these candidates the white think it is something that matters to people. it is something that drives perceptions of the candidates and whether they can win. if someone is a mess i think it makes it difficult for people to convince themselves they can win an election. you will remember even in 1992 people had written bill clinton off. there's actually a great book that was written and i would appoint the money and as soon as i started talking about it but they have a great quote from one of his top advisers talking of the early stages of the '92 election they were afraid he was going to miss the debate because he would fall below the threshold and the modern democratic party would end as we know it and a lot of that was due to the personal issues surrounding clinton. ross perot kind of came into the spotlight and give a chance to regroup but i do think that character still counts in

american politics. i think the character drives perceptions of the candidates and whether they will let chollet do what they say they are going to do and actually be able to appeal to the american people. whether that wins out this time, we will see. we have a long way until november. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> please join us for the reception outside. books are for sale. [inaudible conversations]

>> u.s. chamber of commerce thomas donohue gives his annual state his annual state of american business address today here in washington. he will outline the chambers policy and political agenda for this year. how the business community plans to engage congress and the white house and outline the job growth plan. they should get underway in just a couple of moments here on hern c-span2. mr. donohue may also touch on the latest retail sales number that which is released just a couple moments ago. a record $4.7 trillion with a gain of about 8% over 2010. that was the largest percentage increase since 1999. in a separate report, labor department says that new applications for unemployment benefits jumped to 399,000 last week because of seasonal layoffs.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. if i could ask folks to come on in and take a seat we will get started. good morning. and welcome to the u.s. chamber of commerce. i margaret spellings the president of u.s. forum for policy innovation here at the chamber. this is a really exciting time for us here. 2012 marks the chambers 100th anniversary, and we are gearing up for one of our busiest most ambitious years yet. in a few minutes the chambers president and ceo, tom donohue, will deliver his annual state of american business address. but before he does let me say a few words about my friend, tom. 2011 was a really challenging year for america as i need not tell you, and for the business

community, and through it all tom did what he does best. he turned challenges into opportunities and let the chamber through a string of victories. you see, tom has an amazing ability to sense the next big thing. and he has the energy and vision to act on it. that's what makes him so fun to work for. so he doesn't just keep the business community in the national debate. he helps to frame it. and he helps position the chamber to be a forceful advocate for business in the most critical issues confronting america. that's why so many of us look forward to state of american business address. i think we will get a glimpse of what this you will bring politically and economically, and what it means for the american business community. most important, we will hear from, on how the chamber is going to continue to advance free enterprise and defend and protect business over the coming

year. as we face new challenges and seize new opportunities in 2012, i'm confident that tom will lead the chamber to even greater success. please join me in welcoming u.s. chamber president and ceo, tom donohue. [applause] >> thank you very much, margaret. and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i would say parenthetically if half of what margaret said was true it would be true because of the extraordinary people that we have working at the chamber, the people that we've been able to attract to come here at this very challenging time for our country. so let me begin by saying good morning, and by expressing my appreciation to market and the

national chamber foundation for organizing this event. and to each of you for being here today. you know, it's something of a tradition at the chamber to gather early in the new year and assess the state of american business. size of our economy, and to lay out our priorities, the things that we believe are really important for our country. this year is particularly special for us. we are observing the chambers 100th anniversary. 100 years of representing the business community, and standing up for american free enterprise. as we begin 2012, we can say that the state of american business is improving, but it is doing so weekly, slowly, and insufficiently to put our nation back to work. we were all pleased to see the

positive jobs report last week, with unemployment inching down to 8.5%. but let's not forget that it was 5% in december of 2007, as the recession began. and we are still down 6 million jobs since the recession ended. and there are more than 23 million americans who are either unemployed or working part-time, or who have given up looking for a job. our nation's highest priority then must be to put these americans back to work. to achieve this goal our economy has to grow much faster than it is today. unfortunately, we think the economy will actually slow down in the early months of 2012.

we expect growth to average 2.5%, or lower, in the first half, and then hopefully, depending on the actions of government, to work its way up to about 3% at the end of this year. now, there are a long list of what the economists like to call downside and upside risks. these factors could cause the economy to perform even more poorly or much better than any of us might forecast. our goal is to see the nation take advantage of our many opportunities on the upside, while doing everything possible to address the risks on the downside. we are deeply concerned that our largest export market and the commercial partner that we most value, the european union, faces an unresolved i national crisis,

and a looming recession. there will be leadership transitions and elections in taiwan, and china, in north korea, in russia, and france, and venezuela, in mexico, just to name a few. and in case you haven't noticed, there's an election going on right here in the united states that is giving everybody a lot to talk about. we are seeing continued turmoil and violence in the middle east, and more saber rattling from iran, including threats to choke off the flow of oil through the strait of herman's. what happens -- strait of her moves. what happens our economy if we have to pay $100 or more over the long term for crude oil throughout the year. as some have predicted. here at home government policies and conflicts among our

political leaders have added to these uncertainties. undermining business and consumer confidence, and slowing the economy down. the federal government is expanding its powers, its costs, and its debt at a record pace. we've made virtually no progress in reforming entitlement programs which could eat the federal budget and our economy a life. and in the new chamber survey of small businesses, more than 80% of them are very concerned about the prospect of new regulations, new mandates and higher taxes, and these concerns have put the brakes on their investment and their hiring. for all of these reasons, the chamber is putting forward an american jobs and growth agenda.

with specific ideas to put people back to work. without raising taxes, or adding to the deficit. we are calling on leaders in washington to work with business, and with each other, to build a stronger american economy. 2012 must not be wasted simply because it's an election year. there is no justifiable reason that it should be. the house of representatives, for example, have already passed 30 bills that its leaders say could accelerate growth and create jobs. so far, these bills have gone nowhere in the senate your shirley one or two or three of these must have some good ideas that would attract the attention of the majority of the senate. meanwhile, an administration spokesman said recently that

there is just one item on the president's must pass legislation program for this year, one item for the whole year, a further extension of social security, payroll tax holiday. with all the challenges facing our economy, and our country, it's inconceivable to me that the president would agree with that, and i trust that he doesn't. today, i'd like to briefly outline a few of the highlights of the chambers jobs and growth agenda. so let's start with the big one, anyone, energy. our nation is on the cusp of an energy boom that is already creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, revitalizing entire communities, and reinvigorating american manufacturing. unconventional oil and natural gas development is on a pace to

create over 300,000 jobs in the next few years. in ohio, new york, pennsylvania and west virginia alone, and there are a lot of other states involved in this business. and take a look at what's happening in north dakota. the state is booming. unemployment is 3.4%. oil production just surpassed that of ecuador, one of the members of the oecd. energy is a game changer. if you just stop and minute and think about it for the united states, it's an absolute game changer. it is as the saying goes, the next big thing. with the right policies, the oil and natural gas industry could create more than 1 million jobs in the next few years. not only can we create jobs, but we can cut our dependence on overseas imports while adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the government coffers at a

time that they really need it. recent discoveries have confirmed that this nation is truly blessed with energy resources. now, numbers can be boring, but be patient with a 40 minute. we have 1.4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to last the next 200 just. that's which we know we have. we have 2.7 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to last 120 years. we have 486 billion tons of coal, enough to last over the next 450 years. and we need to use more of this strategic resource cleanly and thoughtfully and wisely here at home, while also selling it around the world. now, to tap our energy resources we've got to speed up permitting, and and and many of the restrictions that have been

put on key areas and put these resources off limits for some, for environmental reasons, and for others, for purely political expedience. instead of handpicking a few technologies we must harness all of our resources. traditional and alternative. while also expanding nuclear power and driving greater efficiency. efficiency is the most important environmental advantage that we have. our biggest and most reliable form energy supplier, as all of you know, is canada. the proposed keystone xl pipeline would bring canadian oil sands down to our gulf coast refineries, and to many destinations along the way. the project has passed every environmental test. there is no legitimate reason, none at all, to subject it to further delay.

labor unions, and that this is committed alike, are urging president obama to act in the best interest of our national security and our workers and to approve the pipeline now. we can put 20,000 people to work today it is approved, and 250,000 over the course of the years that it would be built. expanding our energy infrastructure is just one part of a broader effort to modernize this nation's entire physical platform. congress, this is very complicated because i don't think we will quite get there, congress has until january 31 to finish the faa reauthorization, which is over four years delayed. the new nextgen air traffic control system must be its top priority. it will ease delays, conserve fuel, create jobs and save lives. lawmakers also need to pass

legislation to maintain investments in our roads and in our bridges and our transit system. the safetea-lu, that's the law that covers all of that, expires on march 31. if congress doesn't act then, the highway trust fund would cut a minimum of 35% out of what we now spend, if we have the absence of a reauthorization. and by the way, put lots of people out of work. we also need to invest in our water infrastructure. and let me make this clear. every piece of infrastructure legislation should include reforms that speed up projects, and to encourage public-private partnerships, and the use of private capital. it's sitting there ready to be spent. in fact, by knocking down the barriers, we can unlock up to

$250 billion in private capital for infrastructure alone. leverage this with public investment, and you can create 1.9 million jobs over the next 10 years. add up all these jobs we're talking about justin energy and infrastructure, and you begin to put a lot of people back to work. let me go to our next subject, trade and global commerce. 95% of the people we want to sell something to live outside the united states of america. let's get out there and convince more of these customers and consumers to buy american. the president and the congress acted not a moment too soon when they finally passed the trade agreement with south korea, colombia and panama. americans were already starting to lose jobs to the competitors to beat us to those agreements. the e.u. and canada.

and that i think is what drove us to conclude those agreements. we could lose sales and jobs and other competitive markets as well, unless we act quickly to advance a bold trade agenda. a great way to start is by completing a trans-pacific partnership agreement, we call it ttp, independent pacific basin. let's get a high quality agreement done this year. the chamber has also proposed a new transatlantic economic and trade pact with the european union, potentially need economic growth. that would start by eliminating tariffs on goods that we trade with one another. and we're gaining a lot of support for it. we support also the extension of russia to the wto. congress should not grant permanent normal trade relations

status to this agreement so that the u.s. business community can participate in these benefits. because without it we can't, and we want to put russia in a rules-based system. it's time to get moving on additional free trade agreement. there's interest in brazil and egypt and india and indonesia. mr. ambassador, we are glad you're today. just a few of the countries that should be on our list for consideration. to do this, the tpp and others, that congress must renew, it's trade promotion authority. every president of any party should have it. the executive branch must be able to negotiate agreements that will be picked up on along the way or at the end by the congress, but subject to an up or down vote. we also need to complete the task of modernizing the nation's export control world's.

there's still rules from 30 years ago. and we need to move it because it's costing us billions and billions of dollars in sales abroad. and we must continue to support the import bank, and the overseas private investment corporation's. these organizations which some people criticize have helped support our export of goods all over the country, and the government makes money on the deal. our country should make a major effort while we are doing all this to attract more global investors, foreign investment already supports millions and millions of jobs in the united states, both indirect and direct. we need to negotiate more bilateral investment treaties to ensure that american investors are treated fairly overseas, and india and china should be high

on the list for negotiating those treaties. do you know that we rank 44th in the world in the number of such treaties? and that's a fundamental competitive disadvantage for the united states, and our workers. and we must not overlook the extraordinary benefits of expanding tourism and business travel to the united states. we need to broaden the visa waiver programs, to limit weight times at customs, and to implement trusted traveler programs to reduce the hassle without jeopardizing security. by simply restoring our share of the travel market to the 2001 levels, we could realize $860 billion in new economic stimulus, and create 1.3 million new jobs, at no cost to the american taxpayer.

