>> we are going to take a look at rick perry's surprising comments on climate change and the scientists behind the research. >> there are substantial numbers of scientists who have manipulated data. >> what i'd do is break different comments by come -- politicians on a what for scale. if he's a something really of rage is that is completely inaccurate you get for pinocchio's. a slightly misleading or out of context you might to dazzle as one. >> in his washington post fact

checker column glenn kessler evaluates and rates the truthfulness of political figures and others. >> whether or not they are deliberately lying, i do think that if a politician says the same thing over and over again even when it has been pointed out it is not true that they know they're saying something untrue. their adjustment to say it anyway. >> the washington post glenn kessler sunday night at 8:00 on c-span is q&a. >> a new report outlines the safety of the world's nuclear weapons material. the group's nuclear threat initiative grew to 32 countries and rated as strongly as having the safest arsenal. north korea finished last on the list. the co-chairman of the organization, former senator sam nunn talked about the report at the national press club. this is just over an hour.

>> i want to just thank everyone for coming today and for your interest in the release of our nuclear threat initiative but clear material security index. the nti index is a country-by country assessment of the status of nuclear material security conditions around the world. this type of in-depth index has not been produced before. it takes a broad approach and defining nuclear material security. it is comprehensive, and today it will be public. this is the publication. all of you, of course, will get copies. our distinguished panel will be going into some at least broad outlines, and then it will take your questions and answers. we hope that the nti index will help spur debate, dialogue, and deliberation together help beginning to define the

long-term path toward a more in-depth, comprehensive nuclear security around the world which we think will lead to a safer and more secure world. over the past year our nti team has been working in close cooperation with the economist intelligence unit. leo is representing the intelligence unit, and you will hear from him later. in addition, to insure the project is the -- has maintained international type perspective during this entire analysis and survey and results, we have sought guidance from experts around the world which include nuclear experts, from nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states and countries with and without materials and from developed as well as developing nations. we tried to make the expert

panel really representative of the world. we certainly wanted to get experts. that was the number one requirement, and we did. why do we need the index? we must start with the very real threat of nuclear terrorism. it is clear the elements of a perfect storm gathering. there is a large supply of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, what we call weapons usable nuclear materials, and that is the term you will see and hear referenced many times. that material is spread across hundreds of sites around 32 countries, and some of it, in fact too much of it is poorly secured. there is also greater know how today to build a bomb widely available, and there are terrorist organizations determined to get the material and to build a weapon, if they can. it is not a piece of cake, and we don't want to pretend it is, but it is far from impossible, and nuclear material security is

the number one defense that we have to prevent nuclear terrorism. we know that to get weapons, usable nuclear materials a terrorist must have in order to build a weapon, while long pull in the tent, they will go where the material is most vulnerable. we have a global challenge, and we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. it is pretty revealing, a comment made a couple of years ago by mohamed el baradei. as he noted, a large percentage of the materials reported as lost or stolen car never recovered and, perhaps, even more alarming, he added, a large percentage of materials which are recovered have not been previously reported as missing. so if terrorists succeeded in blowing up a large city somewhere in the world the

result would be catastrophic. the human toll of hundreds of thousands dead and injured and disruptions to global commerce and confidence and long-term environmental and public health consequences and improbable new limits on civil liberties worldwide. what can we do to prevent it? we believe that we are giving an important part of that answer here today. we hope that this index will help individual countries as well as the international community to set priorities and to determine what steps must be taken to better secure the materials that could be used to build the bomb. we start by taking a broad view of security, working with the independent group of international experts that i have alluded to we identified key factors which fundamentally affects a states nuclear material security conditions. we assess their relative importance. these factors in broad terms, a

number of details, but in broad terms we ask the questions, how much weapons usable material does the state have, and in how many locations. what kind of requirements or protections are in place? what international commitments related to material security has the state made? what is the ability of the state to fulfill these international commitments? finally, for the given country societal factors. for instance, corruption and governmental instability undermine its security commitments and practices. certainly we do not expect every country or every expert to agree with all of the assessment that is in this index. and we don't expect everyone to agree with our set of priorities we welcome debate on these essential questions. we also welcome constructive suggestions for improvement and certainly we all acknowledge

that improvements can be made. here are some of the highlights of what we found in very general, brief terms. first, the good news. clear signs that governments are becoming more engaged on this issue. there are a number of international initiatives, and most of them are set forth here in the index. initiatives that can be credited for galvanizing actions by governments around the globe. as an example, today in 19 countries, plus taiwan, have completely eliminated their stocks of weapons-usable nuclear material. i also want to give president obama and his team credit for elevating this issue to the heads of state level through the 2010 nuclear security summit, and all of the people who have been working hard to make these achievements possible, and there will be a follow-up meeting in south korea in march, again, at the heads of state level. so, i want to start by noting

that progress is being made, and certainly many of you follow the progress where a remarkable amount of corporate activity has taken place, countries have been helping in this effort for some 20 years. however, we are concerned it is not a shared consensus about what security measures matter most. lack of shared priorities undercuts the ability of governments to take urgent and effective action, and even basically is a disincentive to governments taking action where there is no sharing of authorities. most importantly building a framework for insurance, accountability, and action, and that is what we are calling for, assurance, accountability, and action throughout the world. government leaders should and must determine robust ways of doing the following.

one, create a global dialogue and build consensus on a new security framework for the protection of nuclear materials that are weapons usable. it too, hold states accountable for their progress, and three, build a practice of transparency that includes declarations and peer review. i want to make it clear that we understand some information must be protected, like specific security practices at individual sites. we do not go into that kind of death, nor should we in a public document, but they're is a lot of information that should be shared with the public, and certainly other governments have to have confidence. and only by sharing information will that confidence be possible. also, we think that sharing information can help inspire actions by other countries. when we brief governments about the index, and we have briefed a

number of them as will be talked about by our fellow panelists, some questions consistently come up. first, we have been asked if governments are cooperating. the answer is a qualified yes. in developing the index reoffer briefings to 32 countries with weapons usable nuclear materials. twenty-eight took us up on it. more than half of those countries also validated the data collected by leo and his economist intelligence unit to assure that it was accurate. we also have kept south korea informed, fully informed as a host of the summit in march, and in the future we hope more governments will be engaged more fully in this process. second question we ask frequently, why did you ranked 144 countries that don't have weapons usable materials, and we did. the answer is even countries without weapons usable nuclear materials must avoid becoming safe havens, staging grounds,

were transit points for illicit nuclear activities. every country can and must do more to help protect these materials. third, do you expect can the index help the security summit in march in terms of their process and liberations? the answer is hopefully from our point of view yes. we hope the end t i index will help shape the discussions and more importantly help guide the international community and individual countries as they work to set up priorities beyond the summit. the summit is important, but the follow-through is even more important. this is up to the governments of the world and it will make that decision. i want to be clear this index is not, although we do rate countries, no doubt about that, but not about congratulating some countries and chastising

others. instead, it should be used as a tool for initiating discussions, analysis, and debate as well as beginning to help build a consensus, as i have mentioned, on the priorities and imperatives. the bottom line is, the world is to succeed in preventing catastrophic nuclear terrorism. all countries can and must do more to strengthen security around the world's most dangerous material. we believe this is a very powerful tool and it is up to governments to decide that and if so to act on it. the nti index challenges governments worldwide to respond to the threat by taking appropriate steps to strengthen security conditions. as citizens and leaders, we need to ask ourselves this question, if we had a catastrophic nuclear terrorist attack, whether it be in moscow or new york or tel aviv or jakarta, the day after,

what steps would we wish we had taken to prevent it? securing weapons usable nuclear material is the most critical step, and we hope the nti index can make a significant contribution toward this empirical. in closing, i would like to thank the funders who supported this project. of course, i must thank warren buffett who makes nti and our work possible. i would now like to introduce wheel of breezy from the economist intelligence unit to give you more background on how they constructed the index. vice-president of the nuclear material security program will then give you more information about our approach and the index results, and then he will be followed by bt jobs, the senior director of nuclear security. he will talk about findings and

recommendations. we thank all of you for your interest, and we look for to your questions. >> thank you very much. and thank you, senator. my name is leo abruzzese with the economist intelligence unit. if you're not familiar with the company i work for i thought i would take a moment to explain what we do and how we can to participate. we are the research arm of the economist group, which is the publisher of the economist magazine, and i'm sure most of you're familiar with the magazine. we are a sister organization, but we do a much different kind of work. we are research-based, and we must work on behalf of governments, corporations, or non-governmental organizations, mostly doing public policy research and other economic projects, also in the fields like environmental science and security. we have done quite a bit of work we have made this a specialty

and on projects like this for the world bank, gates foundation, and quite a number of fortune 500. with that background nti approached us a little over a year ago and told us of their plan to put together a nuclear material security index, and asked us if we would easily advise on the project and the technical consultants to help them build an index that was credible. we were happy to do that. one important point that we always like to mention on these projects, this being washington, there are a lot of places doing studies, and more than a few have a certain bias, ideological , preordained conclusions. when we work on projects like this we have three goals in mind which we insist on, and that is independent, transparent, and credible. if there are any results that are established ahead of time we do not participate, so we were happy to find out that nti wanted us to gather the data it as objectively as we could and

let the conclusions fall where they may, which is what we have been doing for the past year. this is an interesting project in a number of ways. we have built an index. it is not obvious that you would want to build an index to measure nuclear material security, but we do that for a couple of reasons. one, this provides a framework for looking at the subject. you can look anything in the number of different ways, and we try to be as objective as possible. building an index, looking at indicators and categories in a structured way, it allows you to have a system that you can repeat overtime. we have done this with nti for the first time being released in 2012, but should we want to do this again a year from now, two years from now, five years from now, we have a way of going about this that we can repeat. a structure and level of organization and a good element of conductivity. secondly, it makes it easy for

countries to see where they have done well. attaching scores and ratings, so it's easy for country to see its progress over time. when we build these indices in the past week seen countries that did not do well in one particular area actually change laws or regulations so that there were scored better the second time around, so that is another element that weighs very well in this process. how do you go about producing an index like this? especially on a topic like nuclear material security, this is a subject that almost by definition has a heavy element of secrecy to it. the senator pointed out that we don't want to go into areas of security at specific facilities. that would actually move against the whole goal of trying to provide security. at the same time, countries can be transparent. they can do things to reassure the jewish community that they are at least plan barrels. so in building an index we gather indicators.

basically just questions that we try to answer and answer in a very organized fashion. we looked at dozens of indicators and ultimately chose about 18 of them. in order to make sure that we chose ones that were credible we use our judgment, but we also assembled an international panel, people who worked in this field for decades, and this panel came from a wide group of countries. this was not u.s.-paced by any means. we had u.s. members, but also russet -- russia, china, indonesia, kazakhstan. this process was formed by people around the world and does have a strong international flavor to it. gathering this data is not easy. again, a lot of this data is, shall we say, generally less than transparent. a colleague of mine spend six months with a large team of researchers poring through thousands of documents looking

for whatever information we could find on how much nuclear materials these countries had. that is not obvious. you cannot easily put a number. what kind of regulations they have in place. sometimes they're easy to find. often they're almost impossible. nonetheless, we put together a system of doing this. as a senator pointed out, because so much of this information is difficult to find, we gave countries an opportunity to look and what we gathered and tell us whether they thought it was good or whether it was a bit of. in some cases the tweet some of the findings. to give you one example, we had a source that said canada had less than 1500 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. it was true, but when we checked we found out that it was less than 500 kilograms, which is actually quite a bit less. this was a way of making sure that we had information that was

as accurate as it could possibly be. finally, on this process we put this into what we call model, index. as the senator pointed out, this is something you can test. you can actually change assumptions. for those of you, if you're in the field, stakeholder, this is something that you can actually use and play with. you can change weights and assumptions. it has overall conclusions but is also something that you can use as a drill down feature. we hope you will find this interesting. we certainly found that challenging project and are happy with the results. we are most certainly open for feedback. we hope we will do this again, and each time we do these they get a little bit better the second and third time around. that with that of turned it over tech page stoutland will tell you a little bit about the history of the project.

