Taking action,

building confidence

FIVE COMMON-SENSE INITIATIVES TO

BOOST JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL

ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS

www.jobs-council.com

INTERIM REPORT
4 Introduction

6 An Update on the Job Council’s June 

Recommendations

8 How the Council Has Been Working/

Listening & Action Sessions

INITIATIVE 1

10 Invest Aggressively and Efficiently 

in Cutting-Edge Infrastructure and Energy

INITIATIVE 2

17 Nurture the High-Growth Enterprises 

that Create New Jobs

INITIATIVE 3

23 A National Investment Initiative

INITIATIVE 4

26 Simplify Regulatory Review and

Streamline Project Approvals 

INITIATIVE 5

31 Develop Talent to Fill Today’s Jobs

and Fuel Growth

36 Aspirations

38 Appendices

46 Council Members

48 Sources

www.jobs-council.com
Almost four years after the onset of the worst 

recession since the Great Depression, job 

growth is not nearly what it needs to be to 

return the nation to full employment. At the same 

time, leaders in business, government, labor and 

civil society have expressed growing concerns about 

America’s ability to compete effectively in the global 

economy. President Obama convened the Council on 

Jobs and Competitiveness earlier this year to bring fresh 

perspective and momentum to these questions, asking 

leaders from business, labor and academia to develop 

ideas that will accelerate job growth and improve the 

country’s long-term position. 

In June we presented a set of initial ideas that could 

spur new hiring immediately. The Administration has 

already begun to act on these ideas. Since June, while 

national policymakers have focused on macroeconomic 

challenges, the Council’s aim has been to identify and 

unlock pockets of growth that can build on a stable 

macroeconomic context and speed job creation over a 

two- to five-year period. 

The Council believes there is no one “silver bullet” on 

jobs. We therefore offer in this Interim Report a series of 

practical proposals that can meaningfully accelerate job 

creation over the next five years as part of the nation’s 

overall jobs agenda. Our recommendations are grouped 

into five initiatives: 

1 Measures to accelerate investment into job-rich projects in infrastructure and energy development;

2 A comprehensive drive to ignite entrepreneurship 

and accelerate the number and scale of young, small 

businesses and high-growth firms that produce an 

outsized share of America’s new jobs; 

3 A national investment initiative to boost jobscreating inward investment in the United States, both 

from global firms headquartered elsewhere and from 

multinational corporations headquartered here;

4 Ideas to simplify regulatory review and streamline 

project approvals to accelerate jobs and growth; 

and,

5 Steps to ensure America has the talent in place to fill 

existing job openings and boost future job creation.

Restoring American confidence through reliable job 

growth in the near-term is essential. But the longerterm economic challenges the nation faces are equally 

serious. In December, the Council will deliver a report 

addressing the broader factors that underpin national 

competitiveness. Our plan will be to sound the alarm. In 

a global era, America’s future prosperity and the strength 

of our middle class requires us to be far more strategic 

and effective when it comes to the key determinants 

of economic strength: education and training; respect 

for workers’ rights; tax policy; energy policy; research 

and development; manufacturing prowess; fiscal and 

financial stability; and more. If we fail to reverse today’s 

troubling long-term trends, our children’s standard of 

living will erode. 

Despite the hard times and anxieties that too many 

Americans now face, Council members are united in 

their conviction that America’s best days lie ahead. But we 

need a sense of urgency and a bias for action. When 25 

million Americans who want full-time work can’t find it, 

each of us has a duty to think and act differently. We owe 

it to our fellow citizens desperate to get back to work to 

act on these common-sense ideas without delay. 

Executive Summary
4 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Almost four years after the onset of the worst recession since the Great Depression, 

job growth is not nearly what it needs to be to return the nation to full employment. 

