what we know from global surveys, which is when you

  • ask people now, what is the number-one place

  • to invest, it's the United States of America.

  • It was China for quite some time.

  • Now folks want to put money back into this country.

  • And a lot of that has to do with the fact that we've

  • got the best workers in the world, we've got

  • the best university system, and research

  • and development and innovation in the world,

  • and we've got the best businesses in the world.

  • And so a lot of you can, I think,

  • take great credit for the kind of bounce-back

  • that we've seen over the last six years.

  • Having said all that, I think we recognize that

  • we've got a lot more progress to make.

  • And I put it in a couple of categories.

  • There are some common-sense things that we should be doing

  • that we're not doing, and the reason primarily

  • is because of politics and ideological gridlock.

  • But I suspect that if we surveyed folks here,

  • regardless of your party affiliation, you'd say,

  • let's get this done.

  • Infrastructure is one area where we need to go ahead

  • and make some significant investments.

  • Anybody who travels around the world and looks at what

  • airports outside the United States now look like,

  • and roads and trains and ports and airports now look like,

  • recognize that it makes no sense for us to have

  • a first-class economy but second-class information.

  • And that would not only help accelerate growth right now,

  • it would also lay the foundation for growth in the future.

  • Tax reform -- an area which I know is of great interest

  • to the Business Roundtable: I have consistently said that

  • for us to have a system in which we have, on paper,

  • one of the two or three highest tax rates in the world

  • when it comes to corporate taxation, but in practice,

  • there are so many loopholes that you get huge variations

  • between what companies pay doesn't make sense.

  • And we should be able to smooth the system out,

  • streamline it in such a way that allows us to lower rates,

  • close loopholes, and make for a much more efficient system

  • where folks aren't wasting a lot of time trying to hire

  • accountants and lawyers to get out of paying taxes,

  • but have some certainty and were able to raise just

  • as much money on a much simpler system.

  • That's something that I think we should be doing.

  • Trade: In Asia, there is a great hunger for

  • engagement with the United States of America,

  • and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is moving forward.

  • Michael Froman, who is here, has been working non-stop.

  • I've promised his family that he will be home sometime soon.

  • We are optimistic about being able to get a deal done

  • and we are reinvigorating the negotiations with

  • the Europeans on a transatlantic trade deal.

  • If we can get that done, that's good for American businesses,

  • it's good for American jobs, and it's actually

  • good for labor and environmental interests

  • around the world.

  • Because what we're trying to do is raise standards so that

  • everybody is on a higher, but level playing field.

  • And I think that your help on that process can make

  • an enormous difference.

  • Immigration reform: I recognize that there's been some

  • controversy about the executive actions that I've taken.

  • On the other hand, I think the BRT has been extraordinarily

  • helpful in getting the country to recognize that

  • this is the right thing to do for our economy.

  • We know it will grow the economy faster.

  • We know it will help us reduce the deficit.

  • We know that it gives us the capacity to bring in

  • high-skilled folks who we should want to gravitate towards

  • the United States to start businesses and to create

  • new products and new services, and to innovate,

  • and to continue the tradition of economic dynamism that's

  • the hallmark of the United States of America.

  • I am still hopeful that we can get legislation done,

  • because if we get legislation done,

  • it actually supplants a lot of the executive actions that I've

  • already taken -- which I've acknowledged are incomplete,

  • allow us to make some progress, but they're temporary,

  • and we could be doing a lot better if we actually

  • get legislation done.

  • So the good news, despite the fact that obviously the midterm

  • elections did not turn out exactly as I had hoped,

  • is that there remains enormous areas of potential bipartisan

  • action and progress.

  • And I've already spoken to Speaker Boehner and Senator

  • Mitch McConnell, and what I've said to them is that I am

  • prepared to work with them on areas where we agree,

  • recognizing there are going to be some areas where

  • we just don't agree.

  • And I think one of the habits that this town has to break

  • is this notion that if you disagree on one thing,

  • then suddenly everybody takes their ball home

  • and they don't play.

  • I think that there's got to be the capacity for us to say,

  • here's an area where we're going to have some vigorous

  • disagreement, but here are some areas where we have

  • a common vision -- let's go ahead and get that done,

  • and build some momentum, start working those muscles

  • to actually legislate, sign some legislation,

  • give the American people some confidence that those

  • of us who have this extraordinary privilege

  • of being placed in leadership are able

  • to actually deliver for the American people.

  • One final point that I'll make: I started off

  • by talking about how generally optimistic

  • I am about the economic trends.

  • There are some concerns on the horizon --

  • obviously Japan being weak, Europe being weak,

  • means that the United States, even as we chug

  • along, could be pulled back by global weakness,

  • not only in Europe and Japan but also the emerging markets.

  • So we're monitoring that and we're working

  • internationally to try to get Europe in particular

  • to see stronger growth.

  • But, domestically, the area where I have

  • the deepest concern is the fact that although corporate

  • profits are at the highest levels in 60 years,

  • the stock market is up 150 percent, wages and incomes

  • still haven't gone up significantly,

  • and certainly have not picked up the way they did

  • in earlier generations.

  • That's part of what's causing disquiet in the general public

  • even though the aggregate numbers look good.

  • And one thing I'd like to work with the BRT on is to ask

  • some tricky questions, but important questions,

  • about how we can make sure that prosperity is broad-based.

  • I actually think when you look at the history of this

  • country, when wages are good and consumers feel like

  • they've got some money in their pocket, that ends

  • up being good for business, not bad for business.

  • I think most of you would agree to that.

  • And we've got a lot of good corporate citizens in this room;

  • unfortunately, the overall trend lines, though,

  • have been, even as productivity and profits go up,

  • wages and incomes as a shared overall GDP have shrunk.

  • And that's part of what is creating an undertow

  • of pessimism despite generally good economic news.

  • I think there are some concrete things we can do to address

  • that, and I'm going to be looking forward to working

  • with the BRT to see if we can make progress on those

  • fronts as well.

  • All right?

  • So with that, let's open it up for questions.

  • Randall, do you want to call on folks,

  • or do you want me to just go ahead and start?

  • Mr. Stephenson: If I could ask the first question

  • and then we'll do that.

  • The President: Please, go ahead.

  • Mr. Stephenson: Your comments, sir,

  • have been consistent as it relates to tax reform.

  • We have been over the last couple of days talking a lot

  • about what are those things that are most critical for

  • driving job growth -- middle-income job growth --

  • and it always for us comes back to investment.

  • The more we invest, the more we hire,

  • the more middle-income wages grow.

  • And as we think about what are those things that will drive

  • business investment and that kind of job growth -- you've

  • touched on it and you have been consistent -- tax reform.

  • And to us, there is no single factor that

  • could be more important.