>> thank you. i would like to discuss very briefly the project's overall approach and then the best results themselves. let me begin by reiterating that despite progress important gaps remain in our ability to set priorities and measure progress on nuclear material security. and so to address this we have developed the 1-ever comprehensive framework for nuclear material security that does two things, provides a basis for dialogue and priorities and is a framework against which progress can be measured. let me quickly summarize the five categories, including some of the indicators in the categories, as well as why they are important. the first category of indicators includes a quantity, number of quantities and number of sites with weapons usable nuclear materials.

the second category is the security and control measures. accounting practices and whether or not security personnel are screened. these actions directly affect the security of materials at a given site. the third category is will we have called global norms and includes the relevant international legal agreements, voluntary commitments, and the level of transparency shown by our country on both material quantities and security practices. all of these measures affect the international confidence in the country -- in the way that a country takes its security obligations. the fourth category is domestic commitments and capacity. this is about the national level

implementation of actions. whether or not a country as an independent regulatory agency that oversees security practices . the national level implementation is required. the fifth and final category of what we call societal factors include the levels of corruption in the country as well as political. these measures provide an important backdrop. taken together, these five categories comprise what we call our country's nuclear material security conditions. a brief word about the scope of this project. the scope of this inaugural in direct is a weapon usable nuclear materials, specifically highly enriched uranium, separated plutonium, including in mixed oxide fuel. it does not include a low enriched uranium or radiological materials such as are used in

hospitals or industries. finally, countries with less than 1 kilogram of weapons usable materials or no weapons usable materials were evaluated against a subset of categories in order to assess their contribution to the glow will nuclear security agenda. key actions would include joining relevant treaties and taking actions such as criminalizing illicit possession of weapons usable materials so as not to become a transit point or staging ground for illicit activities. i know this charge may be a bit difficult to read, but shown here as well as on pages 14 and 15 of the written report are the overall scores and rankings for the 32 countries with greater than 1 kilogram of weapons usable nuclear materials. pages 16-18, the scores and rankings for countries with less than 1 kilogram or no weapons usable nuclear materials.

but me briefly review in these columns. the column that shows the overall rankings and scores. the scores and raking in the individual categories starting with the quantities and sites, global norms, then the security and control measures, domestic commitment and capacity, and the fifth and final column is societal factors. these contribute to the overall score based on their relative priorities that determine by nti and ei you in conjunction with the international panel. we will not take the time here to comment on the individual rankings. rather, what we would like to do is call your attention to a couple of examples to help you better understand the index. australia is a top-rate country,

ranked sixth or higher in every category, benefiting from small quantities of nuclear materials, strong societal factors command high scores in the other categories as well. for the other top-rank countries as well, consistently high scores in all categories was tea. for comparison, the united kingdom also scores well. also the overall rate is to end the overall buy large quantities of weapons usable nuclear materials that are a legacy of the cold war and the fact that the quantities of these materials are increasing, particularly in the civilian sector. if the quantity was not included as an example, the united kingdom would ranked fourth overall. a similar situation for the united states. ranked 13th overall. but if quantities and sites were not considered it would rank

second indicating it has high scores. primarily due to the scores in the global norms category where the united states has yet to ratify to important trees. four countries have particularly low levels of transparency. it specifically israel, north korea, india, and china on materials and material security. this most directly affects the stores and what we call the global norms category. for example, if india were as transparent as the united kingdom its rank in the global arms category would move from 26 to six the overall. appropriate levels of transparency are critical because independent of the specific security posture on the ground, it affects the international confidence in the country's nuclear material security condition.

finally, for the lowest-ranked countries the index shows that these countries, with the exception of the materials category generally have low scores in most if not all of the indicator categories. providing these countries many opportunities for improvement on the material security conditions. let me transition to my colleague, deepti choubey, who will present the findings and recommendations. >> thank you. let me share with you today a selection of our key findings and recommendations. encouragingly one of our key findings is that government has become far more aware of the threat and the need for emergency action. there are, however, far more troubling findings. for instance, although there is agreement about the importance of nuclear material security, there is no global consensus about what priority should be

for achieving security. furthermore, no agreed international system or globally accepted practices for regulating the production of, use of, and security requirements for weapons usable materials. the iaea only has the authority to oversee civilian programs. as such the iaea does not have the mandate or resources to oversee a comprehensive system covering all weapons usable nuclear materials. instead we only have in place part of a system that we actually need to tackle this problem. another finding is that a deliberate lack of transparency makes it very difficult to hold states accountable for their security responsibility. many details should be protected so that they do not become a road map for terrorists.

other information could and should be made public, and i will address exactly what we are recommending when ron. several states are particularly vulnerable to insider threats such as a disgruntled worker accessing materials without authorization. nearly a quarter of states with weapons usable nuclear material scored poorly because of high levels of corruption. of those countries, several also scored poorly on the process of political instability over the next two years. the combination of those factors significantly increases the risk that nuclear materials might be stolen with help from corrupt insiders are in the midst of government distraction of political chaos. finally, the index also revealed the stocks of weapons usable materials continues to increase in several countries.

total stocks in japan and the united kingdom are increasing because of civilian use. although there are no legal barriers to the production of new highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the production of these materials for weapons purposes is certainly against the global norm where all other states are abiding by a moratorium. there are, however, few other states that produce plutonium, but because of the use of the plutonium their current material inventories are largely static. despite some positive developments, these findings underscore the need for urgent action. because no state can address the threat alone all states have a responsibility. specifically governments must work together to build and create the conditions for a system for tracking, protecting, and managing these deadly materials. done right, such a system could

assure all of us that each state is filling its security obligations. in parallel, there are also steps that countries must take by themselves and without delay. let us first turned to how to create a foundation of our global nuclear material security system. how would we go about doing that? we must begin a dialogue that leads to a much needed global consensus on party. the nuclear security summit process has the potential for being the right and possibly only forum for this discussion. our hope is that leaders at the next summit commit to an ongoing process to come to agreement about what actions matter most. additionally, there should be a sustainable and effective way for benchmarking progress and holding states accountable to their obligation. our hope is that the index is a starting point in framing the breath of the problem and that it can be built on an improved as government provide assurances for more information.

to that end states must enact greater transparency which would foster greater international confidence. first they should publish and provide access to their nuclear materials regulations. currently 13 out of 32 states with weapons usable material published both their regulations and an annual report. governments can and should do far better than this. second, they should declare their nuclear material inventory . there is no legal requirement for states to declare how much material they have for civilian or military purpose. however, nine states voluntarily declared their seven -- civilian plutonium holdings, and production history has been made public. more nuclear weapon states should do the same. and finally they should invite regular peer review, which is a service provided by the iaea of

facilities that actually contain weapons usable material. in parallel with these collective efforts there are several actions that states can take individually to improve their stewardship of weapons usable material. for instance, all states should stop increasing their stocks of materials, particularly for military purposes. over time, those stocks should be reduced to the lowest possible levels commensurate with civilian energy or scientific need. one of the best ways to objectively measured progress is to eliminate completely weapons usable nuclear materials and as many states as possible. over the past two decades 19 countries plus taiwan have eliminated materials, and currently 14 of the 32 states with weapons usable materials have lived -- have less than 100 kilograms. many but not all could be good candidates for eliminating their stocks in the next few years. we should all look to the outcome of the 2012 nuclear

security summit to see which of these states to commit to excel rating the peon of materials. we know that two of the most important steps government should take to strengthen their defenses is to decrease levels of corruption and ensure political stability. the prescriptions for these issues are beyond the scope of this project. we do emphasize steps for striping security and control measures including physical protection, control accounting, and personnel measures at facilities. these steps are the first defense against the insider threat. today there is no agreeable baseline defining minimal security and control measures which should be in place at all sites. the states should also routinely test their security arrangements, particularly if there are challenging societal factors that could undermine security. in the interest of time i will not review each of our recommendations which are

spelled out in more detail in our report but focus on one last one. that is to target assistance to states that need help. but the index has helped so easily identified 18 states that have provided financial regulatory or security assistance on a bilateral or multilateral basis in the past two years. the index also identifies states that are in need of assistance. used as a resource. no matter whether a state is ranked at the top or bottom of the list of states can do more to improve. thank you, and i will now handed over back to page, who will briefly walk you through what our website offers. >> very briefly let me highlight a few features of the website. the website is www dot nti index not work.

you will find electronic versions of the entire report. you will find downloadable versions of the model, the excel spreadsheet that has a complete functionality. in addition, you will find all of the most frequently used features on the website itself. there are the overall ranking in scores that are shown on the projector. the next slide will show a country profile. there are specific pages that detail how each country did on all of the indicators, and finally there is a function where the user can change the relative priorities to let the user engage with the index to see how the scores and rankings change as a function of the relative priorities of the specific categories and indicators, so please explore the website for access to all of these features. at this point i think we're going to take questions and

answers. >> thank you, now we will have questions and answers and be glad to have questions from the media. back on the back left. if you want to direct it to a particular individual, do so. if not, we will feel it among ourselves here. >> perhaps you could say why he thinks that clump of countries that lies at the bottom of 32, why do they live there in your analysis? >> while other countries at the bottom? >> i know from the objective standards. but the common characteristics which need repair. maybe you could talk about that, and i'm curious to know whether any of the countries that lie at the bottom of the list are among those countries that sought to get briefed by you or whether they have ignored the results of

your work with the fact that the work is in progress. thank you very much. >> if you wrote down your suspicions i suspect they would all be correct. there is certainly a relationship between those at the bottom and generally speaking and those that did not accept the briefings or have anywhere near full cooperation. i would say, and i will defer to my colleagues, corruption has been mentioned. instability. those are two factors, and lack of transparency. if i had to say what the three factors are, depending on which country, they vary, but those would be the three that would be the most prominent. it would you like to comment? >> let me briefly field your final question first. in terms of countries that agree to meet with us, actually 28 of 32 dead, including some that were ranked quite near the bottom. we were pleased to see that so many were willing to meet with us.

i will just second what the senator said. there are a number of cost-cutting themes, certainly look transparency, not participating in a full range of what we call global norms, be they legal or political agreements, and that has been coupled with sometimes very challenging levels of corruption and low political stability. those things came together for those countries. >> thank you. whether it would be you or one of the experts, but looking at all of the data that you collected, there have been scattered reports over the years that terrorists to have some type of access or could be holding material not using the get. is there anything you found in this research that does help to clarify whether any terrorist

organization does have something that could be very serious? >> there have been a series of articles talking about what happened in terms of the last 20 years. there is a lot that has been done that has prevented weapons of mass destruction from spreading. we have had teams of u.s. and russian experts working together , military, military and, lab, lab. coordination between the number of countries and helping the soviet union get control of their nuclear materials. kazakhstan has taken the lead in this regard. the ukraine has recently taken the lead. kazakhstan, the ukraine, and belarus give up all other nuclear weapons, which most people don't know about. most people don't know about the fact that in% of their electricity in this country comes from nuclear material that was formerly in weapons pointed at us from russia, ukraine, and others in the form of the soviet union.