A weak labor market and the debt hangover faced by families, financial firms and 

governments, along with recent troubles in Europe, Japan and energy markets worldwide, 

have made this recovery more challenging than previous ones, and it calls for a wider range 

of responses. At the same time, leaders in business, government, labor and civil society have 

expressed growing concerns about America’s ability to compete effectively in the global 

economy. To inject fresh perspective and momentum into the search for solutions, President 

Obama convened the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness earlier this year, asking leaders 

from business, labor and academia to develop ideas to accelerate job growth and improve 

the country’s long-term position. 

Introduction 

The Council has pursued a three-phase approach to its work: 

catalyzing job growth by capturing “low-hanging fruit” over 

the short-term; focusing on broader ways to accelerate job 

creation while also lifting U.S. competitiveness over the next 

two to five years; and developing proposals on the broader 

factors influencing American competitiveness over the next 

five to 10 years. 

In June, the Council presented its first set of ideas to spur 

new hiring immediately. It included ways to cut red tape 

that bogs down big infrastructure projects and deters readyto-spend tourists from reaching our shores. Indeed, when 

flocks of tourists from rising economies like Brazil or China 

go elsewhere because it can take months of arduous effort 

to get a U.S. visa, that’s emblematic of the barriers to job 

creation that common-sense reforms can quickly address. 

The Administration has already begun to act on these early 

ideas. (See “Update on Council’s June Recommendations.”)

Since June, while national policymakers have focused on 

macroeconomic challenges—including the forces affecting 

aggregate demand and consumer behavior as well as related 

questions of federal and state fiscal policy—the Council’s 

aim has been to identify and unlock pockets of growth 

that can speed job creation over a two- to five-year period. 

In particular, we looked for opportunities to change the 

trajectory of jobs growth by bolstering the institutions that 

shape the nation’s underlying competitiveness. 
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 5

The Council believes there is no one “silver bullet” to create 

jobs. We’ve therefore sought to generate multiple ideas that 

together can add up to real progress. We’ve identified and 

prioritized many areas that don’t depend on major legislative 

action or government funding. As a nonpartisan group, we’ve 

also steered clear of the fights that invariably swirl around the 

nation’s current economic strains. The Council offers in this 

report a series of targeted proposals that can meaningfully 

accelerate job creation while beginning to rebuild America’s 

competitiveness.*

These job creation “business plans” can serve as another 

critical plank in the nation’s overall jobs agenda. Many of 

these opportunities can be captured quickly—if the public 

and private sectors act in tandem to seize the initiative. To help 

jumpstart such efforts and build momentum, the Council is 

launching initiatives in several critical areas, from training 

workers for advanced manufacturing jobs to boosting the 

supply of engineers. As their impact is proven, policymakers 

can expand these initiatives nationwide.

Restoring American confidence through job growth in 

the near-term is essential. But the longer-term economic 

challenges the nation faces are equally serious. In December, 

the Council will deliver a year-end report addressing the 

broader factors that underpin national competitiveness. Our 

plan will be to sound the alarm. In an era of global economic 

competition, America’s future prosperity and the strength 

of our middle class require us to be far more strategic and 

effective when it comes to the key determinants of economic 

strength: education and training; respect for workers’ 

rights; tax policy; energy policy; research and development; 

manufacturing prowess; fiscal and financial stability; and 

more. If we fail to reverse today’s troubling long-term trends, 

our children’s standard of living will erode. 

This Interim Report highlights the Council’s recommendations to unlock vital pockets of job growth over the next 

several years.† Many of our proposals can be private-sector 

led, or require only modest government funding; others 

fit within existing programs.‡ They fall into five major 

initiatives to increase employment while improving competitiveness. They are:

1 Measures to accelerate investment into job-rich 

projects in infrastructure and energy development;

2 A comprehensive drive to ignite entrepreneurship and 

accelerate the number and scale of young, small businesses and high-growth firms that produce an outsized share of America’s new jobs;

3 A national investment initiative to boost jobscreating inward investment in the United States, both 

from global firms headquartered elsewhere and from 

multinational corporations headquartered here;

4 Ideas to simplify regulatory review and streamline 

project approvals to accelerate jobs and growth; and, 

5 Steps to ensure America has the talent in place to 

fill existing job openings as well as to boost future 

job creation.