now, let me move to a very sensitive subject. to grow our economy and create jobs, we need to have significant regulatory and legal reform. there are more regulations in the pipeline today than currently exist are the regulatory avalanche confronting our job creators is unprecedented. the labor department has 100 rule makings in the pipeline on hiring and paying in managing people. dodd-frank requires 447 rules, 60 through ports, and 59 studies. the health care law establishes 159 new bureaucratic groups and agencies, panels, commissions and regulatory body. the environmental protection agency has some 200 regulations in the works.

and the business community must contend with the national labor relations board that is clearly tilted toward the unions. this adds up to a big drag on our economy, and i didn't mention many of the other regulatory agencies. when the need is there and the regulatory remedy makes sense, the chamber will support it. but when we see regulatory activism that is based on bad data, dubious authority, and the pure politics, we will oppose it. we will go to congress. we will go to the courts. we will go to the court of public opinion to explain how a regulatory system run amok is needlessly driving american jobs out of the country, or out of existence. let me be clear. the chamber supports necessary, sensible and forward-looking

regulation. for example, our capital markets center has advanced positive ideas to reform the sec. and is working too closely regulate, work to close the regulated, regulatory gaps and minimize systematic risks in our financial markets. dozens of the most critical dodd-frank rules are likely to be finalized this year. we've only done about 12% i think. on derivatives regulation, the volcker rule, potential money market reforms and other important matters, we will help ensure that the regulators get the rules right. we will continue to push for accountability and transparency at the consumer financial protection bureau. eyed and we were deeply disappointed to see the president install the director without the advice consent of the senate. and without the oversight of congress. we are not opposed to the

director per se. we wanted to change the process so that one person didn't control this whole system. the chambers also working to modernize and overhaul the registry system, including legislation, pardon me, to reform the permitting process and to update the administration procedure act for the first time since the truman administration. our institute for legal reform, pardon me, will continue to fight the expansion of an excessive litigation that is sucking the vitality out of american companies, and with it tens and tens of thousands of jobs. we are going to build on our successful work in the state and seek passage of additional state legal reforms. we will be engaged in a major effort this year to educate voters as they choose state

supreme court justices and state attorneys general. we are also aim to stop the alarming rise of third party litigation financing. now, this one gets me. that's where the outside investor funds a lawsuit in exchange for a share of what a lawsuit will bring in from the courts. this encourages the filing of frivolous claims. it invites testing questionable claims in court. it gives incentives to prolonged cases to get a settlement. and it rises, raises serious ethical questions, in my opinion. who does the lawyer really represent? his client or his investor? in our business we have dumb ideas every day of the week, but this one takes the cake. my next topic is a critical one. how to maintain and advance america's leadership as the most innovative economy in the world.

we are still number one, but we are in danger of losing our edge. we can maintain our leadership by better, by better protecting our intellectual property. everybody is committed to the. congress took an important step last year by passing long overdue patent reform legislation. this year, we are asking lawmakers to pass balanced legislation to crack down on a foreign website whose only purpose is to trick consumers. steal american jobs and pollute the vibrant internet system in this country. by the way, we understand that people are very unhappy about some of that, but we are going to get it right. we are working with people on both sides of that issue, and we will get it right. leadership, you know, is, as an innovation also requires that we reform our visa policies to allow the world best minds and

most creative entrepreneurs to stay in our country, after we educate them. where, in our top universities. they are going to contribute and succeed elsewhere, so let's keep them here. it's got to be in the united states. these reforms is just the first step towards the long overdue priority of immigration reform. america's prosperity has always depended on hard work, sacrifice, drive, and the dreams of immigrants, our future will depend on them even more. leadership and innovation also demands substantial improvements to our k-12 school system. a major overhaul of job training programs, and close cooperation with our universities to make sure that our workforce is

competitive and ready for the jobs of the future. finally, innovation demands and depends on a rational, efficient, and globally competitive tax system. if we want to keep industries here, and attract new investors to our shores, we cannot continue to maintain one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. we need to lower the rate as a part of a comprehensive overhaul and reform that broadens the tax base, reduces the costs and burdens of compliance, and makes this globally competitive. we must also, ladies and gentlemen, recognize that the current individual tax rates, as well as taxes on dividends, capital gains, and a state, are all scheduled to go up in smoke

by the end of the year. if this happened, the idea of getting economic growth up where we would hope it gets by the end of the year is just not going to happen. and it would have a devastating effect on businesses and consumers and economic growth. so i think here's an issue that we've got to take to the congress this year. there's one more priority that i would like to raise. the urgent need and it urgently needs our attention. we must rein in government spending, and bring deficits and debt under control in an orderly process. and we can't do that without serious entitlement reform. our states are doing it. the country has to do it. despite some progress in controlling the growth of this spending, we still will rack up another annual deficit in excess of a trillion dollars.

our total national debt has just surpassed 100% of the nation's gdp. that equates to $47,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. medicare, medicaid, social security are the principal drivers of this runaway spending. it's not malicious. it just happens. they already consume over 55% of all federal outlays, and without reform they will soon consume the total budget of the united states of america. all of us need to face the fundamental reality that the only way to continue these programs and provide them for the people that expect them and need them is to make constructive changes, and to do

it now. ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by underscoring that america's most pressing economic challenge is the lack of sufficient growth to create jobs, to expand incomes, to reduce government deficits, and to fund essential programs. the good news is that our country is superbly positioned for a new era of growth. we still have a lot of strikes, you know, and there's no reason to wring our hands or cry in our soup. we are the most innovative, productive, and open economy in the world. even with millions of baby boomers set to retire, our country has positive youthful demographics, and this will be a critical competitive advantage in the years ahead. we are home to the most sophisticated global companies,

and to over 25 million small businesses and entrepreneurs. america leads the world in manufacturing and service, and high technology and in higher education. we have unbelievable reserves of energy and other natural resources, and one of the world's greatest breadbasket. the business community is excited about building on these strengths, and growing our economy, and growing our companies. we are ready to invest, eager to compete, and we want to hire. we really want to put people back to work. in many instances, despite all the uncertainties, and the impediments and risks our companies and entrepreneurs are already forging ahead. business is leading the way and creating jobs. so the compelling question for all of us to think about 40 minute is what is blocking our

path to a stronger economic growth, to more jobs, and to better opportunities for all americans? there are some obstacles that will always be with us. there will always be uncertainties and risks that we can't foresee. but what we can plainly see is an urgent need for leaders in every second, sector, and at every level who are dedicated to meeting the countries challenges, solving problems, and helping america achieve her full potential. now, we all know that real leaders don't and can't ignore reality. they don't sweep problems under the rug. they don't point fingers. they don't divide us. they seek to unite us. real leaders understand that

americans can have big differences in philosophy, but still find common ground for our common good. this nation has always succeeded when we have worked together. real leaders wouldn't wait another day without trying to solve a serious economic and financial challenges facing our country. they wouldn't tell us that solutions will just have to wait until after the elections. leadership is also required of we the people. we can't simply point our fingers at washington and blame them. we have a responsibility to be honest with ourselves, and consistent with those who represent us. as much as we might want our government to balance the budget, reduce the debt, and cut our taxes, all while providing each of us with an unlimited array of benefits, we know that

that just can't work. it just won't work. the business community also has a responsibility to lead. we must not lose the spirit of enterprise, and risk-taking, that have served this country and our economy so well. and if government starts removing the impediments that we have long identified as stifling growth in jobs, then we will be in a position in the business community to start taking far more risks and making more significant investments. the business community also has the fundamental duty to stand up for the one economic system that can restore our nation to growth and prosperity and opportunity. and that's the american free enterprise system.

if we the business community don't do it, who else will? now, i'm the first to say, and regulate comment, that this is not a perfect system. but no one has ever found a better one. for lifting people out of poverty, for inspiring hard work in creativity, and personal responsibility, the generating dynamic growth that is broadly shared across this society, and for keeping the american dream alive for generation after generation, there is no better system. so as the chamber turns 100 years of age in this pivotal year, we are reaffirming our commitment to free enterprise. the greatest economic system ever devised, and the driver of america's greatness. now, we all know this is no time to sit and wait and see what

happens. it's time to live up to our legacy and make the right things happen. and you'll see us striving to do so throughout the year, on the hill, before the administration, in the courts, in the court of public opinion. and ladies and gentlemen, with the most aggressive grassroots mobilization and voter education program in our history. we passionately believe that it's time to stop apologizing for the one system in our society that really works, the american free enterprise system. and it's time for government and our fellow citizens to understand that the only way out of the problems we face is to drive economic growth from one end of this country to the other. so let's go do it. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you, tom. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us today. if you're with the press please exit the backdoor. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

>> live coverage on c-span2 will continue this evening at 7 p.m. eastern when the times columnist david brooks will join us. you interviewed jodi kantor, author of the new book, the obama's. she will be at the politics and bookstore here in washington. live coverage of that gets underway at 7 p.m. eastern. c-span booktv live shortly with white house economic council chair alan krueger. he is talking about income inequality.

>> the u.s. unemployment rate is at 8.5%, down from the previous month. white house officials are saying it's not low enough. the white house rock business leaders together yesterday to discuss what needs to be done.

in this 50 minute panel, a look at job creation by large companies. or does this include the heads of siemens u.s.a., caterpillar, and intel. >> things for coming in today. welcome to the insourcing american jobs for her at the white house to appreciate everyone's patience as we reconvene here from the opening of -- we have a great lineup. we have two panels today. full of both business leaders, and elected officials talk about their experiences doing exactly that insourcing american jobs, bringing jobs back to the country come increasing their investment here in the u.s. and have to try to make sure we set the conditions in order to be able to encourage that across the board as with so we are going to kick off with a quick start by having some opening remarks and direct a national economic council, mr. gene sperling. gene? [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's no doubt that even with the more positive job growth in unemployment news we've gotten lately, we still have a long way to go, and we are not close to satisfy -- this president is not close to satisfy. but it is important to note that we have seen in manufacturing 334,000 jobs created over the last two years. that's 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, what you'll hear a bit today, is though not only do, beyond the trends on job growth or unemployment for manufacturing job growth in the next six to 12 months, the analysis from the experts and the decisions made by the business leaders here makes very clear that there is a very sound and strong economic basis for a new optimism on manufacturing jobs, new optimism in bringing back full service and manufacturing jobs and a new optimism in america's ability to compete globally for the best jobs and services, and

manufacturing, around the world. and i think that you're going to hear from people. we had great experts, how from boston consulting group, james meek and from mcentee. hairy. but as you here, i think that if there were two things that came through very loud and clear in the president's roundtable, it was one, awareness matters. and i think that a lot of the message you're hearing here and where 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 costs of their location decisions, number one, and two, when you look at the long-term trends, that the economic case for bringing jobs back to the united states or the economic case for choosing great united states for your next expansion is growing stronger and

stronger. and asked how will talk about, it is very clear that productivity in the united states has continued to strengthen, 13% since 2009 come and that 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? for creating jobs and locating in the u.s. becomes stronger, and that for those making a long-term decision about what's the best over the next five or six years, the. >> host: become stronger and stronger i would also imagine, and maybe someone thing -- sunday you can discuss them with the recent expense with the tsunami and the global supply chain has also made people rethink having some of the more security but when you're selling u.s. market, of having more sourcing closer to home. so there are a lot of trends moving in that direction.

and we heard, we heard a story with a tremendous commitment to invest, the partnership with bob king, and the story of not out of jobs going to mexico, but out of jobs in mexico or factories, mexico, companies choosing to expand. my home state, michigan, and other states is a refreshing, refreshing reality that we're hearing about and seeing as making a difference in our economy right now. leo gerard, who's here, talked about very confidently about the ability of steel to out compete in china, given the chance. and, obviously, ensuring that we have fair trade relationship with china, a level playing field as a critical part of this strategy for manufacturing for exporting, for regaining our competitiveness.

