Lower rates, address International Taxation in ways that currently but american businesses at a disadvantage, and allow for repatriation, but not simply empty out the treasury. And would generate enough revenue so we could pay for some infrastructure. Hope was that we would get some nibbles on the other side. To his credit, paul ryan expressed real interest in discussions and negotiations, but your previous speaker, mitch mcconnell, has said that he is not interested in getting tax reform, comprehensive tax reform of that sort, done. So theres still work being done. We are still in conversations with mr. Ryan, and i know that senators schumer and others have been working on the possibilities of a fairly robust ultimately you have to ask the leader of the senate, majority party, brought in to try to get this done. I understand why tax reform is losing, because those of us who believe in a simpler, fairer, more competitive tax framework in the abstract sometimes look at our bottom lines and say, that deduction is helping us pretty good here. Organization has been supportive, there are other business organizations in town that have some pretty Strong Influence over the Republican Party that havent been as wild on it, partly because their view is that the only kind of tax reform thats acceptable is one that would also lower all rights, regardless of its effect on the deficit. Thats just not something that is viable. We are going to keep working on it. My suggestion would be that the brt continue to encourage speaker boehner, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell, to come up with an ambitious package. What i can assure you is, is that the white house will take it seriously. We dont expect that everything in our original package would go forward, but the one thing that we couldnt do, and i get that what isetimes labeled as tax reform ands up just being cuts, not closing the loopholes, and as a consequence, its a huge drain on the treasury. We then suddenly are accused of running up the deficit to help your tax rates and were not doing enough to help grow the economy and help ordinary workers. So thats the one direction we cant go in. Tom . 0 thanked thank you for being here. Love to hear your thoughts on energy policy. Above, about all of the but i think what is really changing recently are Technology Revolutions occurring either in the production of energy or in the use of energy that gives americans i think a way to play offense in what has been a set of unprecedented challenges. Whats your thoughts on that . Pres. Obama i think you describe did well. Aboutch more optimistic our ability to get a handle around energy that is good for our economy, good for business, good for consumers, good for job creation, and maybe saves the planet in the process. Im much more optimistic about that now than i was when i started as president. A good example is what has happened with solar. We are not quite at moores law the but the pace at which unit costs for solar energy have gone down is stunning. Weve seen not quite the same pace, but similar progress around wind. Our natural Gas Production is unprecedented. Ive been very supportive of our beingl Gas Production as not only important to our economy but also geopolitically. Its a huge recipe for energy independence. As long as we get the methane discharge issues right, and i think there are ways of doing that with sound science. So thats on the production side. On the utilization side, all of you, there is not a company here that is not producing significantly more product with less energy than you were just 10 years ago, and certainly then you are 20 years ago. Everybody here has seen the power of tracking utilization, and timingwaste issues around when his energy cheap. O theres enormous progress , wevidual households now are able to finetune our energy usage in ways that we havent seen before. Then youve got the whole transportation sector, in which weve continued to make significant progress in detroit as well as upstarts like tesla. Theres still some Distribution Network issues around the transportation revolution, although Companies Like ups are doing a great job. Already experimenting with their fleets. So thats all good news. The bigsay that challenge now, if we are going to realize all the potential utilitieso work with so that they have a Business Model in which they are making money, while seeing this change in distribution patterns. I think theres still some legitimate Economic Issues that have to be sorted through. Its tricky because its a patchwork system. The second thing is, investment in basic Research Needs to continue. Technology is greatly improved, but we still havent seen all the breakthroughs that i think we can make with Battery Technology that would make a huge difference in storage. Area ford exciting development. Then, i would urge the brt and some of you individually have done this as companies, view the issue of Climate Change and the paris conference is coming up this year, as an rather than as a problem. Because this is coming. Lly. Coming generational if you talk to your kids or my kids, they are much more attuned to this issue. Consumers are going to be caring about it more and more. Im going to be calling jerry brown later today to talk about california wildfires. The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada is the lowest its been in 500 years. The flooding problems that were already seeing in places like just duringa, its high tide. Suddenly billions of dollars of property is underwater. This is coming. For us to be out and way of it to be out ahead of it and think about how our ingenuity and our science can solve these problems is going to give us a jump on everything else. There is a pledge that some members of the brt have organized around supporting a strong paris agreement. Id encourage you to sign up on that and look for opportunities in this. Companies that have been in traditional fossil fuel areas. If you