Despite the hard times and anxieties that too many Americans 

now face, Council members are united in their conviction that 

America’s best days lie ahead. But we need a sense of urgency 

and a bias for action. We won’t make progress together unless 

each of us is willing to change. As you’ll learn from this report, 

when it comes to accelerating a siting permit or issuing visas, 

there are always a hundred reasons to delay action. But there 

are 25 million other reasons to act now. When 25 million 

Americans who want full-time work can’t find it, each of us 

has a duty to think and act differently. 

These are not ordinary times. We owe it to our fellow citizens 

desperate to get back to work to act on these common-sense 

ideas without delay. 

INTRODUCTION

We need a sense 

of urgency and a bias 

for action.”

* Estimating the jobs impact of various proposals is a challenge; economists offer ranges of estimates that depend on any number of complex factors and 

scenarios, and changing macro-economic conditions can swamp the impact of any targeted initiative. The Council’s initial analysis is encouraging, and it suggests 

our proposals have the potential to create millions of jobs in the years ahead while improving America’s competitive standing. The Council aims to advance the 

debate and accelerate action on a set of concrete ideas that we know will make a meaningful difference on jobs. At times in the pages that follow, we will show the 

results of external estimates that indicate the rough scale of the opportunity.

† In a diverse Council made up of 27 leaders, not every member agrees on every detail of the recommendations that follow. Council members are united behind 

the overriding theme of this report: the nation needs to urgently tackle the jobs crisis, and the ideas presented here can be a vital piece of the agenda that moves 

us forward.

‡ In our year-end report the Council expects to offer further details on proposed public investments.
6 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

At the direction of the President, Chief Performance Officer 

and Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget Jeff Zients and Government Reform for 

Competitiveness and Innovation Initiative Executive Director Lisa Brown have led the Administration’s work to analyze 

and, wherever possible, implement the recommendations the 

Jobs Council presented to the President at our meeting with 

him on June 13, 2011, in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. 

In some cases, the Council brought new ideas to the Administration; in others, we recommended accelerating initiatives 

already underway. Working together, the Council and the 

Administration have made significant progress. 

Expediting high-priority 

infrastructure projects

The Council recommended that the Administration 

streamline environmental permitting, and, in particular, that 

it select projects with significant near-term jobs impact for 

expedited review. In direct response to this recommendation, 

on August 31 the President directed federal agencies to 

expedite infrastructure projects with significant jobs-creating 

potential; launch a pilot dashboard to track progress on 

those projects; and pilot additional online tools to reduce 

the cost and improve the speed of environmental permitting. 

By helping to launch major construction projects faster and 

more efficiently, these efforts will have a direct impact on new 

job creation.

Independent agency 

regulatory lookback

Spurred by the Council’s recommendation, on July 11 the 

President signed an Executive Order asking independent 

agencies to develop plans to reassess and streamline their 

existing regulations, and to make those plans public. This 

process will remove outdated and inefficient regulations and 

spur job growth while effectively protecting the public welfare. At the Council’s urging, the Administration has also prioritized implementing changes that benefit small businesses 

and spur job growth in the ongoing review and streamlining 

of executive branch regulations. 

Supporting small-business growth

The Council recommended creating a “one-stop shop“ for 

small businesses and increasing liquidity for small-business 

government contractors. Both recommendations matched 

efforts underway within the Administration and provided 

momentum to accelerate the work. During his speech before 

Congress on September 8th, the President announced 

the launch of BusinessUSA, a virtual one-stop shop for 

information relevant to small businesses. Rather than having 

to navigate a web of separate agencies, these businesses will 

be able to visit one on-line entity to find out how to apply for 

loans, get critical information on exporting, identify potential 

contracting opportunities, and obtain other information on 

government services and opportunities that will help them 

grow and thrive. On September 14, 2011, the President also 

announced that the Administration will accelerate payments 

to small-business government contractors, a Council 

recommendation that will, in many cases, cut payment time 

in half, getting money into the hands of small businesses 

faster so they can reinvest that money in the economy and 

drive job growth.