and we heard from people like, you know, noble one and others, who introduced the president again coming from michigan i have to love the outsourced to detroit, but the national economic adviser, so outsourced anywhere in the message is also very good. but that this is about service, this can be about call center jobs. this can be about the most high value added manufacturing jobs as well. so that was the awareness side in getting more companies to go through the calculation that the companies there did. and i encourage 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. and the second thing we heard was that policy matters. and i think for the president it was very reaffirming, the policy direction he has taken and the policy direction we are going to take with more force going forward. we heard from, you know, intel

talked about the importance of the tax credit, the importance of making it permanent. we called for expanding last september, we will continue that call and the proposal going forward. importance of the manufacturing exclusion in making your location choices. the importance of the expensing. and 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 of corporate tax reform, that the incentives to create jobs in the united states, 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 activity moving overseas that is not necessary, or that while of course decisions that might be legitimate should not bear the subsidization of typical american taxpayers. of course, everyone understands this is a global economy. these are global companies competing for global markets. they are, of course, going to higher 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 asks 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 for

the country that has gone the extra mile for you? that when he makes that task, he is them to make a decision that is, 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 firsthand, listen firsthand to what the comments and conversation of the president of the niceties and vice president biden had heard today. and with that i will turn it over to our panel. thank you very much. [applause] an action i would just our turn it over to our secretary of commerce. and when i was saying policy matters, one of the things that could not be more important today was president now select u.s.a. i let the secretar secretary ofe to lead that effort talk about it. but even with the initial effort, two different companies in the room specifically mentioned that the select u.s.a.

effort, and the efforts 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 and excellent secretary of commerce, bryson to lead. so with that i turned over to the secretary. [applause] >> thank you very much. we owe it to you to be succinct here, and we're going to try to do the things we planted over a slightly period of time. i think this morning's session was so strong and so many of you here in the room, as well as the panel, had the opportunity to describe your business experience, the labor unions who participated describe their experience in working with the businesses. so i'm going to be quite

succinct 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 had the great opportunity to do that yesterday at the detroit automobile show. a number of you in this room where there. we saw each other there. you know, that's an example. by the way, not just a prospected but this administration has done, focus on enhancing businesses here in the u.s., and then those businesses responding and creating the u.s. companies great automobile companies, but just business initiatives, and then those from overseas, the automobile companies from overseas with whom i met yesterday. they are responding of course with terrific products, investing heavily in the united

states. so it's all things coming together. gene sperling talked a little bit about select u.s.a. about five or six months ago the president directed us in the commerce department to develop select u.s.a. this really is a key thing. so lots of businesses, and i talked with lots of businesses, i've talked with many of you in the room. one of the frustrations that businesses have felt is working really as clean as possible as efficient as possible across, not just one part of the u.s. federal structure, but across all of them. so local levels, cities, counties, states. and what we are doing at select usa is seeking to bring together the information about working with all these levels of government, making it as readily availed as possible. the largest of the country said

done this may find that not as directly helpful a smaller companies but in the manufacturing chain, the smaller companies are the suppliers in the supply chain, and they only get better in advanced manufacturing is the way things are going. and what want to do is just make this as clean as possible. so we'll talk to you a lot about select usa at the commerce department base initiative and that's something i'm devoting a lot of time with a terrific team. i can go over some of the things, and i'm not going to do very much, but i want you to do one of the things we're doing right now is training our commercial, our foreign commercial service officers. so the congress department, the counterpart to the state department, state department people have done diplomacy. congress department has done commerce. and so we have these people all around the world. based 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 we will do a lot. will do everything we can and we will listen to you first, but to facilitate your making investments here in the united states. that's going to be a constant theme. so we've had the lead responsible in the commerce department, for example, ongoing exports. so we have this five year target the president said aa to exports in the united states for two years down the road. that's going well. there are always challenges there, that now focus in addition, it is direct investments in the united states. let me stop there. i could cover more here part of what i express, what we're doing is we want to help businesses build it here and sell it

everywhere. and as you'll hear, for example, from siemens and many others, that certainly includes the companies whose principal home has been outside the united states, but they invest too. i heard a lot at the detroit auto show, they invest here. that means they build just u.s. automobiles, yes u.s. auto supply chain. but many of them export in addition from the u.s. outcomes all these things go together. so on the panel we have eric spiegel. you heard from him to briefly this point and ask him to say something more. brian krzanich of intel, incredible u.s. company. you know that. i'm going to ask him to say a little more. kasim reed, the mayor of atlanta, home to 14 fortune 500 companies which has been

particularly strong also in attracting investment into atlanta from around the world and hal again, who kicked off the panel display. had a little more time this morning, but work for the boston consulting group has done to make all of us think harder about this has been very helpful. so eric, if i could ask you to kick off, and they say to you what i would like you to do, please, is to expand on what you said. and i want to put at least as part of what you addressed is are the things injury experience 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 and see if we can help with? >> thank you, secretary bison. good afternoon, everyone.

my name is eric steele, ceo for spiegel here in the u.s. just a brief background. we are one the world's largest engineering and technology companies. we operate in 190 countries, well over $100 billion in sales. the u.s. is our largest market with sales in excess of about 25 billion. we have about 65,000 employees here, and over 130 manufacturing facilities. i think if you go back in time, siemens is always has been in the u.s. for over 100 years. ..

>> from the state of north carolina and also from various federal agencies in making that happen. the xm bank 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 they announce we've signed a deal to sell, export ten large gas turbines to saudi arabia which, of course, we never would have been able to do in the past with the, without the help of the xm bank here. and we didn't have manufacturing, we just opened that plant in november. but we've also had sales around the world since we've opened that plant. so that's been a tremendous opportunity for us. one of the things to think about when we make investments is the demand. is there going to be demand for the products.

because while having an export bids is very, very important to us, we also need to have, we want to be close to our customers, we want to see that there's demand for the products here, we want to make sure that we can do r&d. we always like to co-locate our manufacturing and r&d, we want to make sure there's skilled and productive labor, and the u.s. certainly has some of that, and we want to make sure there's infrastructure. one of the uses we ran into was there was a retired rail spur near the plant that would take the product on to, ultimately, be exported out of virginia. that rail spur had to be rehabilitated. people often talk about the infrastructure in the u.s., and i think probably 20, 30 years ago we had the most modern infrastructure in the world. but, frankly, i think the american society of civil engineers recently gave the u.s. a d on infrastructure, and we've run into it in a lot lot of ourg investments. that one's an example of where

we in the state had to rehabilitate a rail spur otherwise we would not have been able to export and, therefore, would not have built a plant there. we've also built two large wind plans, one in iowa and one in kansas. the one in iowa makes blades, the one in kansas makes the cells, and those both employ close to a thousand people, we invested a couple hundred million dollars in those plants. again, what's the reason for building those plants here? strong demand for renewables. 29 states have renewable energy or standards. there's been an investment tax credit in place that's made it a good investment for developers. but, again, in both those plants, different circumstances, we had to build a rail spur so we didn't have to truck those blades. the blades are 160 feet long, and we had to take it out to market to move it. and the plant in kansas we had to build new onramps and indepress and egress on the highway to be able to move these huge cells which are almost 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 is, as i think was mentioned early on, is overall is this a competitive, 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., the new plant we have in charlotte is as cost competitive with making gas turbines as anywhere in the world, and that wasn't true a decade ago. but we also look at a bunchover oh issues, one being -- a bunch of other issues, one being infrastructure. and i think that's an area, one area where i think the u.s. needs to make some significant investments. second thing is around skilled labor. we talk a lot about skilled labor in the u.s. and a very productive work force, and i think those numbers are true. but one of the things we found particularly in charlotte and other locations is there's a skills gap. we had to spend quite a bit of time and effort to train people

to do the kind of high-tech work that you see in this gas turbine plant. i think a lot of stories today, a lot of companies saying similar plants built today versus 10, 15 years ago require fewer people, but those people have to have much higher skills. so we've done something we've done in germany for quite a long time. in germany we have about 10,000 apprentices just for siemens. they go to local technical schools and community colleges, the equivalent in germany, they work halftime for siemens, they go to school halftime, we pay them, and about 80% of those people end up working for us after three or four years if thai qualified and they graduate. that kind of intensive program doesn't really exist in the u.s., and those are -- in germany, that's a program that starts with people out of high school. so one of the things we've done around our charlotte plant because we need to have people who can run this plant long term is we've started an apprentice program is with about 15

students out of high school, we help them develop the curriculum, and we're training those people. they're working part time, they're going to school part time in order or we have a steady stream of people who can be work anything that plant over the long term. this is something we took on working with the community college and, i think w the state of north carolina. but having more focused efforts, it's great to talk about s.t.e.m.. we have the biggest, our siemens foundation has the largest s.t.e.m. 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. but if you want to bring technology, manufacturing to the u.s. now, you have to have people who can work in the plants now. and that means we've got to start training people for the jobs of the future. if you want these higher tech, higher paying jobs, you've got to have the people who are trained for it. the average job that we're putting people into in that plant is $70,000 a year, okay? these require a lot of technology and a lot of skills. so, again, having very focused programs like the atrend

disprogram -- apprentice program we have there, we also signed an agreement with the university of north carolina at charlotte to develop a gas turbine and technology engineering program specific to the plant. there are, 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 that plant. again, the plant requires a pretty steady stream of engineers. so, again, that's a case where we took it working with local university, brought over people from germany to help develop the curriculum in the college to make that happen. so, again, very specific, not sort of hoping that someone out there's got a program that's going to give us the right people for those jobs. and the more you want to bring over high-tech manufacturing jobs and also the service jobs that go with these require the same similar kinds of technical skills, we need to make sure we have people in hand. it can't be something where we're develop l people in five or ten years we'll have that

capability. i think the third thing that's required that you talked about earlier today was around the manufacturing and investment tax credits. especially on the r&d side. the is kind of on again/off again with the -- oops, sorry -- with the research and engineering tax credit. we need to put that thing in place long term so we can make longer-term investments in research. we've got research programs going on with over 20 universities. we're doing a lot of work around cities right now, doing a lot of investment. we do a lot of work with the federal government on research and development. but we've got to make sure those credits are in place long term so the programs aren't start and stop. you can't do big time research and development on new technologies on a 12 month, 12 month basis. so that's really important. and then i think the program you talked about, secretary bryson, it's like the u.s. it is very difficult. we have a lot of resources, we're a big company. so putting together new investment for new plants like the ones in charlotte and kansas and iowa, we're also expanding

our light rail train facility out in sacramento, we have the resources to go and do that. but for smaller companies i can imagine it's very complex dealing with the all the federal agencies and state and local governments, making sure you're getting all the tax credits and incentives you can get, but also making sure you can get the plant built on time and on budget and have permits and things that export. very complex, and i think that's something that having something like select usa where they can really help you take that thing from soup to nuts, i think, will be a big help. >> eric, thank you very much. brian, intel is a jewel of the united states without any doubt. what can we do to help you in any respect make it such -- intel notwithstanding costs, notwithstanding obstacles has repeatedly expanded 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 still, we ought to be able to improve. we ought to respond to your presence here, your commitments here, the extraordinary work you do. are there things we can be doing to make it more possible, better, lower cost, you more competitive? >> yeah. thank you, secretary. so as you said, we have a long history. i think we are more of a story less of insources versus continuing to source our manufacturing from america. we have about 80% of our r&d dollars are spent in the u.s., and about 75% of our manufacturing is done in the u.s. although two-thirds of our product is shipped overseas. so we are a great story of really made in the usa. and the latest two projects we announced, we announced last

year two new factories we're building, one in portland, oregon, and one in phoenix, arizona, which will be about $8-$10 billion of additional spending and capital and bringing four to five thousand construction jobs during construction and, you know, a thousand or more manufacturing jobs. and as eric said, these are not the classic manufacturing jobs maybe our fathers thought about. these are 70, 80, $100,000 jobs that are good careers. and i always like to think of myself as an example of manufacturing as a career. i have 30 years at intel, all of it in manufacturing. i started out as an engineer on the factory floor and made manufacturing my career. and i'm proud that i run the manufacturing for intel now. the typical things that we run into as we said was it's very important that manufacturing and r&d, especially in our industry, be located very close to each other. we run an industry based on

innovation, driven by moor's law -- one of our founders, gordon -- and that really requires a two-year technology cycle. and you want that research and development right next to your factory. so the r&d credits are critical. when they are always in question and you're wondering whether they're going to be there year after year, it's hard to make the billion-plus-dollars-a-year investment that intel does. so that's a very critical one that we need a long-term commitment from the u.s. that says we see the connection between r&d and manufacturing, and we're committed. that would be very important. we talked about the manufacturing tax credits. we believe that we should get credit for bringing those jobs and making those investments. you know, our capital expenditure for intel last year was $10 billion. most of that, the largest percentage of that went into manufacturing. so, again, we are investing in those factories, and we have to continually invest.