  • And the question is, do you think it would be useful

  • to have somebody within your administration that you

  • appoint and say, this is a priority to me;

  • we will work with the individual and Congress,

  • and just see if this is a priority,

  • if we could drive this through.

  • There's a time frame here, it seems like

  • to us, where there's something that could be done.

  • Both sides of Congress seem receptive.

  • And so we'd be really open to working with you,

  • somebody specifically in your administration,

  • to help you drive this through.

  • The President: Well, Jack Lew is here, our Treasury Secretary,

  • and my understanding is, he doesn't have enough to do.

  • (laughter)

  • So I'm thinking maybe we need to put him to work.

  • Let me get a little more detailed about

  • the prospects for tax reform.

  • We put out a white paper, a general concept on corporate tax

  • reform, several years ago when Tim Geithner was

  • still Treasury Secretary.

  • I think BRT has had an opportunity to take

  • a look at what our basic principles have been.

  • They've been consistent.

  • The idea has been close loopholes, lower rates.

  • We have discussed the possibility of being able

  • to bring in some of the dollars that are trapped outside

  • of the country right now, and in a one-time

  • transaction, potentially use that to pay for

  • some infrastructure improvements.

  • I think there is some openness to that.

  • And when you compare what we put forward with

  • what Dave Camp, the current House Ways

  • and Means Chairman, put out, his principles

  • for tax reform, there's a lot of overlap.

  • There are some differences, but overall, conceptually,

  • he also believes lower rates, close loopholes,

  • a minimum tax globally that ensures that folks aren't gaming

  • the system but also allows you to be competitive with

  • folks based in other countries that are operating

  • on a territorial basis.

  • So there is definitely a deal to be done.

  • I think two big hurdles that we're going to have

  • to get over -- the first is the classic problem,

  • which is people are in favor of tax reform

  • in the abstract and sometimes more concerned

  • with tax reform in the specifics.

  • If we are, in fact, going to accomplish revenue-neutral

  • corporate tax reform that substantially lowers the

  • corporate rate, then we have to go after some deductions

  • that people are very comfortable with.

  • And there are going to be some winners and there are

  • going to be some losers in the short term.

  • Over the long term, there's going to be less distortion in

  • the economy, and capital will be allocated more sensibly.

  • But in the short term, there are going to be some

  • winners and losers -- including in this room.

  • The question then becomes, are folks willing and ready

  • to go ahead and make that move for the sake of a simpler,

  • more streamlined, more sensible tax system.

  • Because, if not, it's not going to happen.

  • All of you represented in this room have employees and

  • businesses and plants all across the country in every

  • congressional district, and if we don't have consistency

  • and unity coming out of our top companies,

  • then we're going to have -- I think the likelihood

  • of us being able to get something done is low.

  • The second problem is one that is solvable, but is tricky,

  • and that is Paul Ryan, at least in the past,

  • has stated that -- and I think Boehner has echoed this --

  • that they don't want to just do corporate tax reform;

  • they're interested in also combining that with individual

  • tax reform, in part because they're concerned about

  • pass-through corporations not being able

  • to benefit the way larger companies do.

  • And we are actually committed to providing simpler

  • and lower tax rates for small businesses as well.

  • But what we're not willing to do is to structure

  • a tax deal in which either it blows up the deficit --

  • essentially we can't pay for the revenue that's

  • lost -- or, alternatively, that you get tax shifting

  • from businesses to middle-class

  • and working families.

  • And so when you start introducing the individual

  • side, it gets more complicated in terms

  • of who's benefitting, what are the rates,

  • how is it restructured.

  • My view is, is that if we start with the corporate side,

  • it's a more discrete problem, fewer variables,

  • fewer moving parts.

  • We may be able to get that done, and then

  • we can potentially have a conversation about

  • broader tax reform.

  • That may not be how the Republicans view the situation,

  • and so that -- and that could end up being a hang-up.

  • One last point I would make -- and this relates

  • to the issue of individual tax reform, but it also

  • relates to one of the debates that was taking

  • place during this lame-duck period,

  • and that is about tax extenders.

  • As a general rule, we are open to short-term

  • extensions of many of those provisions to make

  • sure that all of you are able to engage in

  • basic tax planning at least for the next couple

  • of years, and are not having to scramble during tax

  • time, figuring out what exactly the rules are.

  • But more broadly, we'd like to see if some of those

  • tax extender provisions, including things that

  • I strongly support like research and development,

  • are incorporated into a broader, comprehensive

  • tax reform package.

  • In order to do that, though, I also want to make sure that

  • some provisions that benefit working families are

  • included in that package: The child tax credit --

  • hugely important for a lot of working families.

  • The EITC, earned income tax credit -- hugely important for

  • a lot of working families, something that has historically

  • been supported on a bipartisan basis because it encourages

  • work, but it says if you're working full-time we're going

  • to try to do everything we can to make sure that you're

  • not in poverty when you're doing the right thing

  • and taking responsibility.

  • There is a college tuition tax credit that benefits a lot

  • of families -- sometimes families who get caught,

  • they're not quite poor enough to qualify for

  • Pell grants, but they don't have enough money

  • to be able to really manage college costs.

  • So there are going to be some working-class

  • and middle-class and working-family

  • provisions that have to be incorporated if we

  • are to extend some of these other

  • tax deductions and tax breaks as well.

  • But that, hopefully, gives you a sense

  • of optimism on my part, but cautious optimism.

  • I think that there are going to be some real challenges,

  • but we are absolutely committed to working

  • with Speaker Boehner and Mitch McConnell,

  • as well as the BRT and other interests

  • in seeing if we can get this thing done.

  • I think the time is right.

  • And you're right, Randall, that the window is not going

  • to be open too wide and it's going to start

  • narrowing the closer we get into the next presidential

  • election -- which always seems to start

  • the day after the last election.

  • Female Speaker: Mr. President,

  • Maggie Wilderotter with Frontier Communications.

  • Thank you for being with us.

  • And also thank you for explaining a little bit

  • more what you're thinking about for tax reform.

  • I also want to just underline that the tax extenders,

  • until there is some reform that takes place,

  • is really important to all of us in this room.

  • As Randall mentioned, it is about capital investment that

  • really drives income growth for middle-class families.

  • Our company serves 30,000 communities

  • in rural America, so that is important to us.

  • One of the other things that's important

  • to us is the continuing resolution to keep

  • the government going.

  • The President: Me, too.

  • (laughter)

  • Female Speaker: Yes.

  • Can you talk a little bit about how we make sure that

  • we don't have fits and starts again on that subject?

  • The President: I've been encouraged by recent statements

  • by Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell about

  • their interest in preventing another government

  • shutdown and I take them at their word.

  • The federal government budgeting process generally

  • is -- how should I put it -- not ideal.

  • Ideally, we would have longer time frames,

  • greater certainty.