Increasing travel and tourism

The Council recommended increasing U.S. travel and 

tourism to spur job growth. The Council has focused 

primarily on two key areas: promoting travel to the United 

States and accelerating visa processing. The Council and 

the White House team have been working closely with the 

Corporation for Travel Promotion, a new public-private 

partnership dedicated to promoting travel to the United 

Update on the Job Council’s 

June Recommendations
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 7

States, to accelerate its launch plans. The Corporation, 

which was created by the Travel Promotion Act signed 

into law by the President in 2010, is ramping up and will 

be fully operational for the 2012 travel season. To date, the 

Corporation has received more than $10 million in privatesector commitments. The Council has leveraged its deep 

private-sector expertise and network to attract a group of 

high-level chief marketing officers from travel-industry 

companies who can provide advice that will help inform 

the Corporation’s strategic priorities and maximize critical 

private sector participation. 

In addition, the Council has also been working closely with 

the State Department to accelerate visa processing—

particularly in fast-growing countries such as China and 

Brazil, where demand currently outstrips processing 

capacity—while protecting our national security. Due 

to increased staffing and better use of facilities, the 

Administration has already made significant progress. The 

State Department has increased visa processing in China and 

Brazil by 30%. Nevertheless, the Administration is working to 

achieve at least another 40% increase in visa adjudications in 

these countries in 2012. The Council, meanwhile, continues 

to work with the State Department and the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) to identify further opportunities 

to accelerate visa processing. 

Streamlining the EB-5 Immigrant 

Investors Program

The Administration is working to improve and leverage the 

EB-5 immigrant investor visa program, another Council 

recommendation. DHS’ Citizen and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) is enhancing the program by creating specialized 

review teams with business expertise, engaging re-engineering experts to streamline the process, launching a premium 

processing service and evaluating additional options for maximizing the program’s potential.

Promoting foreign direct investment

The Administration has moved forward to promote foreign 

direct investment in this country, as recommended by the 

Council. Earlier this year, on June 15, the President established SelectUSA, an office in the Department of Commerce 

tasked with coordinating government-wide efforts to attract 

and retain investment in the American economy. One of the 

office’s key roles is to serve as an ombudsman to facilitate 

the resolution of issues involving federal programs or activities related to pending investments. In addition, the President made a formal statement five days later that reaffirmed 

the nation’s commitment to an open-investment policy, 

highlighting the importance of inbound investment to the 

U.S. economy. On October 7, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a session with Council members that focused on 

increasing inbound foreign direct investment. 

Better Buildings Initiative

On June 30, the Council and Administration officials 

announced an initial 14 commitments to the Better Buildings Challenge, which is part of the Better Buildings Initiative 

launched by the President in February to catalyze privatesector investment in commercial building upgrades and make 

America’s commercial buildings 20% more efficient over the 

next decade. In close coordination, the Administration and 

the Council have launched the next phase of the Better Buildings Challenge: obtaining energy efficiency retrofitting commitments of $2 billion in financing and 1 billion in square 

feet by November. This effort will effectively put workers in 

the hard-hit construction industry back to work.

Streamlining the medical 

device approval process

The Council has worked closely with the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) on ways to improve the medical device 

approval process. The FDA is currently engaged in a major 

initiative to streamline and improve the approval process, and 

the Council has worked with the White House to facilitate 

private-sector input into the analysis.

Enhancing the patent process

On September 16, the President signed the America Invents 

Act, legislation that will improve the quality and efficiency 

of the patent system. Building on the Patent Office’s success in improving productivity, the new legislation will 

enable the Patent Office to further reduce backlog and 

expedite the approval process consistent with the Council’s 

recommendations. 