know how to do oil and gas well, you can figure out how to do solar. You can figure out how to make money doing it. You can figure out how to create efficiencies that help your bottom line. What we try to do with the Clean Power Plan is to give states flexibility. Everybodys got a Different Energy mix. Down south, we approved the First Nuclear plant in a generation because we think nuclear needs to be part of that package. Believer that there are different ways to skin the cat on this thing. We just have to set a baseline in which all of us understand the direction we need to go. Instead of us spending a lot of time fighting science, lets go with science. We usually do better when we are on the side of facts and evidence and science. Just as a general rule, that has proved to be our strength as americans. Jim . If i could just turn back to china for a second, there are a lot of issues to sort out. Security, their ownings about tpp, their innomy, their inward turn the name of creating a consumer economy has had some protectionist elements we dont like. I think many in this room would like to see some kind of positive outcome from this summit as well that underlines our Mutual Benefit if we can figure out some of these things and find a way for the worlds two biggest economies to see a path forward as well as all the issues weve got. Do you have a comment on the youreguy in going to try to set with the president and the roles we can play in supporting both the managing our relationship as well as finding a future for it . Pres. Obama my tone with respect to china has been pretty consistent. It doesnt jump up and down depending on where the polls are. China should be and will continue to be an that we competitor, we are make sure that reaching an understanding with them about our presence as a but that it is in our interest for china to continue what has been dubbed a life. Ul, orderly it is a big place with a lot of people. We are better off if those people are eating and have and are buying consumer ands, rather than starving rioting on the streets. Ive consistently communicated first president hu when i came in office, and now president xi is, our goal is to have a partner in helping to maintain a set of International Rules and norms that benefit everybody, that in fact we are what facilitated chinas rise. They were essentially riding on our backs for the last 30 years because we were underwriting peace, security, the free flow of commerce, International Rules in the financial sector. Matured, whatve weve said to them is, with power comes responsibility. So now youve got to step up. You cant act as if you are a third world country and pursue protectionist policies or engage in dumping, or not protect intellectual property at a time when we are now, when you are second and eventually probably the first largest economy in the world. You cant simply pursue an exportdriven strategy, because you are too big. Youre not going to be able to grow your economy at the same pace once your economy reaches a certain size. There is not enough Global Market to absorb that. Youve got to start thinking about transparency within your own economy. And how are you setting up a safety net so that workers have some cushion, and are willing to spend money as opposed to stuffing it in a mattress . Youve got to be concerned about environmental issues. You cant breathe in beijing. And that spills over for all of us. Country with a powerful military, you cant go around pushing your neighbors around just because you write bigger. Just because youre bigger. Ultimately, you will be advantaged by everybody following the rules. I think in some areas, the chinese understand this. I think in other areas, they dont. I think in other areas, they still see themselves as the poor country that shouldnt have any obligations internationally. And in some cases, they still them ont when we call issues like their behavior in the south china sea, or on intellectual property theft, that we are trying to contain them. As opposed to us just wanting them to abide by the same rules that helped create an environment in which they can rise. Our fatesews is that ,re sufficiently intertwined and in many ways, they still need us a lot more than we need them, that i think theyre going to be continuing areas in which they move. As long as we dont resort to the kind of loose talk and namecalling that i notice some of our president ial candidates engage in. People you know. It tends not to be constructive. Bottom line though is, jim, i think this summit will be useful. I think there are going to be a lot of outcomes around things like energy and Climate Change, around improvements in how they deal with investors, that will show constructive progress. I think our conversations have been much better than they were when i began office. The one thing i would suggest two things. N do number one, when youre companies have a problem in help,and you want us to you have to let us help. Dont tell us on the side, we got this problem you need to look into, but leave our names out of it because we want to be punished kind of thing. Typically, we are not effective with the chinese unless we are able to present facts and evidence of a problem. Otherwise, theyll just stonewall and slow walk issues. So if we are seeing problems in terms of the competitive environment, in terms of protecting your ip, in terms of unfair competition that runs afoul of understanding the principles that have already been established, youve got to let us know and let us be your advocates. Thats important. The second thing i think everybody here should do is not fall into the same trap that we fell into around japan in the 1980s, which is somehow chinas taken over just like japan was taking over, and we are in inevitable decline. This whole argument, im just going to go on a quick rant here, this whole notion that were getting outcompeted, outthis, outthat, we are losing, we are nobody outside the United States