  • We would be able to distinguish between capital

  • investments that are going to have long-term

  • payoffs and short-term operating expenses.

  • Historically, that's just not been how the budget process

  • has been structured.

  • And since the plane is constantly flying,

  • it's hard to get in there -- maybe Jim has advice about

  • how to switch up engines while the plane is in the air.

  • So the tendency is just to kick the can down

  • the road with a series of continuing resolutions.

  • There's been an effort to try to get back

  • to regular procedures and to systematically look

  • through these budgets.

  • There was talk of an omnibus bill rather than

  • a continuing resolution.

  • And I think it will be useful for you to get

  • directly from the Speaker what their intentions

  • are at this point.

  • But the one thing I can say for certain

  • is that no one benefits by the government shutting

  • down, and it is entirely unacceptable for us not

  • to maintain the full faith and credit

  • of the United States government.

  • And we just cannot afford to engage in that kind of

  • brinksmanship that we saw over the last couple years.

  • Each time that happened, consumer sentiment plunged.

  • It was a self-inflicted wound and we had to dig ourselves

  • back out of a hole, despite all the efforts that had

  • been made, simply because people's confidence

  • in the system overall was shaken.

  • So my strong hope is, is that we don't repeat that.

  • And part of the principle that can prevent

  • that is what I already articulated.

  • We have to be able to disagree on some

  • things while going ahead and managing the people's

  • business and working on the things where

  • we do agree.

  • Democracy is messy, but it doesn't have to be chaos.

  • And I've been encouraged, as I said,

  • so far by statements by Republican leadership.

  • And if, in fact, we can get some certainty on the budget

  • at least for the next year, that then gives

  • us the window to work on tax reform.

  • The good news is in all this is the incredible progress

  • we've made on our short-term deficits.

  • Nobody talks about them anymore.

  • I will say that's one of the frustrating things

  • about Washington, is people are really good about

  • hollering about problems, and then when we solve

  • them nobody talks about them.

  • We have made extraordinary progress in reducing

  • our short-term deficits.

  • We still have some long-term liabilities that we've got

  • to worry about, and some of those problems, though,

  • have been addressed -- are being addressed by changes

  • in the health care delivery system, which has been

  • a huge driver of long-term federal debt.

  • I think I mentioned earlier that health care inflation

  • has gone up at the slowest rate in 50 years,

  • far slower than had been projected by CBO or by the

  • actuaries for Medicare.

  • As a consequence, we've already been able to book about

  • $188 billion in savings over the next 10 years in reduced

  • health care outlays.

  • And I actually think that we can get more done as some of the

  • delivery system reforms that we talked about and are initiating

  • through the Affordable Care Act are put in place.

  • So there's good news on the budget.

  • But now what we've got to do is to create

  • a framework in which not only do we keep our deficits

  • low and we're able to start driving down our

  • debt, but we're also able to make some core

  • investments that I mentioned earlier -- in infrastructure;

  • in education, and particularly early childhood

  • education is an area where I think we can make

  • a lot of progress; in basic research and science.

  • I was out at NIH yesterday talking to a woman who had

  • worked 10 years on the Ebola virus in great obscurity until

  • suddenly everybody thought she was pretty interesting.

  • And we're in the process now of phase two trials

  • on an Ebola vaccine.

  • But that kind of basic research investment

  • is part of what keeps us at the leading edge.

  • So if we can create a budget structure that allows

  • us to make those investments, keep deficits low, streamline

  • our tax system, then I think the opportunities

  • for American preeminence economically are

  • very, very high.

  • Yes, Doug.

  • Male Speaker: Mr. President, good morning.

  • Welcome.

  • Thank you for joining us.

  • The President: Good to see you.

  • Male Speaker: The four things you mentioned

  • in your earlier comments -- infrastructure, immigration,

  • tax and trade -- are sweet spots for this group.

  • They're our highest priorities.

  • Any one, or any combination, or all of them

  • would lead to economic growth, job creation.

  • And everyone in here wants to grow and everyone

  • wants to add jobs, and we all want to raise pay

  • -- believe it or not.

  • It's what we want to do.

  • The President: Oh, I do believe it.

  • Male Speaker: We'd be interested in your

  • comments on the priorities of those.

  • As you look into '15 -- new Congress, new faces,

  • certainly a changed Senate -- what's first, what's second?

  • Kind of what's the lineup?

  • The President: I think it's going to be very important

  • for me to consult with Boehner and McConnell

  • to find out how they want to sequence their efforts,

  • because ultimately the challenges on most

  • of this stuff has not been my administration's

  • unwillingness to engage or get it done,

  • it's been the complications of Congress and the challenges

  • they have in their respected caucuses.

  • My instinct, though, is to get a process

  • started on tax reform early, because you need

  • a pretty long runway for that.

  • It takes some time.

  • As I said, we've already got some overlap in the frameworks,

  • which will help, but that's probably a full six to nine

  • months before we could really solidify something.

  • So getting started on that early -- understanding

  • there's not going to be a vote any time soon

  • and there's going to be a lot of contentious debate

  • -- I think would be helpful.

  • With respect to trade, we hope to be able to not

  • simply finalize an agreement with the various parties

  • in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but also

  • to be able to explain it to the public, and to engage

  • in all the stakeholders and to publicly engage

  • with the critics, because I think some

  • of the criticism of what we've been doing

  • on the Trans-Pacific Partnership is groups

  • fighting the last war as opposed to looking forward.

  • And so that may be something discrete that

  • we can get done if we're able to have a good, solid

  • debate and everybody feels like it's been transparent

  • and they understand exactly what it is that

  • we're trying to do.

  • Infrastructure I think gets wrapped up in tax reform.

  • The challenge for infrastructure has been that --

  • it's not that I think my Republican friends don't

  • want infrastructure.

  • I notice whenever we get a project going,

  • they're at the ribbon-cutting.

  • I think it's the pay-fors, how do you pay for it.

  • And they're very sensitive, as you know,

  • to anything that might be construed as a tax.

  • Of course, it's hard to pay for things

  • if you don't have some sort of revenue stream.

  • And I've been exploring -- I had a conversation

  • with Larry Fink a while back, and Larry has been bringing

  • together some people to see how we can do

  • more in attracting private investment

  • into infrastructure construction -- which

  • is done fairly effectively in a lot of other

  • countries, but that's not been our tradition,

  • so our tax structures and legal structures are

  • not optimally designed to get private capital

  • and infrastructure.

  • But we're working on that.

  • But I do think that if we are successful with tax reform

  • that may give us an avenue for a one-time big push

  • on infrastructure.

  • But it's hard for me to envision this Congress being

  • able to vote on a big infrastructure bill

  • on its own, because I don't know where they

  • would get the money for it.

  • I've got some proposals, but I don't think

  • they're likely to adopt them.