Update on june’s recommendations
8 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

As it developed recommendations, the Council wanted to 

collect as much feedback as possible from actual jobcreators. To accomplish this, the Council, in partnership 

with the local affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 

the National Federation of Independent Business, and 

the National Association of Manufacturers, spent 2011 

holding “Listening & Action” sessions with businesses 

of all sizes, independent entrepreneurs, working 

people and community leaders. At these meetings, 

Council members benefited from hearing first-hand 

about ways in which the public and private sectors can 

immediately, and in the long-term, catalyze job growth. 

• Small Business Supply Chain Listening & Action 

Session—Dayton, OH (May 10) Council members 

Jeff Immelt, Christopher Che and Dick Parsons met 

with Small Business Administration Director Karen 

Mills and Dayton-area small-business leaders to 

discuss opportunities and barriers for supply-chain 

partnerships between small and large businesses.

• Small Business Exports Listening & Action Session—

Minneapolis, MN (May 17) Council members Jeff 

Immelt, Antonio Perez and Darlene Miller met with 

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Dayton-area 

business leaders to discuss ways small businesses 

can better reach growing export markets.

• Jobs Council Participation in New York Forum—New 

York, NY (July 20) Council members Laura Tyson, 

Steve Case, Brian Roberts and Robert Wolf held a panel 

discussion on job creation with Senior Advisor to the 

President Valerie Jarrett at the 2011 New York Forum. 

The panel, attended by business leaders from around 

the globe, featured the theme “Committed to Growth.”

• Jobs Council Participation in U.S. Conference of 

Mayors—Los Angeles, CA (July 23) Council members 

Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson and Monica Lozano held a 

panel discussion on jobs creation with Los Angeles Mayor 

Antonio Villaraigosa and mayors from around the country 

to discuss job creation in local communities, obtaining 

valuable feedback on what’s working and what’s not.

• Startup and Entrepreneurship Listening & Action 

Session—Palo Alto, CA (August 2) Council members 

Steve Case, John Doerr and Sheryl Sandberg met 

with U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra 

and local Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and business 

leaders to discuss ways in which the public and private 

sectors can partner to create both opportunity and job 

creation for start-ups and high-growth businesses.

• Engineering and Innovation Listening & Action 

Session—Portland, OR (August 31) Council members 

Paul S. Otellini and Darlene Miller convened a forum with 

U.S. Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu and deans from 

the nation’s top engineering schools to discuss ways 

to increase the number of engineers in this country.

• Infrastructure Investment Listening & Action Session—

Dallas, TX (September 1) Council members Richard 

Trumka, Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Robert Wolf, Gary 

Kelly, Matthew Rose and Lewis Hay met with U.S. 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce President & CEO Tom Donohue to discuss the 

importance of infrastructure investment for creating jobs 

and strengthening American economic competitiveness. 

• Foreign Direct Investment Listening & Action 

Session—Washington, DC (October 7) Council 

members Jeff Immelt, Antonio Perez and Robert 

Wolf met with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 

and representatives from multi-national companies 

investing in the United States to discuss ways to make 

America more attractive to global investment. 

Under Chairman Jeff Immelt’s leadership and at President 

Obama’s invitation, the Council assembled a distinguished set 

of leaders from across business, academia, and labor to provide 

private-sector insights on solutions to the jobs challenge. The 

Council members divided their task among seven working groups

• The “Jobs Plan” working group ensured all ideas were 

subject to rigorous evaluation of their merits and impact.

• The “High-Growth Entrepreneurs” 

working group investigated how to re-start 

America’s entrepreneurial engine. 

• The “Regulatory” working group brought business 

efficiency to the processes of government.

• The “Infrastructure and Investment” working 

group explored the United States’ infrastructure 

needs and how they could be financed.

• With talent as the nation’s chief asset as well as its 

most pressing need, the “High-Tech Education” 

working group explored partnerships to elevate 

the American workforce’s skills level. 

• The “Innovation” working group explored how 

to maintain the United States’ leading edge.