what were talking about. Weve got problems. Our biggest problem is gridlock in washington. But overall, our cards are so much better than everybody elses. Our pool of quality businesses and talent, and our institutions and our rule of law, and how we manage and adapt to new and changing circumstances, and our dominance in knowledgebased industries, nobody matches us. And we attract the best talent around the world. I think its important for business voices to point out every once in a while that americas in the drivers seat if we make some smart decisions. Thats not a partisan comment. Thats just the facts. There is not a country out there right now, including china, that wouldnt look at us with envy right now. So our problem is not that chinas going to outnegotiate is sort of mr. Putin outstrategizing us. Anybody take a look at the russian economy lately . Thats not our problem. Our problem is us typically. In im being weerous when i say we engage in selfinflicted wounds like this potential Government Shutdown. Its unnecessary. Got time for a couple more questions. Good to see you. How you doing . Hows everybody back home . Good. [inaudible]n. Or earlier this summer, the expiration of the authorization pres. Obama speaking of selfinflicted wounds. Part of the ongoing discussion in washington, the senate has attached reauthorization to the transportation bill which is now at the house. On monday, the roundtable sent a letter to the leadership on both sides in congress, pointing out the benefits of reauthorization, that some of those get lost in this debate. Its been characterized as only benefiting a few companies, which ignores the thousands of people who are basically employed by our suppliers across the country, and the positive impact that has as well as it is a net generator for the government. We had plans to have further discussions later today and this week with leadership in the house. Do you have any we had a discussion with your team this morning do you have any insights you could share with us that would help us in getting that reauthorization . It is mindboggling that this wasnt reauthorized a year ago. Reversal inis weird opponentsprincipal are the Tea Party Caucus and the Republican Party. Bank has become this of, what do some of the president ial candidates call it, crony capitalism . I think some of you know the back story. They started this thing because they were upset about some planes being sold to a competitor, and suddenly this caught fire in the rightwing internet. And its just hard to explain. I had a group of Small Businesses ranging from four people to a couple hundred people talking about how they use xm. This is the only way they can get into these markets. As you said, xm doesnt cost the government. Not a money loser for us. Immelt orve to tell jim how important it is. I keep telling them i expect a gold watch from them because it seems like every time i take a foreign trip i have to sell some turbine or plane. I was concerned about the announcement that jobs that were here in the United States are going overseas because we dont get this done. That is true for the supply chain. It is also true for some Smaller Companies that use xm directly. Its not just that they are part of the ge or boeing supply chain. Ea to ae selling t country and this is the only mechanism they have to make those sales. The good news is, mcconnell and boehner both say they want to get it done. Shown said, we already there are sufficient votes for it in the senate, and we actually think theres sufficient votes in the house. I would concentrate your attention on House Republican caucus members. I think you have to flood the zone and let them know this is important. And that includes, by the way, talking to individual members who, in their districts, potentially have companies being adversely affected as long as xm is frozen. My expectation is it gets done during the course of these budget negotiations. And we are going to push as hard as we can to get it there. [inaudible] one of the issues that we deal with, regulation. That thee areas Business Roundtable is focused on these days is the ozone rule, which your administration will be coming out with a recognition associated with that. The Business Roundtable position is that we need to maintain the 75 parts per million, and when communities are already advancing for the 75 goal, if you lower it to 70, thats going to introduce another 200 counties in this country into nonattainment, which is basically we are not open for business. Do you have any thoughts on that . Pres. Obama theres a lot of complicated technical issues involved in this, but ill try to simplify it as much as possible. Number one, we are under a court order to do this. I think there may be a misperception that the epa can do whatever it wants here. Broughtre lawsuits under the Previous Administration that continued into my administration. We went before a judge. We actually, i think properly got some additional time because there was a notion that we are going to lower standards a few years ago, and then immediately get new data and force everybody to lower them all over again. We said, lets just do this one time in a sensible way so that people can plan. Weve got some legal constraints. This is not something that just popped out of my head fullblown. So i always enjoy seeing the advertising there are stringent guidelines by which the epa is supposed to evaluate standards. The epa is funneling following the science and statutes as best they can. We are mindful that in some cases, because of the nature of where pollutants are generated, this can create a complicated situation for a certain local jurisdictions and communities. Some states and counties are get worse and worse worse than others. To work with those states and communities as best as we can, taking those concerns into account. Is you canline legitimately go after me on the Clean Power Plant role role. That was hatched by us, i believ