10 percent of our electricity is converted into nuclear fuel, and we bought it. that was part of the dismantling, so a lot has been done. what is missing and whether there is material out there that no one knows about, it's always possible. i would say that i have always operated under the probably questionable but nevertheless assumption that terrorists that had nuclear material, if they had it would try to use it and would try to use it as soon as they could build a weapon. of course, building a weapon is not a piece of cake, but the longest bull in the tent is getting the material. our operating premise has always been and still is protecting the material. it is possible. it could be somewhere out there. there is certainly missing material, inventories, but we,

with this index, helped establish hopefully a dialogue that would lead to some baseline about how much nuclear material there is. if there is no inventory it's hard to know when something is missing. >> a couple questions. one is a big picture question. president obama has promised a global cleanout in four years. i realize he is using a different criteria, promising to lock down vulnerable materials, but the work on this index, give any of you any insight into, macy getting close to that? will he make that goal? a second question, which is more of a logic question. securing was very valuable

because it was very specific and pointed out quantities and the locations and at least look back over the past year and events. you seem to wear have now decided from a different kind of analysis which does not have that kind of data in it. i just wondered why you feel that this is a different -- why he shifted to this kind of analysis as compared. >> well, my answer on the second question, why we should shift to this kind of analysis, help us secure the report was very much a part of our expert panel, so good continuity in that sense. we felt we needed to really let countries know what they could do to improve specifically country by country more than generically, which was that general approach. also, that effort started with a focus primarily on the former soviet union. problems, as you well know, but

i think it is now much more of a global approach. third, it is important that u.s. and russia work together for about 15 or 20 years under the non nuclear program. russia viewed themselves more as a suffolk and, and that kind of relationship was wearing thin, and i have felt for the last fivers six years that we needed to move forward to a partnership as well as countries all over the globe in trying to address this problem. this is trying to take a much more broad partnership type approach, and i would say that we were inspired to start this and next by the nuclear security summit that president obama had with 40 heads of state, and that, of course, will be followed up on with our friends in south korea, and we felt this type of index would be a better tool for those countries attending the summit. finally, i would say we are

addressing radioactive material. thirty bombs and so forth, using the index to look at weapons usable material, but the radioactive material needs to be protected. a lot of crossovers. the steps that would be taken would also help. that is not the focus of this index, but it needs to be part of what they talk about in south korea. all of those reasons. let me ask page to add to it. >> briefly as the senator said, i think this report, the index builds nicely on the great work that has been done. i think when you see the full report and particularly the website you will find all of the specific details for all of these countries that will actually, i think, be of a lot of interest. there are a lot of specifics that we did not have time to cover. >> i would not bet money that it

will be completed in four years, but we have made progress. two or three countries that we have been working on for a long time. then move it over to low and enriched uranium, so progress has been made. without a goal you will not get far, and i applaud the goal, but i would not bet a lot of money. for one thing, you have countries that do not cooperate. if you are setting a goal to secure all nuclear material, that would include north korea, a run, pakistan, other countries that at this stage are not cooperating. i believe that this index may be hope, but it is not hope that this index will alert countries that have not cooperated in international communities in terms of sharing and protecting material and best practices. there will understand that they have threats themselves and this

is not simply doing a favor to the world but protecting your home security because countries that don't have good practices are the most likely victims of material that would get in the hands of terrorists, whether a jury bomb or weapons usable material. i am hoping those light bulbs will go off, but i would not bet money on that in the near term. in the long term i think there is hope. >> back row. >> yes, ma'am. >> firstly, can you discuss a little bit about how you gave weight to different things like societal stability, corruption, occupation, did you decide one thing was a better indicator of what the on the ground security was likely to be? second question, you urge the upcoming summit be used to set a lot of priorities.

can you share what you believe those priorities should be? thirdly, can you share whether pakistan, india, and ron were briefed on the index and what the reactions were? >> let me start on that and maybe we will show off a couple of those other questions. >> it is a good one. when you build an index like this there a number of ways that you can wait it. you can start with the assumption that every indicator has an equal weight. it reconsider that approach but decided at the end of the day that some of them were more important than others. rather than as making that decision we mentioned earlier that we have an international panel of. reconvene that panel about five or six months after we began the project, showed them some of the initial results and essentially had a long, full day brainstorming session where we talked to the panel members, we

pushed people, and what we have seen here is essentially the collective wisdom is 15 or 20 people really asking people to judge of their experience. some of them have experienced on physical protection. others have worked in the government's at nonprofit organizations. there are all experts, so rather than taking a mathematical approach and simply saying they are all equal, we essentially put a large group of very bright people in a room and went around and around until we reached a rough consensus on it. we are happy that is a good approach. however, if you would like to try another one, this model is a tool. you can actually go into this if you would like and changed the ratings. does not change what our conclusions are. there what you have seen here, but for those of you that are so disposed to have a go with this

and see how the ratings of changed, you can do that. >> in terms of global priority, the framework that we put forward, particularly the categories and the indicators, to a large extent, that is what we are offering as the initial proposal. again, we are hoping to spark is a discussion amongst other governments. are these the right things that we should be asking governments to do better run. a real looking forward to that conversation. and, of course, you also see how much weight we have recorded. we think all those things are important, but we are mindful that the u.s. states that don't have materials were part of that process and were scratching their heads about what exactly you want to do. more important to take care of physical protection or do you want to sign this treaty. what is the relative order? and in terms of pakistan, india,

and iran, we issued invitations to all 32 countries to be briefed. pakistan and india were briefed, and, you know, i think it was a very constructive conversation about what we were trying to do. all three of those countries also received data validation. what we know is both governments considered the request they chose not to answer our data validation either in whole or in part. our hope is to work with these governments going forward as they see how the index can be a tool for providing assurances and building international confidence in the steps they're taking around material. they will engage in this if we do this again in using the tool to that end. we issued an invitation to their mission in new york several times. follow up. it never received a response. they were also given the same opportunity to validate the data.

again, we did not receive your response. and with the north koreans we issued an invitation. it was considered. we offered to go to new york. they chose not to take the briefing, but they were also offered the opportunity to validate the data and they chose not to. >> you want to add anything? >> this issue of prioritization. we have seen in our experience that by creating the framework it creates a very productive discussion. we had a day-long discussion about the relative priority of these indicators and categories, and there were vigorous discussions about the relative priorities of things that perhaps we all take for granted. but, so, we think that this framework is going to be very useful in terms of sparking this dialogue amongst the international community. >> okay. back row, right under the

camera. >> my question is on russia. russia is not in the top five, at least even in the top-10 in your index. it is actually ranked 204th in overall score. what are the major concerns the you have? you mentioned several factors or the lack of transparency. what of the major concerns? >> in general i would say i think we have to put in perspective what russia was 20 years ago and where they are now. if you look where they are 20 years ago, chances were high that there would be some type of nuclear incident, if not disaster coming out of the huge stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, plutonium, and weapons. the fact that has not what

happened, we have to tip our hat to the leaders in the military, laboratories, and others who were dedicated patriots during a time of huge economic hardship where all sorts of temptations were put in front of them. put it in perspective where russia was 20 years ago and where they are now as a remarkable achievement. have they got a long way to go, yes, but they are making a lot of progress. one of the problems, you alluded to corruption. president dmitry medvedev has spoken to that subject. they themselves and acknowledge that is one of the biggest problems russia has, not just in terms of nuclear security, but also in terms of economic confidence and investment from abroad. i would hope that there would make progress on that, but in addition the military has control of certain elements, particularly weapons. there are other agencies that have jurisdiction over things like research.

there is a divided response ability that i think probably needs addressing. with that, let me see if you want to comment further. >> specific information. russia scores very well in three categories, security control measures, global norms, and domestic commitments and capacity. the score is brought down by large quantities of nuclear material, similarly to the united states, both as a legacy of the cold war, and then as senator nunn pointed out, the levels of corruption which imply that russia needs to be extra vigilant. >> okay. someone in the second row. yes. right here. >> the references to dialogue and establishing parity. is the ultimate goal to have a

global standard for nuclear security? is that useful and necessary? is that feasible? talk about that. >> i was on the panel. at all remember these act name, but it was a panel of global people who were involved in nuclear security that was supported at by director mohamed el baradei. this is one of those jobs that eventually should be done by an international group. there ought to be international norms and standards. we will have to move toward international, i think, approach to the whole question of the fuel cycle. we started that with the fuel bank which has been authorized, and iea is moving forward. the iaea, and they're is a lot about this in the report.

it is enormously important. the iaea or sump other organization like that will have to be put in charge of this and given the mandate, legal authority, and resources. this is not their mandate. what safeguarding means, we explained this, and it is important. people assume the words safeguarding means security. it does not necessarily mean security. this was actually in the report. if it goes into a building and they're basically doing an accounting and have cameras, their job is to make sure it is not diverted to weapons. it is not to see whether there are locks on the doors, holes in the ceiling, parameter guards, and whether people are secure. there would only be after the fact action, and the iea is

doing what their mandate says, but their mandate is not broad enough and resources are not significant enough. at some point the international community has to come together and decide who is going to be responsible for this. this is an ngo operation, and we are doing it because governments are not. that does not mean that governments should not in the future and, perhaps, that kind of discussion can be held in south korea. that could be a beginning point of deciding what authority the idea to have. ..

again, what we have done with this index is we are putting forward a framework that helps is really get our minds and our arms around this problem. the other thing i would just say is, we included in our index to element treaties and one is the convention on the fiscal protection of nuclear material and its 2005 amendment. that the amendment isn't enforced. if it was that actually would require states to enact standards on protecting material while they are in use or in storage and not just when they are being transported. and we still need for states to ratify that so currently, states aren't obligated to enact the standards and we clearly need to do a far better job of getting us there and i think that is one clear step we can take. >> okay, we will take a couple more questions.

charlie. >> charlie curtis. charlie has been part of ntia and is on their board now and in our organization. >> i asked for the mic because i chair the nuclear security which is i think relevant to this last question, not to detract in any way from the comments about the need for a minimum standards. nti has not waited for that. it has catalyze the creation of a world institute of nuclear security to share best practices for the physical protection and security of nuclear materials worldwide. it is concluded just now its third year of operation and it has over 700 members from 53 countries and so we are trying to improve the practices of

physical protection security while we await this more important international standard, but you can't wait it's because the physical protection necessary is so great. >> there is a large vacuum here and ngos are trying to fill it. we are not the only ones but the organization in behemoth, it has international board. as charlie said over 600 members. roger housley used to have up -- roger was one of the members of our panel. that is a voluntary organization and it is certainly not mandatory but we are hoping that it will grow and we are also hoping it will be able to help develop best practices. okay, i think we have got one more question here. >> yes and show you mentioned that countries were given the opportunity to come as you said,

tweak some of the numbers. to what extent were you, and your examples sorter for canada, were you able to verify the fact that they only had 150 kilograms, that kind of material, that kind of thing? >> for some of these it's difficult to verify precisely. what's important to understand is we as we mainly went to regulators within the country so we are not necessarily going to people in political positions. you don't really know and it's almost impossible to know exactly what the quantities are. again, we took them initially from central sources, in some cases fairly good in other cases they gave ranges. so we went to the individual countries to try to say, would you be willing for example to offer us more information one-on-one then you are normally providing to other people who collect information and in a number of cases they were able to do that. were we able to verify it in any

case? not in every instance but we asked them to justify it. we push them on the points as well and if for some reason we were not satisfied we made the ultimate judgment on this. now we felt by large that we had very good levels of cooperation. people took this process seriously and i would describe it as more of a technical process. we didn't feel that this was a political exercise. we were dealing with technical people who said to us, you are close on this, it's basically in the right direction but they can help you refine it. we really didn't find any situations where anyone tried to turn us around and say, this is completely wrong. we deserve her wonderful score and you have given us a poor one. it was really a technical process. >> at some point, here, you were going to have certain categories in areas that are sensitive and will remain sensitive that countries will be reluctant to make public by the least we have to start to at least get the