• The “National Investment Initiative” spearheaded a 

strategy to restore the U.S. share of global investment. 

The Council has also involved the wider private sector 

community through various outreach forums and 

listening sessions. From a round-table discussion with 

up-and-coming high tech companies in Silicon Valley 

to an infrastructure summit with the Department of 

Transportation and local business leaders, the Council has 

sought to convene groups that could offer insights and 

the ability to act in response to the U.S. jobs challenge. 

HOW THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN WORKING/

LISTENING & ACTION SESSIONS

HOW THE COUNCIL 

HAS BEEN WORKING

Jobs Council Listening &

Action Sessions
Taking action,

building confidence

FIVE COMMON-SENSE INITIATIVES TO

BOOST JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS
10 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

The Council wants to add its voice to a point every 

thoughtful group that’s looked at the matter has 

shouted from the rooftops: repairing and modernizing 

our roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, ports, dams, schools, 

airports, transit, electric grids, water and wastewater systems, 

and expanding our broadband networks are classic “twofers.” They create jobs in the near-term (at a time when more 

than one million construction workers are out of work) and 

they promote long-term competitiveness by building a more 

productive economy. If Washington can agree on anything, it 

should be this—and it should be now.

A New Era for Infrastructure

Every American who travels abroad knows that the United 

States is failing to keep pace with the competition; it’s a sad 

commentary when executives landing at Kennedy, O’Hare or 

LAX after trips to Shanghai, Singapore or Frankfurt routinely 

joke that its like “coming home to a developing country.” As 

Building America’s Future1

 has strikingly documented: 

•	 U.S. infrastructure has plummeted from eighth to 16th

place in the World Economic Forum’s 2005 economic competitiveness ranking; 

•	 China now boasts six of the world’s top 10 ports. The 

United States can’t even claim one of the remaining four. 

Worse, the Shanghai port moves more container traffic a 

year than the top seven U.S. ports combined.

•	 The United States has the world’s worst air traffic congestion—a quarter of flights in the United States arrive more than 

15 minutes late, and our national average for all delayed flights 

(about 56 minutes) is twice as long as Europe’s average.

•	 Among the world’s leading nations, only the United States 

lacks a national plan to leverage private capital to help fund 

infrastructure projects.

America doesn’t need more studies to tell us what it would 

take to fix our situation. Every group from Building America’s 

Future to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to 

the Surface Transportation Financing Commission says the 

investment shortfall is massive. 

ASCE, for example, cites a $1.1 trillion shortfall over five 

years for government-funded infrastructure alone2

. When 

you include broadband and energy infrastructure, which are 

funded largely by private investment, the gap is much higher. 

Yet there are even higher estimates of the government-funding gap as well. For example, several recent bipartisan reports, 

including one by former Transportation secretaries Norman 

Mineta and Sam Skinner, indicate that the annual gap in 

transportation infrastructure alone is $200 billion—i.e., the 

amount required to maintain and improve the transportation 

system3. Current government revenues dedicated to surface 

transportation infrastructure (at all levels of government) 

cover less than half of this amount4. And as government 

debt grows and private investors remain cautious, obtaining 

the necessary funds from traditional sources will be difficult 

unless we turn to innovative financing options. 

It’s not just a question of money, though. The nation’s complex federal, state and local permitting system (discussed in 

more detail in the “Initiative 4: Simplify regulatory review 

and streamline project approvals” section of this report) 

can lead to unnecessary delays. In fact, large Department of 

Transportation projects can spend years getting the required 

Environmental Impact Statement process completed under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)5

. Moreover, 

there is little incentive or structure in the political process to 

assure that the nation’s most pressing infrastructure priorities 

will be chosen for funding on a rational basis and then pursued cost-effectively. With so much vital public work to be 

done, it is crucial to prevent logrolling as usual in order to 

restore public confidence. 