  • And finally, on immigration, I think that's something

  • that probably comes last.

  • I suspect that temperatures need to cool a little bit

  • in the wake of my executive action.

  • Certainly, there will be pressure initially within

  • Republican caucuses to try to reverse what I've done,

  • despite the fact that what I'm doing I think is exactly

  • the right thing to do.

  • We have to prioritize how we allocate limited enforcement

  • resources, and we should be focusing on felons;

  • we should not be focusing on breaking up families

  • who are our neighbors and our friends

  • and who's kids go to school with us.

  • It's temporary, and as soon as Congress

  • passes comprehensive legislation, it goes away.

  • But I don't think that that's something that

  • this Congress will be able to do right away.

  • My suspicion is they'll take a couple of stabs

  • at rolling back what I've done, and then perhaps

  • folks will step back and say, well, rather

  • than just do something partial that we may

  • not be completely satisfied with, let's engage

  • with the President to see if we can do something

  • more comprehensive that addresses some of our

  • concerns, but also addresses my concerns as well.

  • So I think that's probably the sequence --

  • get tax reform rolling.

  • Make sure that everybody understands,

  • from my perspective, it's going to have to be balanced.

  • We're not going to leave EITC or the child tax credit

  • behind and just do a corporate piece on its own.

  • But if we can get that ball rolling and we can get trade

  • done -- and then there's some things that we haven't

  • really talked about.

  • I mentioned, for example, patent reform.

  • There's still more work to do there.

  • Cybersecurity, an area that is of great interest

  • to a lot of people in this room.

  • Some areas that shouldn't be ideological at all,

  • don't require huge expenditures of money,

  • do require that we reorganize ourselves to respond to new

  • challenges and new threats.

  • Then you could see an environment begin to emerge

  • of productivity in Washington -- which would be exciting.

  • I love signing bills.

  • (laughter)

  • David.

  • Male Speaker: Could you provide

  • a global perspective for us?

  • You were recently in China, and them now

  • being the number-two economy in the world,

  • us building peaceful commercial ties

  • with them while not turning a blind eye

  • to the things that we know are issues is important.

  • And it feels like you made some progress there

  • with greenhouse gases and other things.

  • And then could you take a moment to talk about some

  • of the trouble spots in the world and how you're

  • thinking about Russia and the Middle East and Korea

  • and what we have to deal with there?

  • The President: Well, let me talk about economics

  • and then I'll talk about geopolitics.

  • I've touched on earlier the economics,

  • and many of you have great analysts,

  • so I'm probably not telling you anything you

  • don't know or are not experiencing concretely

  • in your businesses.

  • The United States stands out as an economy

  • that's going strong at the moment.

  • Japan is contracting in a way that has surprised many

  • analysts and I know surprised Prime Minister Abe.

  • He's got new elections.

  • There's a delay in the consumption tax,

  • the second phase of it, that was slated

  • to go into effect.

  • They're pursuing fairly aggressive monetary policy.

  • But I don't know whether they're going

  • to be able to pull out of the current variation

  • on what's been a pretty long-term slump any

  • time soon, and they've still got some debt

  • overhang that they've got to address.

  • In Europe, the debate has generally been framed

  • as austerity and prudence promoted by the Germans,

  • versus a desire for a looser set of fiscal policies

  • among the southern countries.

  • If you look, the truth is, is that Spain, France,

  • to a lesser extent Italy -- most of the big countries

  • in the south have been engaging in some pretty

  • serious structural reforms.

  • They haven't done everything that they need

  • to do in terms of providing labor flexibility, for example,

  • but they are making strides in addressing many of those issues.

  • But right now, what you've got is an environment in which the

  • dangers of deflation and really weak demand

  • in Europe chronically, over a long period of time,

  • I think are more significant than dangers of overheating

  • economies and inflation in the European Union.

  • And we have -- I joke sometimes that I'm an honorary member

  • of the European Commission -- and Jack certainly is,

  • Tim Geithner before him -- we have spent a lot of time trying

  • to manage through various crises that pop up in Europe.

  • And my concern is, is, is that because there's not a current

  • financial crisis and the markets are relatively calm,

  • that we're not paying enough attention to just

  • the overall weakness of the European economy.

  • And we keep on poking and prodding,

  • suggesting to them that -- in our own circumstances,

  • for example, we were able to reduce our deficits

  • in part because, yes, we raised some taxes,

  • but in part because we grew faster.

  • And if you've just got weaker demand chronically,

  • then it's actually harder to get out of a hole than if you

  • had stronger investment and stronger demand there.

  • The emerging markets I think have been

  • slower than anticipated.

  • China has a fairly good rationale for that.

  • They're trying to shift away from a model that was entirely

  • export driven to a model that recognizes they need stronger

  • demand inside of China.

  • And they've got a nascent, but growing middle class

  • start to have enough confidence to spend

  • some money.

  • But that requires a complete reorganization

  • of their economy.

  • They've got a real estate situation,

  • in part because of state-sponsored spending,

  • that is always at risk of overheating.

  • And so the new normal that they're anticipating means that

  • they won't be growing quite as fast as they had before.

  • If they grow at 7 percent, we'd take it, but for them,

  • that's significantly slower.

  • And that then has ramifications in terms

  • of demand for commodities, which, in turn, affects

  • a whole lot of emerging markets.

  • India -- Modi has impressed me so far with his willingness

  • to shake up the bureaucratic inertia inside of India.

  • But that is a long-term project

  • and we'll have to see how successful he is.

  • Brazil -- challenges, but they just completed an election

  • and I think they recognize they need to grow faster.

  • So I guess the overall global picture -- and, Jack,

  • you can correct me if there's anything that I'm saying that's

  • wrong -- is people continue to look to America

  • for economic leadership.

  • We need some other engines to be pulling the global economy

  • along and we're pursuing diplomatic policies

  • and consultations to try to encourage that.

  • On the geopolitics, my meeting with President Xi I thought

  • was very productive and obviously we had

  • some significant deliverables.

  • He has consolidated power faster and more comprehensively

  • than probably anybody since I think Deng Xiaoping.

  • And everybody has been impressed by his clout inside

  • of China after only a year and a half or two years.

  • There are dangers in that -- on issues of human rights,

  • on issues of clamping down on dissent.

  • He taps into a nationalism that worries his neighbors

  • and that we've seen manifest in these maritime disputes

  • in the South China Sea as well as the Senkaku Islands.

  • On the other hand, I think they have a very strong interest in

  • maintaining good relations with the United States.

  • And my visit was a demonstration of their interest in managing

  • this relationship effectively.

  • Our goal with China has been to say to them,

  • we, too, want a constructive relationship.

  • We've got an integrated world economy and the two largest

  • economies in the world have to have an effective

  • relationship together.