discussion going about sharing that kind of information with an international organization like an iaea, the women's organization are even shared on a regional basis so there can be regional conference building because if there is not confidence in the middle east is a good example of that, then you are going to see more proliferation and as you get more precious proliferation you have more and more countries going to enrichment. you have more our dangers of terrorist groups being able to buy fissile material and the odds are international -- go up, up, upset we have to make that style the other way around. i don't see any other hands hands of. we thank you very much for coming. we appreciate it and we will be glad to continue your questions for any follow-up questions with the media. page and deepti figlio thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations]

now white house jobs forum highlights newest companies that decided to reopen manufacturing plants that have been operating overseas. we will hear from business executive, u.s. congress secretary john bryson and the head of the small business administration, karen mills. the discussion was held at the eisenhower executive office building. >> thanks for coming in today. welcome to the insourcing american jobs forum at the white house. we appreciate everybody's patience as we reconvene here from the opening of the president and these from. we have a great lineup. we have two panels today full of oath business leaders and elected officials talking about

their experiences doing exactly that, insourcing american jobs and bringing jobs back to the country and increasing their investments here in the u.s.. and how to try to make sure we set the appropriate conditions in order to be able to encourage that across the board as well. so we are going to kick off with a quick start by having some opening remarks from the director of the national economic council, dr. gene sperling. [applause] >> thank you so much for being here. there is no question, coming back from the worst recession since the great depression is tough sledding, no doubt about it, and there is no doubt that even with the more positive job growth and unemployment news we have gotten lately, we still have a long way to go and we are not close to satisfied. this president is not close to

satisfied, but it is important to note that we have seen in manufacturing 334,000 jobs created over the last two years. that is the best two-year performance since the late 1990s and again, it's not enough but it's an important trend. moving in the right direction. what was so positive about the roundtable with the president and what you will hear a bit today is, not only beyond the trends on job growth or unemployment, manufacturing job growth in the next six to 12 months, the analysis firm experts and the decisions made by business leaders here makes very clear that there is a very

sound and strong economic basis for a new optimism on manufacturing jobs, a new optimism in bringing back both service and manufacturing jobs and a new optimism in and america's ability to compete globally for the best jobs, services and manufacturing around the world. and i think that you are going to hear from people. we have great experts from boston consulting group, james for mckinsey, harry boucher from the shoring institute. as you will hear, if there were two things that came through very loud and clear and the presidents roundtable, it was one, awareness matters and i think a lot of the message you are hearing here, whether they talk about in terms of total cost of enterprise or total cost

of ownership is that the experts here are saying that, when companies look at the full cost of their location decisions number one in two, when they look at the long term trends that the economic case for bringing jobs back to the united states or the economic case for choosing the united states for your next expansion is growing stronger and stronger. is how we will talk about how it is very clear that proactivity in the united states has continued to strengthen. 13% since 2005 and while there is productivity growth in china it is not keeping pace with their wages and so that each and every year going forward, the economic competitiveness case for creating jobs in the u.s. become stronger and that for those making a long-term decision about what is best over the next five or 10 years, the

case again become stronger and stronger and i will let them go through that. i would

and obviously, ensuring that we have fair trade relationships with china, level playing field is a critical part of the strategy for manufacturing or exporting or regaining our competitiveness. we heard from people like noble one and others and the person who introduced the president, again being from michigan i have to link the outsourced to detroit so a outsourcing to anywhere in the united states is also very good. but, that this is about service. this can be about call center jobs. this can be about the the high value-added manufacturing jobs as well. that was the awareness site in getting more companies to go through the calculation that the companies they are did and i encourage you all to talk to them because hearing the

calculations they made is extremely powerful and just validates what the experts are saying in their reports. the second thing we heard was that policy matters. and, you think for the president it was very reaffirming of the policy direction he has taken and the policy direction we are going to take going forward. we heard from -- intel talks about the importance of the r&d tax credit, the importance of making it permanent. we are going to continue that call and that proposal going forward. the importance of the manufacturing exclusion and making your location choices important in the expensing. you heard the president say this and i will just reinforce it. president obama has given very clear instructions to his economic team that when we are thinking about proposals for our current budget, but also the

principles that will guide our efforts and corporate tax reform, that the incentives to create jobs and again a and particularly manufacturing jobs in the united states should be a guiding principle in our current tax proposals and in our long-term corporate tax reform. and stress too that we have to be very careful that we are not ever asking the american taxpayer to subsidize at tiffany moving overseas. that is not necessary, or that while of course decisions that might be legitimate should not bear this substandardization of typical american taxpayers. of course everyone understands, this is the global economy. these are global companies competing for global markets. they are of course going to hire

and create jobs in other countries to serve those markets. the president is realistic. his economic team is realistic about that but when the president asked at the end that at every step you should ask yourself, could your next expansion be in the united states, could you make your next expansion something that supports the country that supported you? can you go the extra mile with a country that has gone the extra mile for you? when he makes that asked, he is asking them to make a decision, which has increasing economic logic and increasing economic momentum behind that so with that i'm very happy that everyone here, and people at home watching, have the ability to hear first-hand and listen first-hand to the comments in the conversations by the president of the united states and vice president biden had today. with that i will turn it over to our panel.

thank you very much. [applause] actually i will i will turn it over to our secretary of commerce and when i was saying policy matters, one of the things that could've not could have not been more important today was selectu.s.a.. even with the initial effort, two different companies in the room specifically mentioned that the selectu.s.a. effort and that effort of the united states government competing and working to make it easier for people to locate here was essential in their decisions and that is before the very significant expansion that the president is announcing and putting his trust in his new an excellent secretary of commerce, bryson, to lead. with that i will turn it over to the secretary. [applause] >> thank you very much, gene. we are with you to be sustained here if we are going to try to

do the things we plan to do over a slightly longer period of time. and i think this morning session was so strong and so many of you here in in the room as well as the panel had the opportunity to describe your business experience, the labor unions participating describe their experience in working with the businesses, so i'm going to be quite suspect about that. the heart of what we are saying as you know, is we are reaching out around the world globally, globally to businesses around the world to say that the u.s. is open for business. i have a great opportunity to do that yesterday in the detroit automobile show. a number of you in this room where there. beside each other there. that is an example by the way not just of prospective but what this administration has done, focused on enhancing businesses here in the u.s. and those

businesses responding and creating the u.s. companies great automobile. companies and business initiatives and those from overseas, the automobile companies from overseas whom i met yesterday, they are responding of course with terrific ruddock's in the united states so all the things are coming together. gene sperling talks a little bit about selectu.s.a.. five or six months ago the president directed us in the congress to develop a selectu.s.a.. this really is the key thing so lots of businesses, and i talked with lots of businesses, talked with many of you in the room, one of the frustrations that distances have felt is working really as cleanly as possible, as efficiently as possible

across not just one part of the u.s. federal structure that across all of it, the local levels, cities, counties, states and what we are doing in selectu.s.a. is seeking to bring together the information about working with all these levels of government making it as readily available as possible. the largest of the companies have done lots of this and may find that not as directly helpful as smaller companies but in the manufacturing chain, smaller companies are the suppliers and the supply chain and they only get better and advanced manufacturing is the way things are going. what we want to do is to make this as clean as possible so we will talk to you a lot about selectu.s.a., the commerce department based initiative and that is something i'm devoting a lot of time with a traffic team. i can go over some of the things but i'm not going to do very

much. but i want to no, one of the things we we are doing right nos training our commercial, foreign commercial service officers so the congress -- department -- the state department people have diplomacy. the commerce department is the name suggests it has done commerce. we have the all around the world but what they have not been trained to do in the past is to reach out to people like all of you here, to ask that you invest in the united states and to say it will do a lot. we will do everything we can and we will listen to you first but to facilitate your making investments here in the united states. that is going to be a constant theme so we have had the lead responsibility in the commerce department for example on growing exports, so we have this

five-year target that the president said, doubling the exports of the united states for two years down the road. that is going well. there are always challenges there but now the focus in addition is direct investments and the united states. let me stop there. i could cover more. the heart of what i express and what we are doing is we want to help businesses build it here and soot everywhere. as you will hear for example from siemens and many others, that certainly includes companies whose principle home is outside the united states that they invest here. i heard a lot at the detroit auto show. they invest here. that means they build u.s. automobiles, yes u.s. supply chain, but many of them export in addition from the u.s. so all these things go together. so on the panel we have eric

stoutland -- eric spiegel. you heard from him briefly today and i asked him to say something more. brian krzanich, intel, and incredible u.s. company. i'm going to ask him to say a little more. atlanta, home to 14 fortune 500 companies which has been particularly strong also tracking investments. atlanta and that area and there were around the world, he kicked off the panels this morning. had a little more time this morning but -- has done to make all of us think harder about this and it's been very helpful. if i could ask you to kick off and i said to you what i would like you to do please, is to expand on what you said and i want to put at least part of what you addressed, part of your experience, things that we could

be doing better, significantly better across the united states in making it possible for you speedily to make the investments you would like to make here and are there some obstacles, things that seem to you frustrating, costly and so on that we ought to know about to see if we can help them. >> thank you. good afternoon everyone. my name is eric spiegel and i'm a ceo for siemens in the u.s., just a brief that ground. we are one of the world's largest engineering and technology companies. we operate 190 countries, well over $100 billion in sales. the u.s. is our largest market with sales in excess of about 25 billion with 65,000 employees here and over 130 manufacturing facilities. i think if you go back in time, siemens has always been in the u.s. for over 100 years and we have always manufactured and done business here in the u.s.

but we also used to import a lot of our products from europe, primarily from germany but also from other countries. that is kind of change in the last couple of years. i will give you a couple of examples and talk about some of the opportunities and issues we have encountered. just last november we opened a gas turbine plant in charlotte. is the last -- largest gas turbine plant in north america. invested $700 million created new jobs. the reason for charlotte a was we got a tremendous amount of help from the state of north carolina and also from various federal agencies in making that happen. the eximbank was very instrumental because one of the reasons for putting a plant here was based on being able to export out of here and i think one of the announcements you may have seen today is that they announced that we decided a deal to export large gas turbines to saudi arabia which of course we never would have been able to do

in the past without the help of the eximbank. we just open that plant in november but we have also had sales to other countries around the world since we have opened a plant. so that has been a tremendous opportunity for us. i think one of the things to think about that we think a lot about when we make investments is the demand. is there going to be demand for the products, because while having an export business is very important to us, we also want to be close to our customers. we want to see that there is demand for the products here. we want to make sure that we can do r&d. we like to co-locate our manufacturing because we find that drives innovation more quickly. we want to make sure there is skilled and productive labor. the u.s. certainly has some of that and we want to make sure there is infrastructure. give you an example of the charlotte plant. one of the issues we ran into was that there was a retired rail spurred me the plant that

would take the product to ultimately be exported out of virginia. that rails burr had to be rehabilitated. people often talk about infrastructure in in the u.s. and i think probably 20 or 30 years ago we had the most modern infrastructure in the world, but frankly the american society of civil engineers recently gave the u.s. for d on infrastructure and we have run into it and a lot of our dig investments. that is an example where we in the state had to rehabilitate a rail spur. we also build in the last two or three years to large one plants, one and in iowa and one in kansas. the one in iowa makes plays in the one in kansas makes cells. those both employ close to 1000 people and invested a couple hundred million dollars in those plans. again, what is the reason for building those plants here? strong demand for renewables. 29 states have renewable energy standards. there has been an investment tax

credit that is made it a good investment for developers. at again but again in both of those plants in circumstances where to build a rail spur so we didn't have to truck those blades. those blades are 160 feet long and they require two rail cars to get it out to market to move it. the planning kansas we have to build new on france with ingress and egress on the highway to move these huge cells which are as large as this room by truck out to market, so when we look at these investments one of the first things you look at i think as was mentioned early on, is overall are we competitive in the u.s. making this and i think the story i told this morning is i think for the first time, making gas turbines in the u.s. and the new plant we have in charlotte is cost competitive in making turbines than anywhere in the world. that was not true decade ago. but we also look at a bunch of other issues. one being infrastructure. can we move the products out of

marketing can we move them around the country to be competitive? .. for quite a long time. in germany we have about 10,000 apprentices. 10,000 apprentices for the sikh men. they go to the technical college is equivalent over germany were halftime and go pay them about