the other one, as was mentioned already, is infrastructure. we often want to go build one of these very large factories in a city like chandler, arizona, or in oregon, and we can sometimes tax the infrastructure. we have to spend about $200 million in arizona, for example, on the waste treatment plant. and the city really can't afford to do that. to upgrade the waste treatment plant to handle their extra capacity. so what we're actually having to do is fund it. having some kind of joint program where the city and state could go to the federal government and we could work together to fund that infrastructure would have taken $200 million out of a project that's about two billion, so 10% of a project's cost. you know, and then lastly is just the overall income tax rate. you know, intel's paid about 32% income tax last year, a little over $4 billion. and so lowering that number could be beneficial to let us reinvest more into these

factories and expand our capacity even further. so i think those are the real big, key items that would help keep us reinvesting in america. >> brian, thank you very much. there's a lot of overlap, in fact, nearly complete overlap with the priorities that eric set out. so i'm not exactly running perfectly on time schedule here, but i want to do just extremely briefly is ask kasim to talk about the experience in atlanta. and if you did this very briefly -- >> okay. >> and what i'm going to do then is, because i want to preserve time, and we'll only have on the order of ten minutes, but i want to give those of you in the audience the opportunity to put the questions you'd like to put. and if i have to push it a little longer, i would. but, kasim, if you'd help me, you gave a good presentation on atlanta, the story's a really strong one. and here is part of what we're talking about, bringing the

federal government, local government, state governments together and in ways that make, that help. and often that may be significantly help the smaller businesses, but all the things that have been described here are relevant to businesses, and we've got competitively to strengthen the business of the united states. this is a competitive goal of the world, and we're not going to succeed. and perhaps most of you know that we are, we have been by one description the last of the major, major business countries in the world that hasn't had a long-term competitive strengthening plan. we've been pretty short term. so we have not dope all we ought -- not done all we ought to do in this area. kasim. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i will be brief. i think that my focus today was really what can cities do and what can the federal government do to be a friend to business.

and i just cited specific examples. atlanta's the home to 14 of fortune 500 businesses. and what i've seen is we can make sure that we're responding faster than we ever have before. so that includes what kind of incentives we provide, but it also includes making sure that the government responds rapidly when there is a decision that needs to be made that will create jobs. and to the extent that that becomes a part of the federal government's culture, then i believe that it will help cities' competitiveness. and since 80 % of our nation's gdp occurs in cities, it will help the nation's competitiveness. specifically, when we were recruiting the headquarters for portion north america which is certainly for indirect investment, porsche had never built a headquarters for north america before. but we attracted them to the campus at hartsfield-jackson

airport. 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. it's literally on the campus. but we took a closed automobile plant, and now we're going to build $100 million headquarters for an iconic company and attract 250 jobs initially and expand to about 350 jobs. we're 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 one-million-square-foot building that had been shuttered and closed, financed by german capital because we had

cooperation from the government. we were able to secure national historic tax credits that helped bring that deal to life. so to the extent that government responds and acts like it cares about job creation, i think that's going to be transformational. but when you have a deal, a leader of a city or a governor has to be able to engage the federal government, show that we have a real deal on the table, lay out the jobs case. and once you determine it's valid, act with the kind of speed and energy that i think is warranted when all of our priorities is job creation. so that's what i was asking the president and vice president for in asking the commerce department for, mr. speaker. >> kasim, thank you very much. all right. i'd like to solicit now questions, comments from all of you in the audience. let me underscore that all four

panel members are good candidates for responses to questions you have. so, yes, you first. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm annie mcclennan with organization for international investment, and we are very pleased that the administration is holding this event today. i was pleased to hear about your focus and thought for expanding select usa. as you know, the trend of foreign investment in the united states has been on a declining trend, and the thought of putting some real muscle behind a group like select usa is, is great to hear. i'd like to know what maybe some of the panelists might think of an idea -- as well as yourself -- about an idea that the jobs council, the president's jobs council put forward last october which was to establish a national investment initiative similar to the idea of a national export initiative. but this would focus on increasing foreign direct investment by a trillion dollars over the next four or five

years. so making it a national imperative somewhat like we did with exports. and so i would like to get the thoughts of those on the panel if something like that might be helpful elevating the desire to increase foreign direct investment in the united states and then if you could share any thoughts on that yourself, that'd be great. >> i'll simply start by saying i'll want to turn it to the panel, and then i'd be happy to say something after that. but i do want to commend the jobs council. select usa is an idea that arose in the commerce department. to his great credit, the president took up the idea. and the jobs council. and i think the effect of the jobs council recognizing the opportunity here and then upside scoring it -- underscoring it and saying very directly in its report nice idea, but you have way too few resources relative to what's being done competitively by the major

business countries with their longer-term and deeper and much more strongly-supported plans around the world. so that's, that's a very big thing. and i'll 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 none of you on the panel will want to take up the responsibility precisely of what the federal government ought to be doing by way of expanding resources in this area, but i'd welcome any comments from any of you. >> well, i'll just say a few words given that we have been putting a lot of foreign direct investment into the u.s. you know, i think one of the things i heard today at the meeting around the table and from the president was, and i think your quote at the beginning, the u.s. is open for business, i know you've said through the select usa one of your top objectives is encouraging more foreign direct investment. and i think a focused effort around that would be important. i think foreign direct -- about 5% of the jobs in the u.s. are from foreign-owned companies.

it's about before -- but it's about 15% of the manufacturing. you know, foreign companies are driving a lot of manufacturing growth in this country, and we've been one of the companies doing that. and i think the more we can let companies like siemens and some of the other companies like that around the world know that we're trying to encourage foreign direct investment in the u.s., and we're doing what we can to bring it here. because i think for years there was, you know, some thought out there that it wasn't the most important thing in the u.s., right? that creating jobs -- not just creating jobs, but encouraging foreign companies to invest here was a priority. and i think what i heard today was it is a priority, and i think if we make it a priority and put some muscle behind it, i think you're going to see a lot more foreign investment here. this is the biggest market in the world, and it's got all the advantages i talked before. and when you run the numbers, i think the u.s. is looking more and more attractive every day, so we're very bullish on the

u.s. >> thank you, eric. yeah. >> i think you want to give foreign direct investment in the u.s. a push, and i think you want to do it now because we're starting to get to a point where the economics continue to change in favor of the u.s. and so speeding up's always a good thing, you know? if you look at our worker productivity, it's amongst the highest in the world, higher than germany. if you look at productivity versus china, we're 3.4 times as productive as china. and seeing wages rise and other things. so it's a very good time for companies to think about u.s. as an investment whether it's u.s. company investing in the u.s. or foreign companies investing in the u.s. and as i said before, you know, we are a huge market and will remain a huge market for a long, long time. and when you think about increasing transportation costs and other things, the u.s. is an incredibly attractive place. what we are doing now as far as i can tell inside the government, and i'm not part of the government, but we're starting to recognize the need to do these kinds of things.

it was an assumption in the past that they would just happen, and we see with usa select and other kinds of activities the beginnings of pushing forward on these kinds of topics. and those things that china's doing, germany's doing, and we're watching up. -- catching up. i think we'll see an increased amount of investment because 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 just that much more expensive to make in europe. >> good. others? yes. >> mr. speaker, we applaud what you're trying to accomplish here in america and make this a place to grow and build things. i own a steel factory in baltimore, and like intel, we make everything in the usa. out of baltimore, we export to 35 countries. however, one of the things that hamstrings us is our tax policy. i compete with canada, and they have an 18% rate, and it's

declining. and that includes health insurance for all their employees. i, i mean, intel pays 32% taxes, i have a higher tax rate than that because everything goes through me personally, okay? and i have to pay blue cross and blue shield for my employees on top of the high 40% rate. so i think something that you could do to help us, president obama can do to help us is to make our tax rates competitive so that we can beat canada, and we can beat germ -- germany, and we can beat china. and more jobs will be created here, and we can hire and employ more steel workers. >> that's powerful and absolutely critically important. i think you likely know that the president is committed to doing that. now, a reality is right now at this time in this congress where it's been so hard to get anything passed may not be the most, may not be the time in

which this gets done. but i can tell you, i've been part of a very large number of planning dialogues across this federal government on how we can do that, how -- [inaudible] there's a lot of work being done on it, and i hope something can be done as soon as it possibly can be achieved. >> gene pearling talk -- sperling talked about how incentives for manufacturing should be a guiding principle. >> yep. >> i think he's right, we should do it. >> yep. brad, you know, the president also asked me to lead a manufacturing coordination effort across the federal government. i'll stay focused on that, gene will do the white house policy, but the practical kind of reaching out to all of you, i'd like to get your name and follow up directly on this issue. yes. >> can you do these in one

minute, i won't even respond. >> my name is paul, i have a company out of seattle, i just opened two new factories in the united states, one in seattle, one in chicago that will create about 250 jobs. but my experience is not in accordance with these mega billion dollar companies -- >> yes. >> and so navigating these programs doesn't really work for a company like mine. i got no help from seattle. i was under the radar, and chicago wasn't that interesting either. but i'd like to discuss more, like, echo this where in growing years my tax rate's approached 90% on a cash basis. so the other thing companies like mine could use that might be different than intel and siemens, and i hope you get a chance to hear us too. >> good. let me say we're going to turn right after this karen mills, who is at the back of the room, has just walked in, has headed the small business

administration in this, under the obama administration. she has done extraordinary things. and effective leadership taking this much further than had ever been done in the past and reaching out to smaller and medium-sized businesses. so that'll be very much on the agenda. karen can describe some of the things they've been doing. select usa is very much a part of the future with respect to this. so today with the next panel, and i think we can give more attention to that. yes. please, introduce yourself, and we'll do one minute. i can do you and one more, and then i'm going to have to stop. >> my name is jay -- [inaudible] the largest manufacturer of gsm-based patients and switching to -- [inaudible] my question is actually for -- [inaudible] i am an ex-employee of siemens and proud to be one of the examples that you mentioned

about going through school, siemens put me through university in boca raton where you used to have your telecom infrastructure groups. my question to you is how, why did siemens leave the telecom industry in the u.s.? siemens -- [inaudible] we have no more companies in the u.s. that manufacture -- [inaudible] and what can the federal government and the president do to entice these companies back in here and -- [inaudible] so we can compete with others? >> yeah. unfortunately, that was -- by the way, i'm glad to hear your story. i'd like to chat about that later. the exit from the telecom business took place, that was siemens for a couple of years, and that took place before my time. but i think with the new ceo, peter losier, coming in five years ago, the emphasis was really on reshaping the portfolio around businesses that

we saw where we could drive global technology and be competitive and things, so that was a decision made before that. i, it's a good question about what the u.s. does. i'm not an expert on the telecom market, so i really don't have much to say to that. >> all right. and the last one and my regrets for not being able to reach others, but, yes. >> mr. secretary, my name is george schindler, and i work for a global i'm sorry t. services firm -- i.t. services firm. we're very committed to opening up what we call onshore software delivery centers. we've got a thousand jobs created. both businesses here talked today about the importance of having manufacturing tax credits as part of that. what i'd like to see is or hear about your plans for potentially broadening those manufacturing, traditional manufacturing into other manufacturing like software development. >> any others?