  • It can be a win-win for both sides,

  • but there are some things we need them to fix.

  • And we are pressing them very hard on issues of cybersecurity

  • and cyber theft, mostly in the commercial area.

  • It is indisputable that they engage in it,

  • and it is a problem.

  • And we push them hard on it.

  • One thing the BRT can do is to help us by speaking out when

  • you're getting strong-armed about some of these issues.

  • And I know it's sensitive because you don't want

  • to be necessarily penalized in your operations

  • in China, but that's an area that's important.

  • Same thing with intellectual property.

  • We are pushing them hard on that.

  • One of the ancillary benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

  • is to create high standards in the region that then China has

  • to adapt to, as opposed to a race to the bottom where there's

  • no IP protection, for example, and China is really setting

  • the terms for how trade and investment should operate.

  • President Xi is interested in a business investment treaty.

  • That could be significant because it could help to change

  • the environment in which you are able to invest in China without

  • being discriminated against relative to domestic firms.

  • We've got a lot of work to do on that,

  • but that's a work stream that we've set up.

  • So I think we have to be cautious and clear-eyed

  • about our relationship with China, but there's

  • no reason why we should not be able to manage

  • that relationship in a way that is productive

  • for us and productive for the world.

  • I'm less optimistic about Russia.

  • I have a very direct, blunt and businesslike

  • relationship with Putin.

  • We had a very productive relationship when Medvedev

  • was President, even though Putin was

  • still the power behind the thrown.

  • In part because I think the situation in Ukraine caught

  • him by surprise, he has been improvising himself into

  • a nationalist, backward-looking approach to Russian policy

  • that is scaring the heck out of his neighbors

  • and is badly damaging his economy.

  • And sanctions are having a big bite on their economy.

  • We continue to offer them a pathway to a diplomatic

  • resolution of the problem.

  • But the challenge is this is working for him politically

  • inside of Russia, even though it is isolating Russia

  • completely internationally.

  • And I think people should take note of how unified we have been

  • able to keep the Europeans on sanctions and penalizing

  • Russia for its behavior, despite the fact that

  • it's tough on the Russian economy --

  • or on the European economy.

  • But people have recognized there's a core principle

  • at stake that helped to establish peace in Europe

  • and prosperity in Europe that can't be ignored.

  • But if you ask me, am I optimistic that Putin suddenly

  • changes his mind-set, I don't think that will happen until the

  • politics inside of Russia catch up to what's happening in the

  • economy inside of Russia -- which is part of the reason

  • why we're going to continue to maintain that pressure.

  • And finally, in the Middle East, you are going

  • through a generational shift, a tectonic shift

  • in the Middle East, and it is messy and it is dangerous.

  • Part of it is sectarian schisms between Shia and Sunni,

  • and conflicts between states that engage in proxy fights

  • that are far more bloody and vicious and significant

  • now than the conflict between Arabs and Jews.

  • And you're seeing that primarily in Iraq and Syria.

  • And I am confident about our ability to push

  • ISIL back in Iraq.

  • Syria I think is a broader and longer-term -- more difficult,

  • long-term proposition, in part because the civil war has

  • gotten so bad and the interests of outside parties

  • are so conflicting that it may take time to let that

  • thing settle down.

  • But obviously we're very active not just militarily,

  • but diplomatically.

  • The longer-term problem in the Middle East is -- and this

  • relates to the economy -- the whole region in some ways has

  • gone down a blind alley where too often Islam is now

  • equated with rejection of education, modernity,

  • women's participation -- all the things that

  • allow you to thrive in a modern economy.

  • And that's not uniformly true, but too often those

  • forces inside of Islam have been elevated,

  • and moderate voices and voices that recognize Islam should

  • be compatible with science, education, tolerance, openness,

  • global commerce, productivity -- too often those voices

  • have been silenced.

  • So the question now becomes are we able to strengthen

  • some of those voices.

  • That is a generational problem.

  • And some of the things we're doing, for example,

  • are entrepreneurial summits for Muslim small business leaders,

  • and that's the kind of thing that we want to continue to

  • promote and where we thing the BRT can be very helpful.

  • But in the meantime, a big chunk of my job is just making sure

  • that we help to contain the damage that's being done

  • inside of the Middle East and then hopefully,

  • over time, build towards a better future there.

  • That's not a two-year project; that's going

  • to be a longer-term project.

  • That was a long answer, but it was a big question.

  • (laughter)

  • He said he wanted to go around

  • the world and I did that pretty fast.

  • All right.

  • In the back.

  • Fred.

  • Male Speaker: Mr. President, you mentioned

  • infrastructure in your opening remarks,

  • and the BRT I think would echo the fact that our

  • highways and bridges are deteriorating,

  • and the lack of investment is creating congestion,

  • which is retarding economic activity.

  • The President: I want my FedEx package moving

  • smooth through our infrastructure.

  • Male Speaker: "60 Minutes" did a very good piece

  • on this problem the other day.

  • So the Highway Trust Fund, which provides the funding

  • for all of these infrastructure improvements

  • ran out of money in August and it was papered over

  • with a patch based on some pension accounting.

  • So now you have bipartisan bills in both the Senate

  • from Senator Corker, a Republican,

  • and Senator Murphy of Connecticut.

  • You have, as of yesterday, a bipartisan bill

  • in the House with Congressman Petri, a Republican,

  • and Congressman Blumenauer, a Democrat,

  • and you had the Chamber of Commerce and the head

  • of the AFL-CIO jointly testify in Congress about

  • the Highway Trust Fund, the gasoline and diesel tax,

  • and you've got the entire industry supporting

  • an increase in highway taxation to fund

  • these infrastructure improvements.

  • So why not, before the Congress goes home for December,

  • just pass a bill that takes the two bipartisan bills

  • that I just mentioned up and solves the problem?

  • Because come May, it's going to run out of money again

  • because the patch is over.

  • I would think that would be a great opportunity

  • for you and the new Congress to show some bipartisan

  • success here.

  • The President: I'll tell you, Fred,

  • if I were running Congress, I'd potentially

  • take you up on that offer or suggestion.

  • I think I probably already would have done it.

  • In fairness to members of Congress,

  • votes on gas tax are really tough.

  • Gas prices are one of those things that really bug people.

  • When they go up, they're greatly attuned to them.

  • When they do down, they don't go down enough.

  • And so, historically, I think there's

  • been great hesitance.

  • So I guess what I'd do is separate out, Fred,

  • a short-term problem and the long-term problem.

  • Short term is we've got to replenish

  • the Highway Trust Fund.

  • And I will engage with Speaker Boehner and McConnell

  • to see what they think they can get done

  • to make sure that we're not running out of money.

  • Because we've got a whole bunch of construction projects that

  • are in train right now that -- set aside the stuff that we need

  • to do, just keeping going on the stuff that is currently

  • operating would be endangered if we don't replenish it.