80% of those people working for as after three or four years if they're qualified to graduate that the program doesn't really exist in the u.s. and that is a program that starts with people of high school so one of the things we've done around the plant because we need to have people who can run the plant long term as we started an apprentice program with about 15 people, 15 students out of high school going to local communities and in agreement with local community college to help them build curriculum they're working part time, going to school part time in order to be we have a steady stream of people who can be working in that plant over the long term. something we took on moving with the community college and the state of north carolina. but having more focused efforts it's great to about stem that we have the biggest, the foundation has the largest stem high school competition in the country and it's great to talk about what we need to do in the elementary schools and high schools and if we want to bring technology

manufacturing to the u.s. now you have to have people who can work in the plans now. and that means we have to start training people for the jobs of the future if you on these higher paying jobs you've got to have the people who are trained for it the average people is $70,000 a year. these aren't minimum wage jobs. these require a lot of technologies and skills. so again, having very focused programs like the apprentice program we have their we also just signed an agreement with the university of north carolina charlotte the developed a gas turbine and technology programs specific to the plant. because we haven't been building and making a lot of gas turbines in the u.s. in the past decade or so there aren't a lot of programs designed to develop engineers for the plan and requires pretty steady stream of engineers so we took it as working with local universities brought over people from germany to help the curriculum the

college. saddam very specific sort of hoping someone out there has a program that's going to give us the right people for those jobs and the more you want to bring over the high-tech manufacturing jobs and also the service jobs that go with these require the same technical skills we have to make sure we have people in hand something we aren't to tell the people in fifer ten years we will have that kind of capability the third inning required is around the manufacturing investment tax credits. the u.s. is on-again off-again with the tax credit we need to put that in place long term so we can make longer-term investments in the research. we've got research programs going on with over 20 universities. we are doing a lot of work in the city's right now doing a lot of investment, we do a lot of work on the federal government and we have to make sure those

credits are in place long term so that the programs aren't start and stop. you can't do bigtime research and development on the new technologies on a 12-month basis. so that's important and then the program you talked about, secretary, is what u.s.. we are a big company. we have a lot of resources. so putting people together in new investment for the new plants like the one that charlotte and kansas and dalia are expanding our light rail train facility of in sacramento we have the resources to do that but for smaller companies i can imagine it's very complex with a lot of the federal regencies making sure you're getting all the tax credits and things you can get and you can also do things like have permits and things that export. a very complex and i think that is something they can help you take that thing i think the will

be big help. >> thank you very much. intel of the united states without any doubt what can we do to help you in any respect to make it not withstanding the cause and not withstanding obstacles has repeatedly expanding right here in the united states. the state of oregon, great beneficiary of that, happens to be my home state but what you've done widely is a lot we ought to respond to your presence here and commitment here there are things we can be doing to make it more possible and lower-cost more competitive. >> as you say we have a lot of history. i think we are more of a story

of in sourcing versus continuing resource manufacturing for america we have about 80% of our r&d dollars spent in the u.s. and about 75% of our manufacturing over two-thirds of the product is shipped overseas, so we are a great story is really made in the usa, and in the latest projects we announced we announced last year the two new factories we are building one in portland oregon and one in phoenix arizona which will be about eight to $10 billion of additional spending and capital and bringing 45,000 construction jobs during the construction, and a thousand or more manufacturing jobs. and actually, these are not the classic manufacturing jobs hour fathers thought about. these are 70, 80, 100,000-dollar jobs in the good careers and i will think of myself as

manufacturing as a career. 30 years in and tell all of it in manufacturing started as an engineer on the factory floor and made manufacturing my career and random for intel now. >> the difficult things we've run into as we said was its very important manufacturing and r&d especially in our industry located very close to each other. we run an industry based on innovation, driven by the law we have the founders and that really requires a two year technology cycle and you won that research and development right next to your factory so the credits are critical. when they are always in question and you are wondering whether there will be their year after year it's hard to make the billion dollars per year investment in the r&d so that is a very critical one that we need a long-term commitment of the u.s. that says we see the connection in the manufacturing

and we are committed and that would be very important. we talk about the manufacturing tax credits we believe we should get credit for bringing those jobs and making those investments. our capital expenditure for intel lusterless and million dollars. again, we are investing in those factories. we have to continue to invest. the other one is mentioned already is infrastructure. we often want to go build one of these large factories and a city like arizona or oregon and we can sometimes tack the infrastructure. we have to spend about $200 million to update the treat plant to handle their capacity. so when we are actually having to fund it, having some kind of joint program where the state can go to the federal government

and we can work together to help fund that infrastructure it would have taken $200 million out of a project that's about 2 billion. and last, just the overall income tax rate, intel is about 32% income about $4 billion, a little over $4 billion. so lowering that number could be beneficial. we invest more into these factories and expand our capacity. so i think those are the big key items that would help keep us reinvesting in america. >> thank you very much. there's a lot of overlap nearly complete overlap with the priorities that eric set out. i'm not exactly running perfectly on the time schedule here. but i want to do just extremely briefly is asked to talk about the experience of the planet, and if you do this very briefly

what i'm going to do then is preserve time and we will only have the order of ten minutes, apply one to give those of you in the audience the opportunity to put to the questions you would like to put and if i have to push it a little longer i would but if you help me you gave good presentation on the stories of the strong one and here is part of what we're talking about bringing the federal government to the state government to get there and in ways that make that helped and not. but all the things that had been described here are relevant to businesses, and we've got competitively to strengthen the business in the united states. this is competitive in the world and we are not going to succeed him and perhaps most of you know that we are -- we have been by one description the last of the

major business countries in the world that hasn't had a long-term competitive plan. we've been pretty short term, so we haven't done all we ought to do in this area. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i will be brief. i think that my focus today was really what can the cities do and what can the federal government do to be a friend to business, and i just cite a specific example, atlanta is the home to 14 fortune 500 businesses. and what i've seen is we can make sure that we are responding faster than we ever have before. so that includes what kind of incentives be provided, but it also includes making sure that the government responds rapidly with every decision that needs to be made that will create jobs and to the extent that that becomes a part of the federal

government culture, then i believe that will help the city's competitiveness and since 80% of the nation's gdp occurs in the cities it will halt the nation's competitiveness we specifically when we were recording the headquarters for the portion north america which is certainly the direct investment they had never built a headquarters for north america before. we attracted them to the campus in the jackson airport and in order to close that deal after putting significant incentives on the table from the city and from the state we had to have a great deal of cooperation from the faa because of the proximity of the headquarters to our airport on the campus. but we took a closed automobile plant and now we are going to build $100 million headquarters for the company to and have instructed the 250 jobs to expend about 350 jobs we are going to have a call center on that campus, and i think it was a great example for what happens

when government acts expeditiously. i don't think that the faa could have been a better partner in that process. we had one other opportunity recently where we attracted $300 million in investment into a 1 million square foot building that had been shuttered and closed. jamestown is a private equity fund that is financed by the german capital because we have cooperation from the government we were able to secure the national historical tax credits that helped bring that deal to life, so to the extent that government response and cares about job creation i think it is going to be transformational. but when you have a deal with the leader of the city or a governor has to be able to engage the federal government and show that we have a real deal on the table, leave out the jobs case and once you determine

that it's valid, act with the kind of energy that i think is warranted where all of our priority is in job creation. so that's what i was asking the president and vice president for and asking the commerce department for, mr. secretary. >> thank you free match. i would like to solicit questions and comments from all of you and the audience. let me underscore all four panel members are candidates for responses to questions you have. so yes. -- before mr. secretary. line in the organization for international investment and we are very pleased that the administration is holding this today. i was pleased to hear about your focus and standing. as you know the trend of the foreign investment in the united states has been on a declining trend, and the thought is putting some muscle behind a group like selectmen -- select

usa. i would like to know the panelists might think of an idea as low as yourself about an idea that the jobs counsel the president's job council put forward last october, which was to establish a national investment initiative similar to the idea of the national export initiative that this would focus on increasing the more direct investment by a trillion dollars over the next four or five years. so making it a national plan. if like faded with exports. and then we would like to get the thoughts of those on the panel if something like that might be helpful elevating the the desire to increase the direct investment in the united states, and then if you could share any thoughts on that yourself the would be great. >> let me start by saying i don't want to turn to the panel and then something after a half, but hadn't i do want to commend the jobs council and select is

an idea that a rose in the commerce department. the president took up the idea and the jobs council and the effect of the jobs council recognizing the opportunity here and then underscore and it and saying very berkeley and at report nice idea, but you have way too few resources relative to what is being done competitively by the major business countries with their longer-term and deeper strongly supported plans around the world. so that's a very big thing and i will see if i have anything to add but let me see whether any of you on the panel have something to say with respect to that. i know that none of you on the panel will want to take up the responsibility precisely of the federal government ought to be doing by the way of expanding resources in this area but i would welcome any comments. >> i will say a few words that we've been putting a lot of foreign direct investment on the

west. one of the things i heard today on the meeting on the table and from the president was that -- and i think that you're quote at the beginning the u.s. is open for business i know that you've said one of your top objectives is encouraging more foreign direct investment and i think a focused effort around that would be important the jobs are from the foreign owned companies it's about 15 of the manufacturing, 14% of the r&d spending and the foreign companies are driving a lot of the manufacturing growth in this country and the more that we can let the companies like siemens and others around the world know that we are trying to encourage the u.s. and do what we can to bring it here. i think for years there were some thoughts out there that wasn't the most important thing in the u.s..

that creating jobs, not just creating jobs but encouraging foreign companies to invest here was a priority and what i heard today is it is a parody. we make it a parody and put some muscle behind you will see a lot more foreign investment. all these advantages before when you run the numbers the u.s. is looking more attractive every day. so we are very on the u.s.. >> i think you want to give the foreign investment in the u.s. a push, and i think you want to but not because we are starting to the point of the economics continue to change in favor of the u.s.. and so speeding up is always a good thing. if you look at our work of productivity is among the highest in the world, higher than germany. if you look at productivity in china it is four times as productive as china and see the wages rise and other things so it is a very good time for the companies to think about the u.s. investment whether it is u.s. companies investing more

foreign companies investing and as we said before we are a huge market and will remain a huge market for a long, long time. when you think of that increase in the transportation cost and other things, the u.s. is an incredibly attractive place. what we are doing now and as far as i can tell inside the government we are starting to recognize the need to do these kind of things with of the assumptions in the past they would just happen and we see with usa selected other kinds of activities the beginning of pushing forward on these kinds of topics and those are things that china is doing and things that germany is doing and we are catching up and i think what we will see is a fair amount of increased investment because even at one-third of the dollar the u.s. economy looks incredibly attractive as a place to manufacture. it's very hard to export things from europe to the u.s. because it's that much more to make in your gup.

others, yes. >> we applaud what you are trying to accomplish in america and make this a place to grow and build things. audio and a factory in baltimore and like intel we made everything in the usa and export to 35 countries. however one of the things is our tax policy. i compete with canada, and they have an 18% rate and it's a declining, and that includes health insurance for all their employees. intel faces a 32% tax i have a higher tax rate everything goes to me personally. i have the blue cross blue shield with my employees on top of the 40% rate. so i think something you could do to help us president obama can do to help us is to make our tax rate competitive so that we can beat canada and we can beat germany and china and more jobs

will be created here and we will be able to hire more. >> that's powerful. i think you'd like to know the president is committed to doing that. a reality is right now at this time in this congress to get anything passed may not be the most where this gets done. i've been part of a very large number of planning a cross t's federal government on how we can do that and how to structure. there's a lot of work being done on that and hoping something can be done as soon as possible can be achieved. >> gene sperling talked about how this is an incentive for the manufacturing should be the guiding principle. i think that he's right.

we should do it. >> the president also asked for the manufacturing coordination across the federal government a big focus of mind. we will do the white house policy reaching out to all of you and i'd like to get your name and follow-up. [inaudible] i won't even respond unless it is -- >> i have about 600 employees and opened factories in the united states won in chicago and one in seattle that will create about 250,000 jobs. but my experience there are these mega billion dollar companies. navigating the program doesn't really work for a company like mine and.

i would like to discuss more of the tax rates approach to 90% hildreth tax bases so there's other things in the companies like mine that are different than siemens. >> what we say now we are going to turn right after this. karen mills in the back of the room has just walked in and has headed the small business administration under the obama administration. she has done extraordinary things. and effective leadership taking this much further than it had never been done in the past and reaching out to smaller and medium-sized businesses, so that will be very much on the agenda. karen can describe some of the things that they've been doing. select usa is free part of the future with regard to this. i think we can give more attention to that.

yes, please introduce yourself. i can do you and then one more and then i have to stop. >> [inaudible] my question is i am an ex employee of siemens and i am proud to be an example of one of the students siemens put me through the technical university where you used to have those groups. my question to you is how -- lie did they lead the industry in the u.s., the -- we have no more companies in the u.s. that manufacture. what kind of federal government and the president do to get these companies back in here and expand so we can compete?