with regard to manufacturing, what the president asked me to take on is not limited, it's not narrowly defined in any respects right now. it needs to be flushed out. now, we've launched the facility which is part of the commerce department, the national institute of standards and technology. it integrates, by the way, the entire federal government. so this, as i said s a 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. good. so thank you very, very much. i appreciate your being here, your engagement. i'd like to have more questions, but what i want to do, do we need to do something -- is the idea take a break or continue straight on? >> straight through so we can -- >> all right. so then karen mills, whom i introduced and i don't see right now but i'm sure will walk right into the room right now, she's an extraordinary leader,

incredibly smart, strong business background. and she's going to make a real further difference in, i think, for many of you, but particularly the small and medium-sized businesses. so thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> republican presidential candidates are on the road in south carolina this morning. mitt romney held a rally in greer in the northwest corner of the state. later today mr. romney goes to florida. at this hour rick santorum is meeting with voters in northeast south carolina, and rick perry is wrapping up an event just north of columbia. south carolina's primary is in just over a week, florida's is ten days later followed by nevada and maine. political coverage continues through all of them. you can see the candidates'

events live or or online at c-span.org/campaign 2012, and join the conversation about the candidates on our facebook page and twitter. a new book has come out about the obamas. new york times columnist david brooks interviews the thor, jodi kantor, about her book. she will be at the politics and prose bookstore in washington d.c. live coverage starts at 7 eastern here on c-span2. >> chris matthews on the attempted political maneuvers in a second kennedy/nixon presidential debate. >> second debate here in washington, nbc studios, nixon gets control of it. so he brings the level of the temperature of the room down to 40 degrees. it's a meat locker when kennedy arrives. again, he's with bill wilson, my source on this story. wilson goes racing down to the basement, finds the guy in charge of the thermostat. there's a nixon guy standing guard on the thermostat, and if

he says if you don't let me turn that thing up to 65 or 70, i'm calling the police. so they had another stand i've there, and they -- standoff there, and they end up compromising on the temperature. the whole idea was they didn't want nixon to sweat. the nixon people had seen him sweat profusely in that first debate, and they said we're not going to let this happen again. this is about who's going to rule america, by the way, and this kind of stuff's going on. >> sam donaldson interviews chris matthews on his new book on "after words at saturday night at 10 eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> back to the old executive office build anything washington where the white house held a forum yesterday on job creation. in this hourlong panel, small business leaders talk about what the government can do to help them create jobs. [inaudible conversations] >> well, um, thanks, and thanks to john for that introduction.

and for all of the work, um, that we're doing together to focus on manufacturing and now to focus on bringing that manufacturing back to this country. um, we have a great panel, and we're going to ask for some of your questions, and we're going to be, 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 what we want to do with large companies and small companies is give those folks who are going to choose to manufacture here, who are going to choose to provide services here all the tools they need to be able 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 at the sba provide loan guarantees. we actually had a record year

last year and did more loan guarantees than ever before in sba history, $30 billion. so we are all over the country working with about 5,000 banks, and if you haven't asked your banks about an sba loan guarantee, we'll talk about that shortly. another thing that i want to make sure that you are aware of, um, is we just were able to renew something called the small business innovation research grants. and, um, it has, was the first time in about six years that 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 sbir grants. it's $2.5 billion, and once again, this is for you and your small business to do research that will help you innovate here in this country. so we have an array of things including activity in the advanced manufacturing partnership designed to make

sure that entrepreneurs can continue to innovate here, that large companies, um, can have supply chains full of some of the best entrepreneurs. lastly, we will talk a little bit about supply chains, and we heard from some larger companies. there are opportunities for small companies in the supply chains of these larger companies as they bring, um, back production. and activity. and we want to make sure that those connections get made. so we have started the american supplier initiative. it involves, um, everything from match making which we do, we run the federal government's small business supply chain which is about $100 billion doing state of the art activity for the defense department, for instance. lots and lots of those suppliers are able to be available and are interested in doing commercial products as well. so let's get started in our panel. and, um, you've heard some of

these stories mentioned by the president earlier, but i think, um, harold, if it's all right, we'll start with the basics again being the fact-based analyst. >> it's actually harry. >> pardon? >> harry. >> okay. >> it's wrong on there. [laughter] >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> then how can you frame this for us? what is happening, and you said some things earlier to the president. um, we had just some of the basic facts, but what are the key metrics that you can share with us about how the economics have changed? >> i think harold covered that somewhat on the previous panel. >> yep. >> and so the basics of his message and the one that we also carry is that the costs in china and other countries, but especially china because they're the 800-pound gorilla in offshoring, that they're rising rapidly, that their wage rates expressed in dollars are going

up by 20-25% a year while u.s. employment costs are going up at 2% ooh -- a year, 1% a year. and even though they're starting much lore, when you go up that fast, every three years you double. and so they're rapidly approaching a point where their total costs will get close enough to the u.s. total cost that when you include -- let's say their cost of manufacturing will get close enough to the u.s. cost of manufacturing that when you include what we call the total cost of ownership, when you include the duty and the freight and the packaging and the inventory costs to all the products enroute, the intellectual property risks, the travel to go see them, you know, all these extra costs that aren't the case when you deal with your supply chain and buy from the somebody locally, then when the companies recognize all those costs, then they are much more likely to make the decision to bring the work back here. so as harold pointed out, our

cost is here, the chinese cost is coming up here. there still is a difference, and there still will be a difference in 2015 which is his year or convergence unless the companies recognize this total cost because that typically is 20-30% of the total cost, these hidden costs that many of the companies don't recognize. as an example that i gave this morning, one of the major aerospace companies i talked to, i asked them how do they make their decision about what to make here and what to offshore, and they said, well, here's an example. it sounded like a thousand-pound housing, and we have it made in the u.s., and then we air freight it to china to be machined, and we air freight it back to be plated, we air freight it back for something else and then back. and we're trying to decide whether to do it all here in the u.s., we only look at the cost of the suppliers, we do not

include the air freight or any of the risks involved. and that's stupid. if you're not looking at all your costs, you can't make the right decisions. so what we do at the reshoring initiative, 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 decide to bring more of the work back to the united states either to their own facilities or to their, or to people in the u.s. supply chain. >> okay. so, bruce, you've become now the poster child for an industry which everybody thinks is dead in this country, furniture. and, um, you saw your own family's business move overseas after it was sold. and then after years of being in that market, being in asia, um,

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're going to go home and make our own furniture, and we're going to put every penny we own into it. and she said to him last month, yes, we've done that. so mission accomplished on that. but he is back in north carolina, um, employing people. i think that you had, um, 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 over the subsequent years all that, all that 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 furniture manufacturers in asia. specifically in china. so i was part of the problem of dismantling a $50 billion industry, trumpture industry. furniture industry. and as the years went by, i saw the cheap, abundant labor in china diminish, and in 2006 there were, there were serious labor shortages in china, especially in some of the labor-intensive industries. and everything that's symptomatic of labor shortages which is poor quality, increased cycle times, delivery times were

horrendous. and that was coupled with changing currency and increased shipping costs. and then in 2010 i realized that some of the ancillary costs involved that my customers were seeing and they were starting to capture, it really made a lot of sense to start manufacturing furniture back in the united states again. especially the kind of furniture that i was accustomed to making in the years past. and when i got in this business in 1974, there were literally dozens and dozens of people that made fine furniture with fine cabinet join ri, and that has all but disappeared in the united states. many people don't realize what a fine piece of furniture looks like anymore. so i realized that i could not only make a very competitively-priced product, i could make something that the

chinese were probably unwilling to make. and i could make the finest furniture with traditional cabinets in the world. and i could do this with state of the art technology, and i could do this with an american worker that is highly productive. it was mentioned that the american worker was 3.4 times more productive than the chinese worker. well, i would contend when you get in these higher labor jobs, that difference shall's -- differential's much greater. so those were the things that went through my mind that gave me pause that said, yes, i can do it here again. and had the opportunity and the very good fortune to work with carolina trust bank in north carolina, it's a small community bank, but they agreed to do all of our equipment financing which was, which was very, very helpful.

and carrie had mentioned the sba -- karen had mentioned the sba loans. when my banker mentioned sba loans, i said, oh, no, this is just an onerous amount of paperwork. but he indicated that that paperwork had been reduced drastically -- [applause] yeah, it's really, and he's actually, here's a banker that's actually touting an sba loan because the paperwork was not, was not too much anymore. and as a matter of fact, this particular bank had done quite a few sba loans in the past. he was able to identify another loan program that had a 90% guarantee that was very, very helpful. it wasn't sba, but it was another federal loan guarantee that -- or, actually, the federal government provided the money for the state to make the

guarantees, i think that was the mechanism. but capital continues to be very, very difficult. when you raise equity in a private equity offer like lincolnton furniture did and you seek to sell a limited number of investors, minimum invest's $50,000, is it's very, very difficult. especially when you don't have anything to show them. but we did raise some money. and there count to be -- and i have spoken with karen about it -- there continues to be issues of capital, especially working capital. i think some to have programs that are available now you can get really good equipment financing, and we got all the equipment financing we needed, but then there's working capital issues. and we're not talking about money that i want somebody to give me, i'm talking about money that would give us a comfort zone, a comfort level and help us operate in a manner that we

would have to be always wringing our hands about the capital issues. and we're not talking about a lot of money either. we're talking about a quarter of a million dollars to a half a million dollars. and for a lot of businesses, a lot of small businesses like mine just to have that cushion would be a great help. so -- >> well, i thank you very much for that mention of the sba particularly. as you know, the president has all across the administration tasked us with reducing and simplifying. and i will say that when i got this job, my husband said to me, you know, sba, too much paperwork, too much time. well, now we are down from this much paperwork to this much paperwork, and, um, we have shortened all of our cycle times as well. so loan turn around time is in the days, not even the weeks or the months. so we are, i think, recognizing that particularly in the past few years there's a lot of small businesses out there with the,

um, interest in expanding, but they don't necessarily meet all of the criteria, um, because they've just suffered through a couple of tough years. we will provide now, and this is one of the announcements of today, a 90% loan guarantee on certain insourcinging, and dario gomez is here, i'm going to to e you stand up because i bet there's somebody in this audience like bruce who is looking for an extra piece of capital. we have a particular working capital line that we just simplified as well called the cap lines. and we have 5,000 banks, as i said, out there working with us on exactly this effort. and this is a place where government can come in and put the wind at the back of small businesses. mary. wait a minute. how many of you have, um, made a call to a call center and it's

been picked up, and you realize you're probably talking to somebody in this country? i don't know. recently, you've begun a trend. >> we've begun a trend. i've been helping as a consultant and now as a ceo of an outsourcing company that's completely on shore, helping companies come back to the united states. i'm a founder member of jobs for america, jim's also helped starting it, and we're dedicated to bringing 100,000 jobs back in the contact center world. it's not working over there. um, and i think many, you know, many of us have had a good call over there, but it's not repeatable often. and, you know, the reason call centers went over there 10, 15, 20 years ago no longer exists. it was the easy calls we first sent other there, password resets. those have all been automated, so what's left are the complex, problem-solving skills, the ones you need good communication

skills. and if we're having a hard time understanding them, just think, they're having a hard time understanding us. so, you know, there has been a myopic focus on next quarter earnings by the ceo, in turn a myopic focus on unit costs and costs per minute. and they're not looking at total costs of ownerships. when we -- we have an operating model, and we help companies show them how they can do it 15% cheap in the united states -- cheaper in the united states if they take all those costs into account. so the fact that they pay half the cost in labor cost doesn't make any difference if it takes three calls to get your problem resolved, right? i mean, that's real simple math. in addition, the handle time is 50% to 100% higher over there so, again, cost per minute goes by the wayside. that just doesn't make economic sense in an operating model. so there are many other things like if you haven't solved a customer's problem, what's the ability to cross-sell or put them in another product? what's the focus on your brand?