Invest Aggressively

and Efficiently in Cutting-Edge

Infrastructure and Energy

Initiative 1
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 11

The Council believes it is time to stop studying this problem 

and time instead to get to work. The stakes for jobs are substantial. Studies indicate that each additional $1 billion of 

government infrastructure spending creates between 4,000 

and 18,000 jobs6. Most of them are middle-class jobs with 

wages between the 25th and 75th percentile of the wage distribution7

. In addition, government spending on infrastructure 

has a bigger multiplier impact on GDP than even a payroll tax 

holiday (a $1.59 versus a $1.29 rise in GDP for every dollar 

invested, respectively, according to Moody’s)8.

The efficiency and competitiveness gains from investing in 

infrastructure are equally vital. Numerous studies show that 

well-designed infrastructure projects generate significant 

productivity and growth gains. Reducing congestion in the 

nation’s skies and airports would speed shipments of hightech manufactured goods and intermediate parts. Speed and 

cost to market have a critical impact on the nation’s ability to 

export, particularly to high-priced markets like Europe where 

our quality goods can compete. 

For example, improving highway and rail linkages to ports 

and opening up deep-water access to the next generation of 

mega container ships could shave transport costs by up to 

one-third and boost exports even more. Similarly, undertaking surface transportation projects to decongest urban centers and increase the size and speed of intermodal freight 

corridors as well as investing to improve our outdated and 

capacity-constrained air traffic control system would dramatically decrease time from production to consumers both 

here and overseas. As the President’s Export Council declared 

recently, “America’s transportation infrastructure is also 

America’s export infrastructure... American business cannot 

participate in the global economy if it can not get its products 

out the door.”9

According to a recent report by the ASCE, investing enough 

to maintain our transportation infrastructure would mean 

about 1.3 million more jobs in knowledge and technologybased sectors by 204010. Without this investment, economywide employee income in 2040 would decrease $250 billion 

as a result of increased costs and reduced productivity. As 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concluded 

in its National Broadband Plan, “Investment in information 

and communications technologies accounted for almost twothirds of all economic growth attributed to capital investment 

in the United States between 1995 and 2005.”11

10%

Construction

Manufacturing

Information

Trade, Trans, Utility

Professional Services

Leisure & Hospitality

Government

Mining 5%

0

-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

-25%

-30%

0 6 12 18

Months since the start of the recession (December 2007)

24 30 36

U.S. Employment Change From December 20071

Percent

Construction employment declined the most during the recession.

1. Total non-farm employment, seasonally adjusted. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

trillion

Total

Investment

Required

$2.11

$0.97 trillion

trillion

Total

Government

Funding

Total

Estimated

Shortfall

$1.13

Roads & Bridges

Estimated Government

Spending

Estimated

Shortfall

Transit

Drinking & Waste Water

Schools

Aviation

Public Parks & Recreation

Hazardous & Solid Waste

Energy

Rail

Inland Waterways

Levees

Dams

380 930

75 265

146 255

125 160

46 87

37 85

34 77

46 75

51 63

30 50

50

5 / 7 / 13

Total

Investment 

Required

550

190

109

35

41

48

43

29

12

20

1 / 49

Necessary Infrastructure Investment

USD billions

The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated the 

infrastructure gap across all forms of infrastructure.

Source: American Society of Civil Engineers

Initiative 1

Infrastructure is a classic 

‘two-fer’—it creates jobs in 

the near-term and promotes 

long-term competitiveness.”
12 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

What to Do? 

The Council recommends the following actions to encourage more and better investment in the nation’s transportation and broadband infrastructure. (Investment in important 

parts of the nation’s energy infrastructure is discussed in the 

“A New Era for Energy” section of this report.) The Council’s 

seven recommendations are:

1. Reauthorize the main surface 

transportation programs; focus on 

performance and accountability.

For too long, these programs have limped along on temporary 

extensions. Specifically, there should be a formal, programmatic requirement in these programs for cost effectiveness 

using objective cost-benefit criteria for project selection and 

funding. A significant increase in transportation infrastructure investment must be coupled with broad-based reforms 

to select projects wisely and to provide incentives for efficient 

program and project delivery. 