>> unfortunately -- by the way i am glad to hear your story i would like to chat about that later. the telecom business took place that was siemens for a couple years and that took place before my time, but i think with a new ceo coming in five years ago the emphasis was on reshaping the portfolio of around businesses that we saw where we can drive global technology and become a bit so that was a decision made before that. it's a good question about what the u.s. does. i'm not an expert on the telecom market so we don't have much to say to that. estimate my regrets for not being able to reach out. >> my name is george schindler and i work for the global i.t. services and i from the u.s. operations. we are opening but we call on sure software delivery centers

across the u.s.. we have three centers today, a thousand created. both businesses here today talk about the importance of having an effective tax credit as a part of that. what i would like to see is or hear about the plans to potentially broaden the manufacturing and to other manufacturing like software development. >> any others? >> with regard to many structuring, but the president asked me to take on is not limited, is not merely defined in any respect right now it needs to be fleshed out. now part of the commerce the board met and national institute of standards and technology. it integrates by the way the entire federal government. so, this is as i said coordination across the entire federal government. so i can't give you a very direct answer right now but we

should be able to follow up. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your being here coming your engagement. i would like to have more questions but what i would like to do is take a break or continue straight on. >> karen mildew i introduced by think will walk right into the room right now, she's an extraordinary leader, incredibly smart, strong business background, and she is going to make a further difference i think for many of you but particularly the small and medium-sized businesses. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks to john for that

introduction, and for all of the work that we are doing together to focus on manufacturing and now to focus on bringing that manufacturing back to this country. we have a great panel. and we are going to ask for some of your questions, and we are going to take as many as possible. i do want to just say a couple words about some of the things we talked about this morning and the small business administration. one of the things the president said this morning is that we want to do with large companies and small companies is give those folks who are going to choose to manufacture here and can choose to provide services here all the tools they need to be given to grow their business. and that means access to financing which for small businesses has been an issue over the past several years and we provide loan guarantees. we had a record year last year and did more loan guarantees

than ever before in the history $40 billion. so we are all over the country working with about 5,000 banks. and if you haven't asked your banks about the loan guarantee we will talk about that shortly. another thing by want to make sure that you are aware not is we just were able to renew something called the small business innovation research grant and it was the first time in about six years the we got permanent congressional authority and it was a bipartisan bill that passed so don't let anybody tell you that nothing is happening because we were able to get support for small businesses getting s dri grants. its $2.5 billion once again this is for you and your small business to do research that will help you innervate here in this country. so we have been a ray of things including activity in the advanced manufacturing partnership designed to make sure but entrepreneurs can

continue to innovate here, but large companies can have supply chains full of some of the best entrepreneurs. last we will talk a little bit about the change, and we heard from some larger companies there are opportunities for small companies in the supply chains of these larger companies as they bring back production and activity and we want to make sure that those connections get made. as we get started the american supply initiative. it involves everything from matchmaking which we do, we run the federal government small-business supply chain which is about $100 billion, during the state of the art activities for the defense department for instance, lots and lots of those suppliers are able let's get started in our panel and you've heard some of these stories mentioned by the

president earlier, but i think if it's all right we will start with the basics again being the fact based analyst. if you could -- >> harry. it's wrong on there. >> i'm sorry. how can you from this for us? what is happening coming and you have said some things earlier to the president. we had some of the basic facts, but what are the key to a metrics that you can share with us about how the economics have changed? >> i think that hal covered that someone on the previous panel and so the basics of his message and the one that we also carry is the costs china and other countries but especially china because the 800-pound gorilla of shoring that they are rising rapidly, that the rates expressed in dollars are going up 20 to 25% a year while u.s.

employment costs are going out to present a year, 1% a year and therefore even though they are starting much lower when you go at that fast every three years to double so they are rapidly approaching the point where the total cost will get close enough to the cost that when you include the cost of manufacturing will get close enough to the u.s. cost of manufacturing when you include what we call the total cost of ownership, the duty and the packaging and the inventory cost to the product siggerud, the intellectual property risk, the travel to see them all these extra costs that are not the case when you deal with your supply chain and buy from somebody locally, then when the companies recognize all those costs they are much more likely to make the decision to him and bring the work that year. so as was pointed out, the cost

is here, the chinese cost is coming up there is a difference and there still will be a difference in 2015 which is the year for convergence unless the companies recognize this total cost because that typically is 20 to 30% of the total cost, these hidden costs many of the companies don't realize. as a inexorable that i gave this morning, one of the major aerospace companies and talk to i asked how you make the decision about what to make hearing and offshore and they said here's an example, here is it sounded like a thousand pound housing and we had a maid in the u.s. to china to the machine and back to be plated and back to the u.s. to be installed into the aerospace product and they said when we try to decide whether to do it all here in the u.s. or do this we only look at the prices from the suppliers which do not include the free and carrying costs on the inventory, we do not include the

risks involved and that's stupid if you are not looking at all the costs you can't make the decisions. so we are a nonprofit organization we provide a free software so that the companies can use it to make the right decision and recognize those extra 20 or 30% of the costs and therefore more often and sooner decided to bring more of the work back to the united states either to their own facilities or to their people in the u.s. supply chain. >> so bruce, you've become now the poster child for an industry which everybody thinks is dead in this country and use all your own family business move overseas after it was sold and then after years of being in that market, being in asia you told me it occurred to you that,

you know, people wanted made in america furniture, and you could come back and do that and like a great entrepreneur, he said to his wife we are going to go home and think of our own furniture and put every penny that we allowed in to it and ha she said yes we've done that, so mission accomplished. but he is back in north carolina employing people i think that you had in the family business and in the same factory as the family business. what makes a sector like furniture now able to be produced back in this country, and how do you see growing that business? >> when we sold our company back in 1997, we employed almost 1400

people. and it was in the subsequent years of what production was moved overseas and all the capital investment was dismantled and sold and i subsequently went to asia myself and started sourcing products for the furniture manufacturers in asia specifically and china, so now it's part of the problem of the 50 billion-dollar industry furniture industry. as the years went by, i saw the sheet abundant labor in china diminished and in 2006 there were serious labor shortages in china especially in some of the labour intensive industries and everything was so dramatic of the labor shortages just poor quality, increased delivery

times were horrendous and it was coupled with changing currency and increased shipping costs. in 2010i realized some of the ancillary costs involved that the customers were seeing and they were starting to capture it made a lot of sense to store manager during a furniture to the united states again. especially the kind of furniture that i was accustomed to making in the years passed and when i got in this business in 1974 there were literally dozens and dozens of people that made fine furniture with fine cabinet joinery and that is all but disappeared in the united states many people don't really realize what a fine piece of furniture looks like any more so i realized i could not let me get very competitive price product could make something that the

chinese were probably unwilling to make and i could make the finest furniture furniture which traditional cabinet joinery the finest made in the world and i can do this with an american worker this highly productive and how they mention that the american worker was 3.4 times more productive in the chinese worker i would contend when you get in the higher leverage all this that differential is much greater. those were the things that went through my mind that gave me pause to say yes i can do it here again and i had the opportunity and a very good fortune to work with the trust bank in north carolina is a small community bank but the agreed to do all of our equipment financing, which was very, very helpful, and

mentioned the sba loans when he mentioned sba loans i said no this is an onerous mountain of paperwork that's indicated that people would have been reduced drastically. [applause] here is a banker this holding below because the paperwork was not too much anymore and he as a matter of fact this particular bank had done quite a few sba loans in the past. he was able to identify another program that had a 90% guarantee the was very helpful. it wasn't sba, but it was another federal loan guarantee they would provide for the state

guarantee. but the capitol continues to be very difficult when you raise equity in the private equity like the furniture did in that private equity offered to sell a limited number of investors at a minimum investment of $60,000 was very difficult. especially when you don't have anything to show. we did raise money. but they're continues to be, and i've spoken to karen about, they're continues to be for the small businesses issues of capital especially working capital. some of the programs that are available now to can get really good equipment financing and we've got all of the scope and financing that we needed. but then there's the working capital issues and we are not talking about money that i want somebody to give nine talking about money don't give a comfort zone a comfort level and helpless operate in a manner that would have to be freeing

our hand about in the capitol issues and we are not talking about a lot of money either. we are talking about a quota of a million dollars to half a million dollars and a lot of it is small businesses like that just to have the cushion would be great. >> that is particularly as you know the president has all across the administration task thus reducing in simplifying. and i will say that when i got this job the husband said to me sba, too much paperwork, too much time. now we are down from this much people work to this much paperwork and we have shortened all of our cycle time as well. so, the loan turnaround time is in the days not even the weeks and months. so we are i think recognizing that particularly in the past few years a lot of small businesses out there with the interest in expanding but they

don't necessarily meet all of the criteria because they've just suffered through a couple of tough years. we will provide noss -- this is one of the announcements come 890 per cent loan guarantee on certain in sourcing and i'm going to have you stand up because i bet there's somebody in this audience who, like john and like bruce is looking for a extra copies of capital, and we have a particular working capital line that we just simplified as well called the capitoline and we have 5,000 banks and as i said out there working with us on exactly this effort. this is a place where the government can come in and put the wind at the back of the small businesses. with a minute. how many of you have made a call to a call center and it's been picked up and you realize you

are probably talking to somebody in this country? i don't know. recently you've begun a trend. >> i've been helping as a consultant and now has the ceo of an outsourcing company that is completely on the shore helping companies come back to the united states. i'm a founding member of jobs for america. jim has also helped start eight and we are dedicated to bring 100,000 jobs back in the context. it's not working over there. and i feed -- you know, many of us have had a good call over there but it's not repeatable often and the reason the call centers went over there ten, 15, 20 years ago lager exist of was the easy call we send over there. those calls are gone. they've all been automated. what is left of the context glisson said, the complex problem solving skills, the ones who need good communication skills and if we are having a hard time understanding them

just think they are having a hard time understanding us. so there has been a myopic focus on their running of the ceo and term focused on the unit cost and cost permanent. they are not looking at the total cost of ownership. we have an operating model and help companies show them how they can do it 15% cheaper in the united states if they take all the costs into account. so the fact that they pay half the cost and labor cost doesn't make any difference if it takes the three calls to get to the problem resolved. that is simple math. the hilboldt - 52% to 100% higher over there. again, cost per minute goes out by the wayside that just doesn't make economic sense and the operating model. so, there are many other things like if you haven't solved a customer's problem what is the focus on your brand? i think people have done a lot