i think people have done a lot of brand damage by putting 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 that 4-10 minute call to be an emotional connection with your customer? i think you do. and so my company's dedicated to improving the customer brand, to improving the customer experience and long-term loyalty because it's really not about short-term, um, profit, it's about long-term loyalty and viability of the companies. so, you know, it's not cheaper to do business over there. our customers don't like it and, in fact, a lot of call centers have come back. 3% of all working americans are working in call centers right now. um, only 12% of call centers are offshore. three years ago 30% of all high-tech call centers were offshore. so they're coming back, but nobody's talking about it, and here's why. number one, a lot of people don't want to make, talk about the mistake they made, right? we have some people up here that, you know, have been

completely honest and said, hey, mistakes have been made, we shouldn't have been offshore. so the mistakes have been made. also they can't, they may have come back, but they can't say so because another division hasn't brought -- so they don't toot their own horn because another division still is offshore, and it would confuse the brand if we said we brought our calls back, and that's not the case with another division of the same company. and lastly, a lot of these companies come back because they have competitive edge. go ahead, leave your calls offshore. you're hurting yourself. so, you know, i think that a lot of people coming back, there's a lot of examples, um, and, you know, my cfo and i all the time sit down with companies and show them the new operating model, and we're happy to do so even if they don't come to my outsourcing company, you know, just happy to bring them back. >> that's great. i come from the great state of maine, and, you know, where there's this iconic l.l.bean

customer experience. and there really is, you know, a proven connection between the customers and because of those customer service people. >> well, the fact is, also, it's not a minimum wage job anymore. these, you know, what's left of those contextually sensitive, the average call center worker makes probably $12, $13, $14 an hour. there might be some in the 10-11 dollar an hour, and they go up to 100,000 for technical support and things like that, sales jobs. so they're not minimum wage jobs. in fact, we have in our center a number of people, husband and wives, that work there, and their family now is in middle class. they both work in a call center on the phones, and they're middle class. i also have four generations working at our call center. it's great for older people. they have great, mature judgment. i have one woman on the phones who is 92 years old, miss charlene, and she recruits for the army, and she does a heck of a job. >> there you go. >> so these are not minimum wage

jobs, these are harder, complex jobs and what's required, i mean, i mention today the president we need to get our high school graduation rate up. some of these jobs require college, all of them require high school communication skills, written, oral, hard-thinking, critical problem solving. and when i walk into cities and frequently i walk into major cities that have 50-60% graduation rates out of high school, i can't be there. so i move, and i select a city that has 85, 09% graduation rates -- 90% graduation rates. so we're going to have to think about being competitive within the united states, and we'll start competing for those jobs as they come back. >> well, that leads, i think, john, into some of the things that you mentioned earlier about work force training. um, i will say master lock, i mean, when you think about it, who has a master lock? you know, probably -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah. [laughter] and you're producing in if milwaukee, and one of the things

i think the president talked about, um, when he introduced you this morning, he said that you're at capacity now for the first time in a long time. and what you said is, boy, 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. >> absolutely. so i'm john hepner, ceo of master lock. >> tell the story. >> and we make locks. i know that surprises you. about 65 million a year. that's pretty big. that's a lot of locks. i always have the theory that people threw them in the ocean, that's why we make so many a year. [laughter] but our story is a little different. we're about a medium-sized company. we're part of a new york stock exchange-traded company called fortune brands home and security. and if you take master lock and you go back to the late '90s

like a lot of other companies as a matter of survival, we outsourced many of our jobs to china and to mexico. what happened back then is we had a facility with about 1200 people in milwaukee, wisconsin, that we kept open. we kept about 300 people, i think, at the time, and now i can say we're up to 400 people and growing. some of the challenges, i mean, you've heard about the economics. the economics are work anything our favor, and we're moving jobs back, and we feel good about that. and when you're a businessman and you're making those decisions, economics plays a huge role in the decision to move jobs back. and so we're seeing that dynamic change, um, for all the reasons that you heard today, and we won't go back into that. and some of the things we talked about today, well, what could make that happen faster? and so i thought i'd just share with you some of the challenges we've had and that we talked about earlier today is just our access to skilled labor. and that's something that is

very important to us. and we talk about skilled labor, we're talking about machine building, repair, electricians, we're talking about electronics people, we're talking about tool and dye makers, and we're talking about a higher level of skilled people than ten years ago. because the jobs we're bringing back now we're bringing back to a much more automated facility, a higher-tech facility than we had during the late 1990s. so with the challenges put in front of us, how do you go out and recruit for skilled trades people? there's a couple of things going on where the transition of manufacturing out of the u.s., a lot of people have lost their jobs, and a lot of those people were skilled trades, and they found other things to do. then 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 you've never been introduced to. so we've had those challenges as well, how do you get the younger generation, how do you get the students to want to aspire to go into manufacturing and to have

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

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

.. for companies that can't get loans conventionally, let's say they are not and a,b,c credit, maybe d and if the sba guarantees the loan for every let's say 250,000 or $500,000

worth of loans that are guaranteed, they have to have one registered. you can't get the money on your own if you are going to guarantee it, you have to contribute something to society like training the people that will help you or help some other company in the future. >> i think that is a great idea and it does tie together specifically a lot of the things i think we've heard from folks here. we were this morning we are dedicated to apprentice ship as well as department of labor that has a good apprenticeship program where we do have capital available, grants available. i'm going to turn to the audience for a set of questions and then i'm also going to turn back to the panel for a few more questions for them. yes. >> another call center. >> it's such a tremendous story and it's been part of the 2009

form. many suggestions that came out into action and create results -- >> i'm andy sullivan and i am the chairman of verizon for solutions and i applaud you for the -- >> she gives us a long laundry list at 2,009 things we need to get done. >> i think one of the things i'm glad to see here in this panel is the focus on the service industry. much of the discussion today we do know that 80% of the employment today in the united states is a certain sector role. one thing to consider, the first is as we are focused on trying to build skills there is a suggestion about building community houses. i would like to see jobs that we

take half of the 280,000 identified teachers who are identified as not in played in the jobs act and suggested they be scaled up to learn how to teach people job skills. in the service sector for the example we could take and teach those folks how to deliver those job skills and a virtual manner. what we are able to then is educate people without any constraint are around the bricks and mortar facility. they can be able to skill themselves up to perform these new service oriented jobs. >> one of the things i know you do and some others do we have a lot of home-based call center people. >> yes we have 22,000 folks today in the united states who actually do call center work from home and that number has

been since 2000 when doubled. we were 11,000 when we last saw you and we are now 22,000 expect another 8,000 workers in the united states alone in 2012. and so, the second idea then is to be focused first on the skills and second on the work. i would like to encourage the administration as well as the government at large to look at what is being done today that house a believe it has to be done in the bricks and mortar facility because what we are finding in the company's many of the fortune 500 companies today are doing is they are looking at ways in which work can be fertilized so the work can be placed on the worker as opposed to making the workers have to actually commute or relocate to a community in order to be able to find a job. it's very difficult for people

to decide. so the fertilization of the work allows us to actually move the job were the work that is being done to where the worker actually results and allows us to do it in a very creative and oriented manner by being able to form that work from home. that is the second thing i would do is look for ways to take people take what considers to be done in the bricks and mortar today and figure out how to virtue lies the work and send it home. >> i'm glad you mentioned the business case bringing them home to the united states and being able to do it 50% cheaper is the work at home model and i don't forbid this is about 40% cheaper but for the employee they actually see sort of a pay raise to the cost base at least six per cent or $6,000 a be a thousand if you think it isn't being taxed. >> not having to old bid yourself as a professional.

over 100,000 people expressed interest in being able to work from home. >> this is one of the things we see over and over when we look at entrepreneurs is that you can reinvent the way that work is done and how we do it here because technology will allow you to connect everybody secure. we can continually look for new opportunities. yes, gentlemen. >> i am a manufacturer from los angeles california. and yes, we still make clothing to the united states. in that business those jobs are coming back. like we heard earlier there are issues in china, there's a dropping will be felt over a year ago that we are having more and more difficulties we were

bringing out of china and we maintained some production in the united states and we have looked at how we could do more. one of the issues facing us, there's a number of issues facing us, but one of the issues, one is vocational training is horrible in california. the state board of education curriculum is every child does treasury, not many do graduate of california from high school will be trained to belong to a for your education not to become a plumber or an electrician. so we need that potential. we need a realistic way. we as a country have looked past immigration as an issue and until we deal with that, we have to work force in california --

they are going to feed their families some way. they are working. but companies like american apparel is a very large t-shirt company was raised and lost 5,000 jobs in the city of los angeles through the raid. there's food companies throughout this country that are being treated on a regular basis of your losing thousands of jobs. they cannot find a replacement to put back in. we need to be realistic and we need a work visa program that is manageable and realistic to the problems we face. >> thank you. i.t. you are probably following some of the immigration discussions as the president has put forth some proposals on that, and i think there is a lot of agreement that these are issues that we need to get solved. yes?

>> [inaudible] >> stand up so everybody can see and hear you. >> our company has been manufacturing products to the u.s.. we have the largest manufacturing in the country and we have been bringing jobs back to this country. we've been expanding in alabama. one of the big issues that we have is being competitive in the global market material we can't get in the u.s. that we are having to import and compete with other countries working in a free trade zones. i don't know if you still bring in some of your role material how can we bring the cost down to compete against international companies that our working -- >> you used to be able to buy those things. i have the same problem with decorative hardware i can't get in the united states. there are made in the united

states but very expensive, the same with decorative hardware. used to be literally dozens of the decorative hardware manufacturers in the united states and now there is none. so that is a good point. >> did you want to say something to that? >> we have some ideas about helping you with some of the sourcing, and also if he wanted to produce any of that in house call you might get some of the financing to do that. one of the things that you wanted to mention was the level playing field. did you want to talk about that a little bit? >> welcoming you know, there is a level playing field now. i feel like we can definitely compete with the chinese and with the other countries. it's going to be interesting to

see those people that will also take these initiatives and manufacture furniture again and other consumer product in the united states. one thing that hasn't been mentioned today is the furniture industry in china was heavily subsidized and always had export initiatives to sell products in china and chinese businessmen got very wealthy with it. those export generous subsidies and china have all but disappeared. but now they are incentivizing the same factories to sell products domestically so you get an expert on the subsidies that used to be for export and now they are subsidies for domestic. and that will really impact not only furniture but all consumer products in the united states here we will be selling china furniture there is no question about that asians love american

meat products and there is an appetite for it. >> made in america is hot. how many of you have sort of gotten that cents? yes? >> made in america means a better america, for sure. >> the ceo of footwear in oregon. it's interesting i had assassin fascinating day watching the journeys of different companies, and we find ourselves now in a place i speak on behalf of the industries while we're certainly for our company we have to do our working capital situation with innovation we build a factory in portland oregon and steel toed footwear to sort of expand, grow, innovate. last year we had 95 people. we went past the 100 mark for the company. we went from 95 to 102. but the challenge we have now is not so much around the dynamics that we are hearing about today.