  • The question is going to be, is there a formula long term for

  • us to get a dedicated revenue source for funding the

  • infrastructure that we need that is not so politically

  • frightening to members of Congress that it's reliable.

  • The gas tax hasn't been increased for 20 years.

  • There's a reason for that.

  • And if that's your primary source of revenue when the

  • population has -- I don't know what it's done,

  • but it's gone up X percent; GDP has gone up X percent --

  • we've got -- your business, Fred, has completely

  • transformed over the last two decades, and yet we

  • still have the same mechanism to try to keep up.

  • It's probably a good time for us to redesign and think

  • through how do -- what is a sustainable way for

  • us on a regular basis to make the investments we need.

  • And this may be something that we can introduce into

  • the tax reform agenda.

  • It may end up being too complicated and we got to do

  • something separate, but we've got to figure this out.

  • We are falling behind.

  • Dave, you were asking earlier about China.

  • I do not take potential competition from China lightly,

  • but I am absolutely confident we've got better cars

  • than China does.

  • And I'd much rather have our problems than China's problems.

  • That I'm confident about.

  • On the other hand, the one thing I will say is that

  • if they need to build some stuff, they can build it.

  • And over time, that wears away our advantage competitively.

  • It's embarrassing -- you drive down the roads,

  • and you look at what they're able to do.

  • The place that we stayed at for the APEC Summit was

  • this lavish conference center, and it probably

  • put most of the conference centers here to shame.

  • They built it in a year.

  • Now, you've got an authoritarian government

  • that isn't necessarily accountable.

  • I understand we're not going to do that.

  • But if they're able to build their ports, their airports,

  • their smart grid, their air traffic control systems,

  • their broadband systems with that rapidity and they're

  • highly superior to ours -- over time, that's going

  • to be a problem for us.

  • So, Fred, I guess the answer is, I'm going

  • to talk to McConnell and Boehner to see what

  • we can do short term and to see whether

  • these bipartisan bills have any legs.

  • They'll have a better sense of head counts.

  • And I'll have to talk to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as well.

  • But even if we were able to get something done,

  • it would not be the kind of 10-year solution

  • that we need.

  • The best I suspect they could do would

  • be to stagger through another year.

  • And we've got to have a better way of planning

  • and executing on infrastructure investment.

  • And I'll be engaging with the BRT and you, hopefully,

  • and others who are interested to see

  • if we can come up with something.

  • And I've got to check in with Larry to see if he's figured

  • out whether we can get all that global capital

  • on the sidelines to start helping us fund some

  • infrastructure projects here in the United States.

  • Yes, Greg.

  • Male Speaker: So just to pivot back

  • to immigration for a minute.

  • It remains a top priority unequivocally of BRT.

  • We are of the mind that the policy and the politics

  • can still align sometime in 2015.

  • We are steadfast and consistent in comprehensive

  • or broad-based reform and all the components

  • that come with that.

  • We agree with you on timing -- maybe it's for, whatever,

  • second quarter, summer, whatever it ends up being,

  • but there's still an opportunity to do that.

  • As we go down this path in what appears

  • to be a piecemeal approach with multiple bills that

  • can advance, I just wanted to make a comment.

  • We all collectively need to be mindful of the sequencing and

  • the packaging of those individual pieces of legislation

  • and how they're viewed so we don't talk past each other.

  • You know what I'm saying.

  • The President: I do.

  • I mean, Greg, look, let's be blunt.

  • BRT has a great interest in the high-skill visa issue

  • and H-1Bs, and making sure that STEM graduates are

  • available to work and ultimately start businesses

  • here in the United States.

  • I'm for that as well.

  • There was a limit to how much we could do on that front

  • through executive action because something like

  • H-1B visa numbers are clear, statutory,

  • not subject to a lot of executive interpretation.

  • But, for example, we could administratively make sure

  • that folks who had been approved for green cards,

  • that process was accelerated so that they weren't stuck and

  • their employers weren't hobbled in terms of utilizing those

  • personnel in a more efficient, effective way.

  • So that's component one, and I know that's a preeminent

  • interest to this room.

  • There's an agricultural component.

  • There wasn't a lot we could do administratively

  • on the ag sector, but those whose businesses

  • keep track and are related to what happens

  • in agriculture understand that we should have

  • a more efficient system for managing fairly,

  • justly, agricultural workers who are vital to the economy.

  • And, frankly, this is one of the few areas where

  • it genuinely is true that it's hard to find Americans

  • to do those jobs.

  • Sometimes that's overstated.

  • Sometimes the question is -- and I hope I'm not offending

  • anybody here -- but sometimes when folks say,

  • we can't find anybody it's because you don't want to pay

  • as much as you'd have to, to find some folks.

  • But in the ag sector, that's hard work,

  • and it's hard to find enough American-born workers

  • to actually get it done.

  • But we've got to treat them fairly and make sure

  • that it's good for workers, good for business.

  • That we could not do much about through executive action.

  • So those are two big components that are

  • of interest to this group that need to get done.

  • Border security -- the truth is, we're already doing a lot.

  • We're going to be doing more as a consequence

  • of the executive actions.

  • There was a spike in concern about the borders because those

  • kids had been coming up from Central America during

  • the summer and it got two weeks of wall-to-wall

  • coverage until everybody forgot about it.

  • It does reflect real problems in Central America with their

  • economies and violence, but also active marketing by smugglers

  • to parents, saying that they could get kids in.

  • We brought that back down so the numbers

  • are now below what they were two years ago.

  • Overall, the border is less porous than

  • it's been any time since the 1970s.

  • And we make huge investments down there.

  • We can still do more, but the truth is,

  • were working that part of it real hard.

  • And then there's the issue that I did deal with

  • in executive actions, although not for everybody,

  • and that is the 11 million people who are here

  • undocumented but the vast majority who are law-abiding.

  • And the one principle I guess, if, in fact,

  • we can still get a comprehensive deal going forward,

  • even if it's somewhat piecemeal, is I am not going

  • to preside over a system in which we know these folks

  • are in the kitchens of most restaurants in the country,

  • are cleaning up most of the hotels that all of you stay in,

  • that are doing the landscaping in most neighborhoods where

  • you live, whose kids are going to school with

  • our kids, and we tolerate it because it's good for

  • us economically to have cheap labor and services,

  • but we never give them a path to be part

  • of this country in a more full and fair way.

  • That's just not who we are.

  • That's not how most of our forebears got

  • to the point where we had the opportunities

  • we've got today.

  • So I'm not going to perpetuate a system

  • of that sort.

  • I've taken executive actions.

  • What I'd like to see, and I'm happy to negotiate,

  • is to see if we can solidify that into law.