of brand damage by cutting their call centers over there. i mean, sometimes you only have with your credit card company you talk to them once a year. don't you want four to ten minute call to be an emotional connection with your customer? i think you do. my company is dedicated to improving the customer brand to improving the customer experience and long term loyalty because it's not really about the short term profits about the long term loyalty and volume devotee of the company. so you know, it isn't cheaper to do business over their our customers don't like it. and in fact of the call centers that come back, 3% of all working americans are working in call centers right now. only 12% of call centers are offshore. three years ago 30% of all high-tech call centers for offshore. now it's 12% i think. so they are coming back but nobody is talking about it and here's why. number one, a lot of people don't want to talk about the mistake they made. we have some people of here that have been completely honest and

said mistakes have been made we should have been offshore so the mistakes have been made. also they may have come back but they can't say so because another division has been brought. they don't toot their own horn because another division is offshore and would confuse the brand if we brought the calls back and that is in the case with another division of the same company. and last, a lot of the companies come back with a competitive edge. go ahead, leave the calls of short, you are hurting yourself. i think a lot of people coming back there's a lot of examples and, you know, my cfo and by all the time saddam of companies and show them the new operating model and we are happy to do so even if they don't come to my outsourcing company coming you know, just happy to bring them back. >> that's great. i come from the great state of maine and there's this iconic customer experience and there

really is a proven connection between the customers, and because of those customer service people. >> the fact is also it's not a minimum wage job anymore. what's left of those context of reasons that the average call center worker makes 13, 14, 15 cents an hour there might be some down the wage level and then they go up to 100,000 things like that, sales jobs. so they are not minimum wage jobs. we have in our center in number of people, husband and wife that work there and their family now is a middle class. they both work in the call center on the phone and they are middle class. i also have the four generations working in the call center. it's great for old people, they have great judgment. i have one woman on the phone that is 92-years-old and she recruits for the army and does a heck of a good job about it. so these are not minimum wage jobs. they are harder complex jobs. and what is required i think,

and i mentioned this to the president, we need to get our high school college graduation rate up. some of these jobs require college, all of them require high school communications skills, britain, orval, complex, critical, thinking, problem-solving. and when i walk into cities and frequently walk into the major cities that have 50 come 60 present brooch we shinri total high school i can't be there. so i move and select a city that has 85, 90% graduation rates. so we are going to have to think about being competitive in the united states and start competing for those jobs as they come back. >> i think that leads into some of the things that you mentioned earlier about the work force training. i will say master lock. when you think about it, so has a master lock? you know that brand. and you are producing in milwaukee and one of the things i think the president talked

about when he introduced you this morning, he said that you are at capacity now for the first time in a long time and what you said this i need more skilled workers. i've got business. i can do business here. i can ship it overseas. i need to make sure i'm working with the community colleges and with others for building the skilled work force. estimate absolutely. i am the ceo at master lock and we make locks. i know that surprises you about 65 million a year. that's pretty big. that's a lot of walks. and always have a few people throw them in the ocean that's why we make so many a year. but our story is a little different. we are about a medium-sized company. we are part of a york stock exchange trading company called fortune brands home and security. if you take master lock and go back to the late nineties like a lot of other companies as a matter of survival, we

outsourced many of our jobs to china and mexico. what happened back then as we have a facility with about 1200 people in milwaukee and wisconsin that we kept open week at about 300 people i think at the time, and now i can say we are up to 400 people and growing. some of the challenges -- you've heard about the economics. they are working in our favor and moving jobs back and we feel good about that. and when you order a businessman making those decisions, economics plays a huge role in the decision to move jobs back. and so we are seeking that dynamic change. for other reasons you've heard today and we will go back into that. and some of the things we talk about today, what could make that happen faster? so i would like to share with you some of the challenges we've had and we talked about earlier today just our access to the skilled labour and that's something that is very important

to us. when we talk about skilled labor we are talking about machine building repair, electricians, mechanics people, about the tool and die makers and we are talking about a higher level skilled people than ten years ago because the jobs we are bringing back now or bringing back to a much more automated facility, high-tech facility that we had during the late 1990's. so with the challenges confronting us is how do you go out and recruit the first skilled people because honestly there's a couple of things that have gone on with the transition of manufacturing out of the u.s. a lot of people have lost their jobs and a lot of those people with skilled trade they want to find other things to do than you have a new generation up-and-coming going to high school and they don't have shop class anymore. and it's hard to aspire to something they've never been introduced to. so we had those challenges as well. how do you get the number generation, how do you get the students to want to aspire to go into manufacturing and have that job? because we have a gap, we have a

gap in this country. if we look at our skilled people we are approaching 55 plus in terms of an age group because we have a gap and we are going to have to fill that gap and if we are going to bring back jobs faster in this country we are going to have to do some pretty intense training. some of the things we have done is we have partnered with many of the local technical colleges and some of the universities. we've done that in terms of being on the board, participating in how they are built, financing that, and then allowing people to enter those programs to earn an apprentice in the journeymen ship after about five years of training. so it is a long process. but at the end of the day it benefits us and benefits them. we have been on that road for a while. and so, we talk about some things this morning about how can we get better training and faster training and make manufacturing a business that kids aspire to coming out of school. so that's critical.

>> i was in minneapolis to we were announcing a partnership with the national association of manufacturers on the right skills now which is a part of our skills for america. and we are teaching entrepreneurial skills as well as manufacturing skills. this was the machines for the manufacturing. the community college folks were saying they are having trouble recruiting. and the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that they go home and the mom says, you know, i want my kid to computers. and we are standing in the middle of the manufacturing floor and the operator says on trademark running a computer. i'm running a computer that happens to be attached to a machine that this is a computer job. it's not, you know, the same kind of manufacturing as before. and we have a lot of work to do. i think to change that fear that you will go into a skill and there won't be a job yet this effort and this moment and all

of you who are telling your stories and conveying the message have a lot to do with helping our youth and next generation can get in a halfway that successfully takes them to a good paying job that's going to stay here and that is something that this administration has a lot of engagement with, a lot of programs around and we are highly committed in succeeding building the foundation to do that. >> i've been promoting the idea that ties together the need for financing and the need for more skilled work force and the sba. so the idea would be that for companies that can't get loans conventionally let's say they are not in adc credit, and f or maybe a d and if the sba guarantees the loan, for every let's say to under 50,000 or $500,000 worth of loan that is guaranteed, they have to have

one registered apprentice. okay, you can't get the money on your own but if we are going to guarantee it for you you have to contribute something to society by training the people that will help you or help some other company in the future. >> i think that's a great idea and it does tie together specifically a lot of the things i think we've heard from folks here were later this morning we are very committed to the apprentice to boswell, the department of labor that has a good apprentice should program or we do have the capitol available and the grants available. i'm going to turn to the audience for a whole set of questions, think about that and then i'm also going to turn back to the panel who has a few more questions for them. yes? >> a nutter call center. >> such a tremendous story that's part of the 2,009 jobs for them and the tinkle of the

suggestions that come out of the session into action -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm the chairman of solutions, so i just want to applaud you. >> nancy gibbs a long laundry list in the 2,009, end of things we need to get done. >> i think one of the things in this panel is the focus on the service industry. much of the discussion today is focused on the manufacturing jobs and we do know there's 80% employment today in the united states is a focused role and so a couple things to consider. first is as we are focused on trying to build skills there is a suggestion about the community houses but i would like to see jobs that we pay half of the 280,000 identified teachers who

were identified as not employed in the johns act and suggest that they be scaled up to be able to learn how to teach people job skills. in the service sector for example if we can take and teach those folks how to deliver those job skills and a virtual manner but we are able to do then is educate people without any constraint around the facility and allow people to connect from their computer at home and be able to perform these new service jobs. >> that's a great idea. one of the things i know that you do and some others do you have a lot of home-based call centers. >> thank you. yes the of 22,000 today in the united states who actually do back office and call center work from home and that number has been seen since 2000 - 00 we were 11,000 when we last saw you

and we are now 22,000 expect another 8,000 workers and the united states alone in 2012. and so, the second idea that is really to be focused first on the skills than second on the work. and so i would like to encourage the small business administration as well as the government out large to look at work that is being done today that has a belief that it has to be done in a bricks and mortar facility because what we are finding is many of the fortune 500 companies today are doing is they are looking at ways in which the work can be fertilized so the work can be placed on the worker as opposed to making the workers have to actually commit or relocate to the community in order to be able to find jobs. we know it is a challenge of today. very difficult for people to decide if it is okay. the fertilization of the work allows us to actually move the

job or the work that is being done and allows us to do it in a very oriented manner by being able to form that work from home so that would be the second suggestion i would make is let's look for ways to work people consider to be nice to be bricks and mortar and how to virtual ones that. >> i'm glad you mentioned part of the business case and bringing them home to the united states and being able to give it is 50% cheaper is the work at home model and i know for business it's about 40% cheaper. for the employee they actually see a sort of pay raise to the cost base at least 6% or $6,000 mediate thousand if you think it isn't being taxed. >> of having to not put yourself on a professional wardrobe and put money in the pockets of american workers. estimate over 100,000 people

being able to work from home. .. there is a drop in quality. we found over a year ago we were having more and more difficulty with the products we were burning out of china and working

-- some production in the united states command be looked at how we could do more. one of the issues facing us, number of issues, but one of them, one, vocational training is horrible in california. the state board of education curriculum is every child does graduate. not many do in california from high-school who will be trained to go onto a board-year education, not become a plumber or electrician. so we need that. we need to deal with -- in a realistic way with immigration. we have looked past immigration as an issue, and until we deal with that we have a workforce. they are going to feed their

families some way. but companies like american apparel company, which is a very large t-shirt company, was raided. they lost 5,000 jobs in the city of los angeles through a rate. this cool companies throughout this country are being rated on regular basis and there losing thousands of jobs. they cannot find replacement people to put back into it. we need to be realistic. we need a work visa program that is management -- that is workable and realistic. >> i think you for following some of the emigration discretion that the president has put forth some proposals on that, and i think their is a lot of agreement that these are issues we need to get solved. yes. [inaudible question] >> stand up so everyone can see

and hear you. >> our company has been manufacturing products in the u.s. we have been breen jobs back. one of the big issues that we have is being competitive in the global market. materials we cannot give them the u.s. that we're having to import, competing with other countries working in free trade zones. don't know if you still bring in some of your raw materials. how can we bring our costs down to compete against international companies. >> they all went to china. i have the same problem with decorative hardware. even door slides that i cannot give in the united states there are some made, but they are very, very expensive, the same with decorative hardware. they're used to be literally

dozens of decorative hardware manufacturers, and now there are none. that is a good point. >> right. end did you want to say something to that? >> yes. so, we have some ideas about helping you with some of the sourcing. also, if you wanted to produce any of that in in-house, how you might, you know, get some of the financing to do that. one of the things that you wanted to mention was a level playing field. did you want to talk about that a little bit? >> row, you know, there is a level playing field now. i feel like we can definitely compete with the chinese and with the other asian countries. end it is going to be interesting to see those people that will also take these

initiatives and manufacture furniture again and other consumer products in the united states. one thing that has not been mentioned today. the furniture industry in china was heavily subsidized. they always had exported initiatives to sell products in china, and chinese businessmen got very wealthy with it. those exports, and generous subsidies in china have all but disappeared. now they are incentivizing the same factories to sell products domestically. so you are getting subsidies that used to be for export and are now subsidies for domestic sales. that really, really impacts not only furniture, but all consumer products. we will be selling furniture in china. there is no question about it. asians love american-made products.