when i look to the future to see made in america we are building in america how do you protect that? the industry because we have brands that are appealing around the world, brands like in our terms they are the big guys and right down to the very specialized brands and the notion of protecting not only the innovation and the intellectual property and quite frankly the counterfeiting dynamic is rampant and it is not just product for product tracking an item look like ours and selling at. there's the digital platform that's get set up quickly. the product gets to the market quickly faster than everybody likes ungovernable the as the obstacle course with the opportunity course just where we to do one thing and we look ahead and say we got hit with this and would be interesting to see what the small business administration can do once you've this and ten years we are

wildly successful. how do we protect that platform so there's a cost to innovation and the challenge here i heard you this morning on the software you've created doesn't take into consideration and made it the long-term cost of innovation and that innovation is operating. >> you want to talk on that? >> one of the -- have many of you have heard we are suppose to be in innovation country? the implication is we should innovate, dy campbell we innovate and then forget about manufacturing. in apple's's kasich 25,000 employees are in the u.s. and something like half a million to three quarters are in china making things and shipping them all over the world and the trade deficit so to speak. so if you want to innovate, the case has worked with in generally doesn't work well when you separate engineering from manufacturing. the repeated studies by the

harvard business school and like the reporter of the business school have shown if you get -- if this is how you used to be with engineering and manufacturing together and look the manufacturing come over here, the effectiveness communication, the effectiveness of the collaboration drops off dramatically and we have seen that with the cases where it's been brought back by g, in cr, others bringing it back and putting it together innovation works. to let the manufacturing go over here and you don't bring it back, pretty soon the logical solution is that your engineering goes over there, too to get the deficiency. and now you have neither of them and now you easily have nothing. so we think it is absolute essentials to be an innovation country we have to be a manufacturing country. >> i will say this is a big part of the advanced manufacturing partnership, which is universities from the corporate leaders and the administration working together on keeping

manufacturing doing advanced manufacturing and keeping the pilot stage of that right after innovation when you start to scale up keeping that here because it's really in that first scale what stage that a lot of the innovation gets well understood and codified. and if you are doing that somewhere else, then the final production will be there. but if that manufacturing process expertise happens here, then it is a foundation for the next set of jobs. so we are very focused. i think we can take a couple more questions. in the back. >> yes. my name is bill. we've recently opened up a domestic development center in walsall wisconsin, and by the way, education -- my question well, we are trying to bring technology jobs from going to

india and china back to the united states. my question is you stated that you believe 20 to 30% cost in manufacturing by having jobs overseas do you also feel that same 20 to 30% cost is in services and i.t. services as well? >> it's a lot more difficult to measure and more functionally dependent. manufacturing is easy to measure the duty and afraid to do because the six freed and carrying cost of the inventory. it is a series of things that are relatively easy to measure where does with what services it's a greater question about the relative productivity of the two. there are still travel costs to check on intellectual property risks. but it's -- i would on the subject of services in general i

would give way to the experts here who have noted that it's about a quote lovely costly offshore and domestically and the qualities are higher in the customer satisfaction as high year. i would be glad to meet with you after and start working on the project if you would like me to find a better solution. >> as a former co i will tell you it is the same metrics the same issues. communications issues are about what we wanted and we are going back and forth in the product and what we meant by izzie and it was more amusing and i.t. when i ran a major i.t. operation. so i think it is very, very similar. >> with to get on the two projects recently, the to set of jobs going to india we were able to take them to the united states and help spending in wisconsin.

>> in wausaw. if your offshore right now we're heading into this and activity in the call center what ever, the output and you can really make a comparison. when you shut everything over there it's really hard to tell. >> money man on the on-line technology services we do software development and services and stuff like that and some people work that goes offshore actually the same collaborative consulting work together. >> we like when this gets done here. >> we -- the problem of the assault is on sure we figured out how to retool the

underemployed workers and put them into the advanced software jobs like extremely focused deutsch camps and training. there's 60 million people that have been overshot by the i.t. economy. why can't we -- we of seen 22,000 jobs and i applaud what you're doing. can't we just get together and say so there's 3 million people, 3 million jobs that can be solved right now, 14 million people of working. so, just targeted efforts getting together being aggressive and how we give those people -- could we just send. people in these rooms will create 1 million jobs, just do it. >> i did what you are saying is

exactly what the president has said in this administration has said in the nuts and bolts are part of what you see happening around you. part of the pieces that come up to that is we have to have our small and large businesses, our supply chains connected to our training programs, our improvements in education and that's one of the things i have to say i hope you take away from today. he said this to me when you actually come here and see what's happening there is a lot of talk about what doesn't go right in washington, but on the other side we are taking a lot of programs that are out there and focusing at. now is the time the we have to be very efficient on doing what you said which is whether it is work-force training we have to make a better match between the skills we train for and what the businesses need. one of the ways we are doing it i'm very proud to say is small businesses have a much larger

voice. we are listening, we are finding ways to get the small businesses need and making those connections. part of it is the retail operation is happening in clusters come happening with our neighbors to the coming years, with linkages light the department of agriculture that operates in rural america and our forces, small-business groups, so we are -- if you see ways in your communities that we can be of more help from that we can facilitate the activity of your business to find more capital, find more trained workers, connect, get better, we are committed to being on the ground whether it is the select usa operation, whether it is hour on the ground operations that we have we have 900,000 small-business development

centers supposed probably within 45 minutes of your business and if you are thinking about issues that you have been growing your business, we want to make sure that whatever door you open in the federal government you can navigate your way to solution that is helpful to you. that's how we need to make government work in the 21st century it has to be seamless to you whether you are navigating from sba or the labor department. we need to make sure that solution is finding its way to you. so with that pitch, i will tell you we launched -- the president announced a while ago websites for small businesses and others the sba.gov. those are places you can come and put in what is that you are looking for and we can find more and more effective ways of come in connecting you to the federal resources. do we have a closing? >> one more. >> i will take one more question

and want to make sure -- paul who is a realist will be year. i will take one more question but before that i really want to say the president said gene sperling that the discussions he has had with all of you, the things he has heard from all of you you are going to be hearing that back because he really appreciated understanding where you are in bringing your business back to this country will take for you to do it and how we can be your partner. >> alladi teach at rochester institute of technology in love inspirational stories here the academic side of the wonders to what extent we are measuring what's going on. certainly on the good side the trade deficits and things like that. are there any efforts by the administration to start to

measure both at the macrolevel but also the individual case studies in our work has been instrumental. >> we have a library that accumulates on of the articles, all of the published case is about work that's actually come back. right now it has about 100 in a couple months it will have 300 will be searchable, sort of all, etc.. so we encourage first any of the media that is left to right lots of articles to push the trend and we can help you find the cases and then second, anyone who comes across the case for your company or otherwise to send them to be we get them all into the database. when i searched in the past, searched that and the web, you find the reported cases of doing this. now it is an absolute proof. it could be that they are just being reported better.

but there is enough happening in the enough of the contract manufacturers that i've talked to who say they are doing dramatically more today than they were a couple of years ago. so it is still somewhat anecdotal but the library would be the best qualification that i know of. >> on the contact centers i brought copies of my paper on all the metrics are used and customer sites and things like that. you are welcome to that or get it on my web site. is benevolent thank the panel and all of you for coming and spending time. christine and all of you that helped pull this together. i think we have greg for some last words. all right. thank you very much. [applause] thinks everybody. we have one final speaker who wanted to get a chance to come over and say thanks.

it's my pleasure to get a chance to introduce her. now that i work in the white house and the government leggitt the chance to see how a lot of things work in the policy side and the next speaker you will hear from is the person who makes things happen on a policy to make sure that all of our policies actually focus specifically on the folks intended to help small business and has been a part of our work in the portfolio so i want to introduce nancy who is the deputy chief of staff. [applause] >> i want to thank again all the business leader of the kids and officials who shared with us today and will the president and vice president your stories about bringing 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 and after hearing from all of you today i feel we can agree. throughout the day we have heard the the economics are clear that

locating in the u.s. makes sense for companies that are both manufacturing and providing services. the u.s. has added over 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the last two years and we've improved our competitiveness. the businesses that we heard from today are making the choice to start, invest and grow in the united states, creating jobs here at home because it makes sense for the bottom line for large businesses like ford to international businesses like siemens for manufacturing like master lock and like lincolnton furniture that is adding 130 jobs and restarting operations and a once vacant plant. these companies are bringing jobs back of locating here offers competitive cost structure. the ability to provide better consumer service and respond more quickly to their customer needs. at the same time we've heard from all of you that nothing competes with made in america quality and reliability. and as the president and vice

president mentioned today we are calling on other companies to follow their lead, to follow your lead and bring jobs back in america. the president asked you today and asked all companies to do whatever they can to look for any opportunity to bring jobs back here. we can from the federal government's perspective do more it should do more to accelerate the trend that we've heard about today and one of the reasons we wanted you all to come here is so you could give more ideas about what we could do to make it easier for you to bring jobs back to locate your businesses and expansion of your business is here in the united states. over the past three years the president has put forth and implemented policies like tax breaks, research and development credit and the recently signed trade agreements that several of you noted helped ensure that your businesses can compete. today we announced some new initiatives including new tax proposals to reward companies that choose to invest or bring back jobs in the u.s.. the proposed expansion to the

recently launched select u.s. aid program that helps build federal, state and local partnerships to attract investment to the u.s. today increasing support for the efforts to promote investment to the federal officials and export assistant centers in more than 100 cities. we've heard today that perhaps our greatest asset is our skilled productive work force and we heard that over and over again about how much more productive workers are and how much more vagotomy and over the last couple of years. we will continue to develop partnerships between labor, education and businesses to help ensure that america's work force is ready to respond to the needs of the futures. in addition to the great program highlighted by companies here today we are working with skills for american future and the president's job council to ensure that work force and skills training remains a key element of our economic strategy. most of all though, we thank you for taking the time to come here today because we need to continue to partner with all of

you men. as many have said one of the biggest barriers to in sourcing is a lack of awareness about the potential economic advantages of the u.s. so we hope that today we have helped china bright light on the potential economic advantages of doing business right here in the u.s. and then you'll go out and continue to be investors. by working together, we can address this lack of awareness, and we look forward to getting it done with the white house as your partner. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

in this place he will stand for all time monuments to those who fathered this nation and those who defended it. a black preacher, no offical rank or title who somehow gave a voice to our deepest dreams and most lasting ideas.