  • But it's going to be hard, I think,

  • for me and for other Democrats to vote for a big package

  • that says, all right, were going to still not

  • deal with that and just deal with those aspects

  • of it that are of core concern to the BRT.

  • That doesn't mean I can't have that conversation,

  • but I want to be honest about the complications

  • of us doing something piecemeal.

  • Male Speaker: Well, and we support --

  • The President: I know you do.

  • Male Speaker: The components.

  • The President: You guys are all there.

  • You guys have been terrific on this.

  • I have no complaints at all, and, in fact,

  • I have only gratitude for the way that the BRT stepped up.

  • I think everybody here sincerely understands what

  • immigration has meant to the life of this country.

  • And just in terms of macroeconomics.

  • It's not a sexy argument to make to the public,

  • but we are younger than our competitors.

  • And that is entirely because of immigration.

  • And when you look at the problems that China, Japan,

  • Europe, Russia, are all going to have,

  • a lot of it just has to do with they're getting old.

  • And we stay young because were constantly being replenished

  • by these striving families from around the world.

  • And we should want that to continue.

  • All right.

  • I'll take two more, what the heck.

  • Right back here and then right over here.

  • Male Speaker: Mr. President, almost everyone agrees

  • that U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman

  • is doing a herculean job of driving trade agreements

  • around the world.

  • It seems to be common sense that more access

  • to global trade is good for the creation of U.S. jobs.

  • How can we get TPA passed so that Michael can have the

  • clear support that he needs to drive these agreements?

  • The President: Well, I'm going to be talking to McConnell

  • and Boehner, Reid and Pelosi, and making a strong case

  • on the merits as to why this has to get done.

  • It is somewhat challenging because of a factor that I

  • mentioned earlier, which is Americans feeling

  • as if their wages and incomes have stagnated.

  • And there's a half-truth that is magnified I think

  • in the discussions around trade that global competition

  • has contributed to some of that wage stagnation.

  • It's an appealing argument.

  • I think when you look at the numbers,

  • it's actually an incorrect argument that over time, growth,

  • investment, exports all have increased the capacity for

  • working families to improve their economic standing.

  • But I say it's a half-truth because there's no doubt

  • that some manufacturing moved offshore in the wake

  • of China entering the WTO and as a consequence of NAFTA.

  • Now, more of those jobs were lost because of automation

  • and capital investment, but there's a narrative

  • there that makes for some tough politics.

  • We have to be able to talk directly to the public about

  • why trade is good for America, good for American businesses

  • and good for American workers.

  • And we have to dispel some of the myths.

  • Part of the argument that I'm making to Democrats is,

  • don't fight the last war -- you already have.

  • If somebody is wanting to outsource,

  • if any of the companies here wanted to locate in China,

  • you've already done it.

  • If you wanted to locate in a low-wage country with low

  • labor standards and low environmental standards,

  • there hasn't been that much preventing you from doing so.

  • And, ironically, if we are able to get Trans-Pacific Partnership

  • done, then we're actually forcing some countries to boost

  • their labor standards, boost their environmental standards,

  • boost transparency, reduce corruption,

  • increase intellectual property protection.

  • And so all that is good for us.

  • Those who oppose these trade deals ironically

  • are accepting a status quo that is more damaging

  • to American workers.

  • And I'm going to have to engage directly with

  • our friends in labor and our environmental organizations

  • and try to get from them why it is that they think

  • that -- for example, Mike is in a conversation

  • with Vietnam, one of the potential signatories

  • to the TPP.

  • Right now, there are no labor rights in Vietnam.

  • I don't know how it's good for labor for us to tank

  • a deal that would require Vietnam to improve

  • its laws around labor organization and safety.

  • I mean, we're not punishing them somehow by leaving

  • them out of something like this.

  • Let's bring them in.

  • On the environmental front, I haven't looked carefully

  • at the environmental laws in Malaysia recently,

  • but I suspect they're not as strong as they are here.

  • It's not a bad thing for us to nudge them in a better

  • direction, particularly since we now know that environmental

  • problems somewhere else in the world are going

  • to ultimately affect us.

  • So I think that there are folks in my own party

  • and in my own constituency that have legitimate complaints

  • about some of the trend lines of inequality,

  • but are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to opposing

  • TPP, and I'm going to have to make that argument.

  • But I will tell you, though, when you talk to Boehner

  • and McConnell, that some of those same anti-trade impulses

  • are more ascendant in the Republican Party than

  • they might have been 20 years ago as well.

  • And some of you may have encountered those in some

  • of your conversations.

  • And this was why it goes back to the point --

  • we're not going to get trade done, we're not going

  • to get infrastructure done, we're not going

  • to get anything done in this town until we're

  • able to describe to the average American worker

  • how at some level this is improving their wages,

  • it's giving them the ability to save for retirement,

  • it's improving their financial security.

  • If people continue to feel like Democrats are looking

  • after poor folks and Republicans are looking after

  • rich folks and nobody is looking after me, then we don't

  • get a lot of stuff done.

  • And the trend lines evidence the fact that

  • folks have gotten squeezed.

  • And obviously, 2007, 2008 really ripped open

  • for people how vulnerable they were.

  • Nick.

  • Male Speaker: Mr. President, thank you

  • for being here today.

  • We talked about many issues that are

  • on the 2015 agenda for the Business Roundtable.

  • One of the real pervasive issues that

  • I know you've talked about before is the regulatory

  • burden in this country, and still it remains

  • the major issue that many of us deal with.

  • In my industry, American Electric Power,

  • we're in the midst of a major transition in our industry.

  • We have environmental rules, obviously,

  • that we continue to advance and have done quite a good job

  • of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so forth.

  • And I know that we've had billions being

  • spent on mercury removal at the time when we're now

  • having greenhouse gas rules being put in place

  • that even independent system operators say that

  • there will be impacts on the reliability of the grid.

  • And I know you've been seriously responsible

  • and involved with the reliability implications

  • for our grid due to Super Storm Sandy,

  • from the cyber physical standpoint.

  • And it really is interesting for us

  • to see this transition occurring.

  • We've got to be reasonable and rational.

  • And it goes to the overall regulatory question:

  • How do we continue to make progress -- and I'd like

  • just your views on -- you've talked about this

  • before -- how do you see the progress that's been

  • made and what you anticipate occurring

  • in the next couple of years relative to removing

  • some of this regulatory burden that makes

  • us all uncompetitive?

  • The President: I think it's a great question.

  • It's probably a good place to close because I think this

  • is an area where I'd like to see us do more together.

  • I've said before to my staff -- I haven't said

  • this publicly, so I've got to be careful here.

  • You get a little looser in your last two years of office.

  • (laughter)

  • And this is a little tongue-in-cheek,

  • but it will get to a point.