there is a real appetite. the cost is not an issue. >> so made in america is hot. how many of you have guns in that sense? >> yes. >> made in america means a better america. for sure. >> i am james curley. it is interesting. anti fascinating day watching the different journeys of different companies. we find ourselves now in a place , and i kind of speak on behalf of the industry as well where, certainly for our company we got into a working capital situation, factory in portland, oregon. steel-toed footwear. expand, groan, innovate. last year we had 95. we went past the 100 person mark for the company. but the challenge we have is not so much around the dynamics we are hearing about today. when i look to the future made

in america, building products and american howdy protect that? the industry because we have brands that are appealing around the world, brands like north face who are coming in our terms, the big guys. and the notion of protecting not only innovation, intellectual property, and, quite frankly, just the counterfeiting dynamic is rampant. it is not just a product-for-product, making an atom look like cars and selling it. there is the digital platform that it's set up quickly. the product gets to the marketplace. and our ability, the obstacle or the opportunity course that we are on, just when we figure one thing we look ahead and say, gosh, we got hit with this. the industry, the small business administration can do, once you build this, let's assume into and years we are wildly successful. how do we protect the platform

so that there is a cost of renovation. the challenge i heard this morning, the software you created is not take into consideration long-term cost of renovation and that innovation evaporating. >> do you want to talk -- >> so, one of the -- you have heard there was supposed to be an innovation country. and almost the implication is that we should innovates, be sort of like apple, innovate and then forget about manufacturing. in apple's case 25,000 employees in the u.s. and something like half a million-three-quarters are in china making the things and shipping them all over the world. so if you want to insert -- innovate, apple's case has worked. in general it does not work well when you separate engineering from manufacturing. repeated studies have shown if you get -- if this is how it

used to be and you let the manufacturing come over here, the effectiveness of communication and collaboration drops off dramatically, and we have seen that with cases where it has been brought back by ge, in cr and others, bringing it back, putting them together and the innovation works. they feel that the manufacturing go over here and don't bring it back, pretty soon the logical solution is your engineering goes there, too, to give it back together. now you have neither of them and essentially have nothing. we think it is absolutely essential to be an innovation country if we have to be a manufacturing country. >> i will say that this is a big part of the advanced manufacturing partnership, which is universities, some corporate leaders, and the administration working together on keeping a fracture in, doing advanced

manufacturing, and keeping the pilot stage of that, right after innovation dollar keeping that here because it is really in that first scale of stays gets well understood and cut a fight. if you're doing that somewhere else the final production will be there, but if the manufacturing process expertise happens here that it is a foundation for the next set of jobs years. we did take a couple more. >> yes. my name is phil rashad. we recently opened up a domestic development center. by the way caught in maine also. my question -- well, we are trying to bring technology jobs going to india and china back to the united states. my question is to you, you

stated that you believe a 20-30% hidden costs in manufacturing by having jobs overseas. do you also feel the same hidden cost is in services and 90 services as well? >> i think it is a lot more difficult to measure and more functionally dependent. in manufacturing it is easy to measure the duty in the freight in carrying cost of the inventory. you have all these things. there are a series of things that are res -- relatively easy to measure, whereas with services, it is a greater question about development of productivity of the two. there are still travel costs, intellectual property risks. but it is -- i would, on that -- on the subject of services in general i would give way to the experts here who have noted that

it is about equally costly offshore and domestically, and domestically the quality is higher in the customer satisfaction is higher. i would be glad to meet with you and start working on that project if you would like me to find a better solution. >> as a former cio, will tell you it is exactly the same. different metrics and exactly the same issue. communication matrix is not what we wanted, and arguing back and forth about the product and what we meant, it was even more amazing when i ran a major i tea operation. i think is very, very similar. >> taking on two projects recently. two sets of jobs that are going to india. >> in waukesha. >> washup -- was sought.

>> one of the things, if you are offshore go ahead and do the same activity. you can take a look at the code or whenever it is and you can really make a comparison. when you ship everything it is hard to tell. >> on short technology services. i t outsourcing. we do southward -- software development and data services. compete for work that goes offshore. actually, it is the same collaborative, we worked together. >> like when business is done. >> its really discreet. we figured out how to reach underemployed dislocated workers and put them into the

development jobs despite extremely focused training. in rural america there is like 60 million people and they have been pretty much over shot. why can't we -- i mean, when i see 22,000 jobs. what you're doing, couldn't we just really get together and save, you know, there are 3 million people, 3 million jobs that cannot be filled right now. 14 million people. so just that targeted number and us just getting together and being aggressive in how we give those people -- couldn't we just say, let's create a million jobs can i just do it? >> i think what you're saying is exactly what the president has said in this administration, and

the nuts and bolts of that are, you know, part of what you see happening around you. part of the pieces that come up to do that is, we have to have our small and large businesses, supply chain connected to our training programs, improvement in education, and that is one of the things, i have to say, i hope you take away from today which is, you said this to me. when you come here and see what is happening, there is a lot of talk about what does not go right in washington, but on the other side we are taking a lot of programs are out there and focusing it. now is a time when we have to be very efficient and doing what you said, which is whether it is work-force training, better match between the skills we train for and what the businesses need. one of the ways we're doing it is that small businesses have a much larger voice. listening and finding ways to get what small businesses need

and making those connections. part of it is a retail operation happening in clusters, with our mayors, linkages between folks like the department of agriculture that operates in rural america and our small business groups. and if you see ways in your communities that we can be of more help, that we can facilitate the activity of your business to find more capital, find more trained workers, connect, we are committed to being on the ground, whether it is the select u.s.a. operation, are on the ground operations that we have. we have 900 small-business development centers. so there is one within 45

minutes of your business. if you're thinking about issues you have been growing your business, we want to make sure whenever door you open in the federal government, you can navigate your way to resolution that is helpful to you. that is how we need to make government work in the 21st century. it has to be seamless with your navigating from fda or the labor department. we need to make sure the solution is finding its way to you. i will tell you, we lost -- the president announced a while ago it website for small businesses. there is the sb8 out of. places that you can come and put it in what it is you're looking for, and we can find more and more effective ways of connecting you to those federal resources. now, do we have a closing chat? >> one more. >> i will take one more question i just want to make sure.

i will take one more question. before that i really want to say, the president said to gene sperling said to me, the discussions that he has had with all of you, the things he has heard from all of you, you will be hearing that back because he is really appreciated, understanding where you are in green your business back to this country, what it will take for you to do it, and how we can be your partner. yes? >> yes. i teach at the rochester institute of technology. it has been a great meeting. a lot of inspirational stories. i wonder on the academic side of things, while the extent we are measuring what is going on. we look at trade deficits and things like that, are there any efforts, a measure that is at the macro but all the individual

case study level. >> i can answer that. we have a library that accumulates all of the articles, the public cases, work that has actually come back. right now it has about 100 articles. 300 when it's up today. it will be searchable index cetera. we encourage any of the media that is left to right lots of articles to push the trend, and we can help you. anyone who comes across the cases, send them to me. we get them into the database. when i have searched in the past , that and the web, we find the reported cases doing this. it is not absolute proof. it could just be reported better, but there is enough happening and enough of the

contract manufacturers that i talk to his stated they're doing dramatically more of it today than there were a couple of years ago. still somewhat anecdotal, but this would be the best quantification that i know of. >> i brought copies of my white paper on some of the metric side use around customers. you are welcome to that or did it on my website. >> i want to thank the panel, and i want to thank all of you for coming in spending the time. all of you who helped pull this together. i think that we have greg for some last words. thank you very much. >> thanks, everybody. one final speaker wanted to get a chance to come sit thinks. it is my pleasure to get its chance to introduce her.

now that i work in the white house and government, get a chance to see how things work on the policy side. the who next we will hear from the person who makes things happen for a sound policy and tr policy is focused specifically to help small businesses that has been a big part of our work. with that our deputy chief of staff on policy. [applause] >> i just want to think, again, all of the business leaders, advocates, and officials who shared with us today and the president and vice-president your stories but getting jobs back to america. the president and vice president noted that america is the best place in the world to do business and create jobs. after hearing from all of you i think that we can agree. we have heard that the economics are clear that locating in the u.s. makes sense for companies

that both manufacturing and providing services. we have added jobs and improve. the businesses we have heard from are making the choice to incorrect -- grow in the united states. it makes sense for businesses like ford, semen, manufacturers like master lock and small business is like lincoln furniture in north carolina. these companies are bringing jobs back offering competitive cost structure, the ability to provide better community -- customer service and to respond more quickly to customer needs. at the same time we have heard from all of you all that nothing competes with made in america, quality and reliability. as the president and vice-president and since today, we are calling on other companies to follow their lead,

your lead and bring jobs back and invest in america. the president asks you today and all companies to do whatever they can to look for every opportunity to bring jobs back here. we can from the federal government's perspective do more and should do more to accelerate the in sourcing trends that we have talked about. we want you to give us ideas on what we could do to bring jobs back to locate your businesses in the expansion of your businesses here in the united states. implementing policies like tax breaks car research and development credits and the recently signed trade agreements to help ensure your businesses can compete today we announced new initiatives including new tax proposals to reward companies that choose to investor bring back jobs in the u.s. the select u.s. a program that

helps build federal, state and local partnerships to attract investment in the u.s., increasing support for states' efforts to barack investment through federal officials and export assistance centers in more than 100 cities. we have heard today that our greatest asset is our skilled and productive work force. how much more they have gotten over the last couple of years. we will continue to develop partnership between later by -- labor, education, and business to help ensure america's work force is ready to respond to the need of the future. we are working with skills for america's future and the president's jobs council to assure that work force skills training remains a key element of our economic strategy. most of all we thank you for taking your time to come here today because we need to continue to partner with all of you. one of the biggest barriers to

in sourcing is a lack of awareness about the potential economic advantage. we hope that today we have helped to shine a bright light on the potential economic advantage of doing business here in the u.s. and the you go out and continue to be ambassadors for that. by working together we can address this lack of awareness, and we look forward to getting it done with the white house is your partner. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> tomorrow, a discussion of the state of u.s. business. u.s. chamber of commerce president will lay out an annual policy priority for the business community live at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. and over on c-span ahead of the white house council of economic advisers will talk about imbalances in the u.s. economy. he will also outline the president's economic agenda. you can see live coverage written a.m. eastern. coming up on c-span2, a look at the life of american conservative author and commentator william buckley, jr. a new study ranks the u.s. 13th global the nuclear safety and we will have that later. and then stock trading rules for members of the u.s. congress.

>> if we begin now to match our policies with our idea then i believe it is yet possible that we can come to admirer this country not simply because we were born here but because of the kind of great and good land that you and i want it to be and that together we have made. that is my hope, that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. >> as candidates campaign for president this year we look back 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org / the contenders to see video of the contenders to have a lasting impact on american politics. >> de clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to the election day either. >> these young people when they

get out of this wonderful university will have difficulty finding a job. we have to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape and pass on the american dream. >> go to our website, c-span.org / the contenders. >> now, look at the legacy of william f. buckley who died in 2008. he founded the conservative national review magazine in 1955 and hosted the public affairs television show firing line. we will hear from bill kristol of the weekly standard. from yale university, this is just over an hour. >> conservatism. and it is a very apt question to be asking about bill because bill, his concern from the beginning of his career had to do with his own performances,

his own riding, but much, much more importantly, it had to do with helping to shape the direction of the country. as various people have remarked so far, he did not choose the word conservative of himself as a young man. terms like radical and individualist were the terms he favored. but that soon changed when he started -- when he and billy started thinking about this new magazine. it was not meant to be another time magazine. this was going to be a magazine that would shape and movement, the conservative movement. he started using that word, conservative. and he specifically did not want to gather only people of his own particular