fifer former transportation secretary's participated recently in a discussion on infrastructure investments and economic growth. the included mary peters, norman

mineta. this is posted this miller senator. >> i can't believe we have this kind of warm weather at the end of november and we are experiencing right now. but, we have a great panel. these are great colleagues and we have had a chance to work with over the years and i'd like to start with mabey jim burnley since he was the earliest of the secretaries. jim was deputy secretary under elizabeth dole and then became secretary on his own right, but has had a great influence on transportation seen before coming into as well as in his post departmental activities and he's always maintained that

contact with transportation activities. so if i could ask you to start off. >> i'm privileged to be here on this panel with these colleagues and people i have great admiration for. i look around the room and it is the ultimate usual suspects and more about that in a moment. i understand the purpose of the conference it is to address among other issues but fundamentally the question of how we convince the american people that this should be a priority and that something must be done. we have done i think an outstanding job of convincing each other. therein lies a part of the problem. we are talking to each other. we have had any number of distinguished panels with all

the reports including the excellent report of the miller center issued under the leadership norman mineta this year. yet i believe we have a fundamental disconnect between what we perceive to be the needs and what we perceive to be the resources that should be the motive for those needs and what the american people believe. and i want to give two quick examples to perhaps help frame that point a little more sharply. on november 26, this last week, the "washington post" ran a lead editorial about the transportation crisis in virginia and focused particularly on northern virginia and talked about the various alternatives. toward the end of the editorial, this i think really remarkable. but it might mean for many

northern virginians to the new class is itself but without putting the question on the ballot in the referendum which would politicize a critical issue. in other words if we let the people of northern virginia have a direct say in whether we want to spend more money on transportation, one of the most suggested a areas in america who always number one or number two, that politicizes -- we all know what that means -- is likely to lose. that's what that means. and you know what? that in sight i think is sadly dead on. depue's center on the states did a survey recently in five states, arizona, california, and illinois and new york and they asked people in those urbanized

states to bring to if you have to make choices or you want to protect from the cuts rank case for a college education, medicaid, higher education and transportation. five different states, different regions of the country. i apologize i didn't get this blow up an advance. but i hope everybody can see. that is k-12. that's medicaid, that's higher education. and you see the little green box down below? 10% on each of the slave states? that's transportation. so when you ask people where transportation stocks up among the different priorities there is your answer in the five critical states. the survey also included the following with remarkable similarity in each of the five states surveyed the super majorities of roughly 75% turn

thumbs down to pay additional taxes on the transportation. 75%. well, i don't think any more reports or slick packaging, i don't think any of that matters at this point. we have a fundamental crisis, the trust fund has collapsed. we have the $35 billion in the last three or four years just to prop it up and it's about to collapse again as we just heard. there is a fundamental disconnect between what we perceive as a crisis and what the american people perceive as anything but. at least not one that they want to spend money on or make any tradeoffs against all the public policy areas. so let me role quickly to state why i think this is here and what our challenges are. these are the issues i think to be addressed some of them are being addressed but it is going to take time. it isn't going to happen quickly. the fundamental disconnect a thing has happened because the american people have become very

cynical about how the taxes are spent. every time as a state budget crisis in most states they see attempts to read the transportation trust funds and support those funds. with a successful or not they almost always see this. all the federal level easy but we have come to call. and congress is beginning to focus on that. and you know, if you are building zones instead of preparing burgess you should not be surprised of the people that become cynical over time. and then there's earmarking. earmarking has stopped as of last january. in both houses of congress. but the american people what suggested you deserve a and asked them is this year marking 75% or more would say yes.

that is a well-kept secret and what take time and continuing efforts to educate people about that having stopped but most importantly, it has to stay stopped because if we go back to the year marking we go back to what we have come to know under the no more bridges to know where then in that cynicism will simply be reinforced and the fundamental disconnect will not get addressed. finally on my list of things we have to stop doing as we move forward is treating the transportation infrastructure in the jobs program. it didn't work buy any conventional definition of what working means. we all know proposals that have expertise in the field it wouldn't work in terms of the short-term stimulus because it takes time. it takes years for that money to be spent and people to be hired. we need to convince the american people but we need to invest in transportation infrastructure

because we need to invest in the transportation infrastructure. if we sell that idea not to the jobs program but because it affects the ability of the economy to grow over time and the international competitiveness and all the other things that we believe, then we have a fighting shot at convincing the american people with the resources that need to be devoted to transportation we all believe it should be devoted. i will stop there and let my colleagues have at it, but i think that is our challenge going forward. >> i had the great privilege chairing the committee on public works and transportation and that relationship as the secretary and me and the

committee on public works and transportation command again, as the governor was talking about the partisan nature of transportation as a subject matter will only in terms of our relationship, but within the committee of the public-works transportation it was always a bipartisan relationship. the chairman and full committee ranking on the full committee, the chairman of the subcommittee ranking on the subcommittee, this would change whether it was highways, transit, aviation, maritime, what ever. but it was the big for deciding what bills to consider, even to the amendments. and so when the whole idea was coming along and was a wonderful highway administrator on the name of tom larsen and we had a great team effort going on at

that time and i will always be grateful for his counsel and advice during that process working on the white house as well. what we have sam skinner next. >> thank you. i'm glad you mentioned dr. larson who is no longer with us. he is the one person who was it in this room would be contributing. i didn't know him until he was identified for me by others and it took several phone calls and not quite as many as president bush but almost as many and before i got him on board and he did a phenomenal job and we should take that moment to recognize his efforts in transportation generally in what he did and had on his form a few years ago in pennsylvania. we miss him. well, i think that first of all i will get to say about norm when i get to introduce him so i

will hold that and get to see something about brought me in a minute. but i think what we have here is interesting. on one of the people that went back outside of the beltway and stayed outside the beltway so i would give you my perspective from outside the beltway a little bit. and a number of you can see that as well. jim got into a little bit. the american people have lost confidence in the ability of government to do big things and to manage spending in what is a sensible way. and in order for us to sell our program in the fact that we effectively do projects in many cases on budget and on time especially on highways the american people have to have confidence restored in government and in a way that money is being allocated and spent. until we do that, it's going to

be very difficult. so we've got to missions. one is to make the cost for transportation spending a second come to make sure people understand that lightly allocated government state to local and federal can spend money correctly. it's a bit of a model project. health care costs don't affect us at all. it's part of transportation they are going up by 7%. states are being killed with medicaid expenses and they have no ability if the public doesn't perceive those programs are being managed correctly. we talk in the state and local pensions. it doesn't affect us. we have a lot of great people in the transportation that do a lot of work. the problem is the program and the pensions and salaries in particular in the benefits that are being delivered in the state and local level is unsustainable and people are beginning to recognize that.

in illinois if we took one state, and a lot of states have these problems in rhode island and some of it has been addressed all of the increases in revenue for the next two years in the state budget of the will be required just to fund the unfunded pensions for state and local employees. and these budgets and these obligations that are being incurred are being curbed the state level and locals have nothing to say about. it's not independent control of these entities. mayors, city councilman, school boards, all are looking at the same issue to fund these, but that has a ripple effect. there still is a feeling in the defense department with the huge budget they have that is it really effectively do they spend money. and i'm not talking about war efforts. you can justify for a short period of time spending

200-gallon to the troops, but that isn't what we are talking about. there is a sense out there that we are not coming to the reality of what we can expect and what we need and are we going to deal with that? we still are suffering from the residue of a couple of projects that got out of control and with the help of republicans, democrats working together we got them back in control and thinking about the big day but before it started as a 3 billion-dollar project and in the that began 19 trillion. there's still that residue. fortunately there haven't been that many. but then it isn't meant to be we have projects right now, talking about billions of dollars people are going to allocate $15 billion for high-speed rail. the budget putting aside whether to believe in this or not, let's put that aside. let's talk about the fact that the project was estimated in california to be maybe

20 billion. it's already up to 90. it hasn't even come a long shovel hasn't been put in the ground and no one knows for sure what the projects are like that are going to cost. and the people in california voted for it and who knows, but the point is you cannot have high-profile projects with lacoste's without undercutting people's confidence in the ability of the american people to do it. the satellite delivers good projects on time and on budget. multi-billion dollar towaway project that's going to be a multi-billion dollar project and i that you money that when they are done they will have implemented that pretty much on time and on budget the we are not getting credit for that, so i guess the answer is no. one we have to continue to sell when it comes to transportation unlike other areas if you don't have confidence in other areas you should have confidence in

transportation projects and to pick out the billions of dollars letter began spent every year effectively chicago is doing in the jordan in arizona and arkansas, virginia, all over. they are building projects on time of budget that are really effective projects that are exciting projects, and it's being done with no intention whatsoever. so i think the time has come for almost a kind of to to the horn of the big projects and make sure that people understand that when it comes time to go through this very difficult time of allocating funds as tough as we have ever seen the transportation could deliver on time on budget with productivity increases and effectiveness. and i think that this kind of where i see the next hurdle ought to be. with that rodney is a man for all seasons. sitting in the middle that is

appropriate. rot me of course with everybody and he is beloved by everybody and or jam were married. rodney is a beloved by everybody and came in and effectively just did a great job under president clinton and continues to do great things for the seven ministration behind the scenes and i will say she is a good example of why everybody likes rodney. my son-in-law is the commissioner of the nfl. and it's a good job now but it wasn't such a good john a few months ago. it so happens that rodney knew when of the parties on the other side and said look, the of the blue and said i know your son-in-law is the commissioner, so and so is a friend of mine. i haven't talked about this but if there's anything i can do to help get this resolved, just call on me. and that's why he is so

effective and why he is kind of the loved it and i can now get the podium. i didn't have to take you on that effort. they did it on their own otherwise they would be going tied together. rodney and his wife so effective and got the view that i think very few people have. 64. thank you, secretary speed and secretary mineta, secretary burnley and mary come secretary peters all gathered. it's a pleasure to be here to be part of this gathering. let me note the presence of another individual who just walked in and was so much a part of my work of the d.o.t.. we were true partners in every sense of the word, and the was the case with secretary who was the secretary just before me and the clinton administration and i just want to acknowledge his

presence and actually some of what i want to say speaks to some of the points that have been made but they relate to the to relate to some of the good work that i think mort did as the deputy secretary and really sort of the coo of the department of transportation. let me just start by saying that when we came into office we actually knew we had a good piece of legislation. so i say that to underscore the fact that it's very important to have good legislation. it's important to have the money. we have considerable dollars as well. but we had just wonderful lustration and that legislation was drafted in many respects by norm who has been identified as having shepherded it through on the house side and san in the secretary's post and the people with whom they worked clearly the president and other members of congress.

what we sought to do, and maybe this is because we were sort of -- you do early on when you're coming in you recognize that you are not necessarily in washington and there are wonderful vendors in washington and that is the point i'm making. we hit the road with the legislation to basically tell people what we had the power to do on their behalf and with them in partnership. and i think that it was clearly in the spirit of putting the american people first, but was also an attempt to demonstrate that at the end of the day the private sector can deliver on many things and it is really the true engine of growth and jobs but also has to have a good partner in the public sector. and of the public sector through good policy and resources can be a wonderful partner with the private sector.

and let's face it. we came in when people were as skeptical about the government as they are now. and i think that is why there was a new initiative to reinvent the government and to cut regulation and to try to bring balance really between the management and labor and to take a sort of middle-of-the-road approach. and, you know, to really reach out across the dial. republicans and democrats alike. and that's just the way we started and the way the we pleaded from day one to the end. and during that period that's why i know it is possible now during that period not only did we raise the gasoline tax, but we also built on ice-t with he 21. and by the way, we have some enhancement projects there is a small amount of money.

i see some of those projects dedicated the craddock is there that is as supportive as the major multibillion-dollar projects those crowds are the same and it takes both of those crowds to help us get the message out i think. so, you know, i think that there are clearly places to complain about the role of government and how government sometimes, you know, maybe makes it a step here or there, but they are dedicated people in government, and we need to the public understand that. and they are ready to work with the public and the private sector to do the kind of things and the kind of work that has to be done to move the country forward. one or two other comments. i've never really talked about transportation as just concrete and asphalt and steel. i don't think that wins for us anymore. i think it one for us when we

had a dedicated source of funding and no one could get to that funding. and with every experience that a driver had where he or she started a vehicle and used gasoline, they added to that fund, and those resources were there for us. that cannot do what we need it to do. so we have to have a relationship with the public that goes beyond us getting together here in washington, d.c. and deciding how to use the money that just appears in that trust fund. we have got the hard job of maybe going back to a time when you had to deal with the needs prior to the trust fund and make the case for the trust fund. we've got to do that heavy lifting now. and i don't think the you do it with us gathering