奧巴馬總統在商業圓桌會議上發言 (President Obama Speaks at the Business Roundtable)

字幕列表影片播放

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)