  • The Republicans -- and maybe I'd throw the BRT in here --

  • are actually about 25 percent right when it comes

  • to regulatory burden.

  • Now, you say the numbers are different.

  • But what I mean by that is nobody wants to be regulated,

  • and there are some regulations that are

  • burdensome on businesses.

  • They'd rather not do them, but the common good that

  • is served is sufficiently important, the benefits

  • so outweigh the cost that, as a society, we should

  • go ahead and do them.

  • And we were talking about China earlier.

  • I would just point to one simple example,

  • and that is you would not want your kids growing up

  • in Beijing right now, because they could not breathe.

  • And the fact of the matter is that used

  • to be true in Los Angeles -- as recently as 1970.

  • And the reason it changed was because of the Clean Air Act.

  • And in my hometown of Chicago, the Chicago River caught

  • fire right around the same period, and because

  • of the Clean Water Act, you now have folks

  • paddling down the water and fishing.

  • And the commercial renaissance of downtown Chicago

  • is, in large part, driven by a really big,

  • radical piece of environmental legislation that,

  • at the time, people said would destroy our businesses

  • and our competitiveness.

  • So there's an example of something that -- it's

  • inconvenient, it's tough, but it's the right thing to do.

  • And, over time, I actually think it's not only

  • good for our quality of life, it's actually good

  • for our economy.

  • Because we've got some really innovative companies

  • here and you guys figure out how to adapt

  • to those regulations.

  • But remember what I said at the beginning --

  • you're actually about 25 percent right.

  • What is absolutely true is, is that as we comb through

  • our regulatory structures, there are old regulations

  • that have outlived their usefulness.

  • You have regulations on railroads that don't take

  • into account GPS, so they have folks doing a whole bunch

  • of stuff that doesn't acknowledge technologies

  • that have sprung up over the last 20 years.

  • You have regulations that are poorly written.

  • You've got regulations that are not properly synced up so that

  • you have different agencies with different responsibilities

  • and so compliance costs end up skyrocketing.

  • You have regulations that squash innovation,

  • because at times some of the agencies,

  • the regulatory agencies treat every problem like

  • a nail and only have a hammer, and aren't engaging

  • with industry enough to think, all right,

  • here is the problem we're trying to solve,

  • is there's a smarter way of solving it.

  • So what we've tried to do is to set up a structure

  • in which we can engage directly with various

  • industries, explain here's the goal we're trying

  • to accomplish, solicit as much feedback as possible,

  • and then try to design systems that provide some flexibility,

  • allow for creative adaptation, but still hit the mark,

  • still hit the goal.

  • And, for example, on the power plant rule,

  • which obviously you're having to spend a lot of time with,

  • I recognize that this is a big expense for a lot of companies.

  • On the other hand, I think Gina McCarthy has tried to have

  • a sufficiently open process so that she's working with

  • not only industry, but on a state-by-state basis,

  • recognizing not every state is the same,

  • to figure out is there a smarter way for

  • us to do this, but still meet the mark

  • of reducing our overall carbon emissions.

  • What I'd like to do in these last two years is figure out

  • how we can improve the system to find that 25 percent --

  • and again, we may not always agree on what

  • the 25 percent is -- and can we institutionalize

  • it so that it outlives my administration.

  • We already instituted a cost-benefit analysis system

  • that -- or we inherited one that had been instituted.

  • It was controversial for a while -- mostly criticism

  • from Democrats.

  • I actually believe in cost-benefit.

  • I think it makes sense for us to engage in a vigorous review.

  • And my essential rule has been we're not going to promulgate

  • new regulations unless you can show a significant

  • benefit relative to costs.

  • And we've been able to do that.

  • We've been able to document it in the most

  • rigorous way possible.

  • But are there some other institutional things

  • we can do to build the process so, for example,

  • there's more input on the front end rather than the rule gets

  • promulgated, published, and then there's this big,

  • cumbersome, inefficient, unwieldy process of comments.

  • Are there smarter ways of doing that?

  • We're spending a lot of time on the regulatory look-back

  • process, digging back into old rules and seeing what

  • don't make sense.

  • So what I'd like people to do, the BRT to do is,

  • perhaps industry by industry, work with Jeff and let's

  • inventory what are the rules that bother you most.

  • We'll go through them.

  • I'll tell you, if it's child labor laws,

  • I'm probably going to hang to them.

  • We're going to keep that rule.

  • If it's some basic issues around environmental

  • protection, I'm going to be -- want to preserve them.

  • But in those instances where there are significant costs,

  • I may say we're not going to change the goal;

  • do you think there's a smarter way of doing this,

  • because we're willing to listen if you think there is.

  • Less command and control, more market incentive --

  • we're open to it.

  • And on that list, I suspect there may be four or five

  • regulations out of 20, 25 where you can persuade us,

  • you know what, this actually should just be eliminated.

  • It doesn't make sense anymore.

  • Or it should be replaced.

  • And we will be open to doing that.

  • The Job Council that we put together,

  • that some of you participated in,

  • gave us a list of recommendations,

  • and some of them involve, for example,

  • streamlining infrastructure projects.

  • We adopted almost all those recommendations.

  • And business was absolutely right -- it wasn't that

  • they minded having an environmental review;

  • they didn't like the idea of having permitting,

  • environmental review, all this stuff go consecutively,

  • and you end up with an eight-year time frame,

  • when, if you put in on parallel tracks,

  • you could compress it down to one year.

  • So we are open to common sense.

  • And what I have assigned Jeff to do and my entire

  • Cabinet to do -- Penny Pritzker and Tom Perez

  • and others -- is to sit down, listen to you,

  • and if you can show us either that something

  • is counterproductive and doesn't work,

  • or there's a smarter way of meeting the goal,

  • we will embrace it, happily.

  • There are going to be times, though,

  • where we just disagree on the goal.

  • And I'm going to be -- workers' safety -- my instruction

  • to Tom Perez is I want our workers to be safe.

  • And we now do have probably the safest workforce

  • that we've ever had in history.

  • Made huge strides on that, partly because of just

  • continuous improvement that you've instituted

  • in your own companies.

  • This has been good for workers.

  • It's been good for business.

  • But, frankly, if it hadn't been for some initial laws

  • to prod you, some of it just wouldn't have happened.

  • So we're going to hang on to worker safety rules.

  • The question then is going to be, is there a way, for example,

  • for us to enforce it in a more efficient way and a less

  • disruptive way, but continues to hold you accountable.

  • That's a conversation Tom Perez is going

  • to be happy to have.

  • All right?

  • Happy holidays, everybody.

  • It's good to be in America.

  • God bless us.

  • Thank you.

  • (applause)

The President: Well, good morning, everybody.

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

オバマ大統領がビジネス座談会で講演 (President Obama Speaks at the Business Roundtable)

  • 269 21
    marmot に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語