2. Leverage and expand existing public-private 

financing mechanisms to increase private capital 

for infrastructure investment. 

For instance, $14 billion of DOT’s Private Activity Bonds 

(PAB) currently approved for surface transportation projects 

are yet to be allocated12. Project sponsors, investors and government officials should work together to ensure that demand 

is sufficient and that this tool is leveraged to catalyze private 

investment. In addition, letting funds already dedicated to 

infrastructure from the Transportation Investment Generating Recovery program (TIGER) be invested via the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation act (TIFIA) 

could leverage those same dollars 10 times more. Unlike 

TIGER, which provides direct grants, TIFIA provides loans 

and financing support, allowing it to re-loan the same federal dollar multiple times. Both the PAB and the TIFIA programs have proven track records; they should be significantly 

expanded as part of the reauthorization of federal surface 

transportation programs. According to the FHWA, every $1 

of TIFIA funding leverages $30 in transportation projects13. 

In addition, creative infrastructure investment being 

organized by unions and other pension funds should be 

leveraged. Chaired by the American Federation of Teachers, 

a broad coalition—including SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, the 

Firefighters, the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades 

Department, and investment funds affiliated with the labor 

movement—has committed to work with member unions, 

union pension funds, their investment professionals and 

government at every level to invest $10 billion in job-creating 

infrastructure over five years, as well as at least $20 million in 

specific energy retrofits over the next year14. This will include 

a retrofit of AFL-CIO headquarters and the training of tens 

of thousands of workers in the skills necessary to work on 

21st-century infrastructure. 

3. Create a national infrastructure financing 

organization that complements existing 

programs and attracts private capital.

With the notable exception of broadband networks and our 

energy infrastructure, there is currently little direct private 

investment in infrastructure projects in the United States 

compared to many other countries, and the United States 

has done little to facilitate public-private partnerships. With 

the ability to leverage additional private funds, a National 

Infrastructure Bank could greatly increase the amount of 

private funding for infrastructure projects. States also have 

the potential for effective infrastructure banks. The Council 

recommends that Congress explore the creation of a National 

Infrastructure Bank, according to the following principles: 

•	 Broad-sector coverage, including surface related and transport (roads, bridges, railway, aviation) as well as energy and 

water treatment; 

•	 Projects of regional or national significance, with welldefined project selection criteria and a professional management team to ensure a credible and objective funding 

process;

•	 Projects comply with established federal contract 

guidelines;

•	 Merit-based funding decisions based on rigorous cost-benefit analysis to ensure accountability and efficiency in project delivery and lowest whole-life project cost;

•	 Self-sustaining financing limited to loans and loan guarantees, with grants limited to small amounts to fund feasibility studies;

•	 Ability to provide truly subordinated, long-dated, rate-subsidized loans;

•	 A wholly-owned, independent, government institution 

(not a government-sponsored enterprise) with an independent board of directors and management (CEO and board 

of directors appointed by the President and confirmed by 

the Senate) that issues regular, periodic reports to Congress; and,

•	 Funded by Treasury following an initial appropriation by 

Congress; loans would typically cover no more than 20% 

of project funding and would be used alongside user fees, 

local contributions and other sources of financing to fund 

infrastructure projects.

4. Protect and preserve user-based funding of 

the Highway Trust Fund by reducing restrictions 

on user-generated funding for highway use. 

Exploring the use of more user-generated funding that would 

ease statutory prohibitions to allow states to toll or price 

highways eligible for federal aid would both help to rectify the 

Highway Trust Fund deficits and open the door to additional 

public-private infrastructure projects.

Initiative 1
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 13

5. Speed implementation of the Next Generation 

Air Traffic Control System through regulatory 

and administrative changes; provide federal 

funding for NextGen capabilities available today. 

The FAA should develop and implement fuel-efficient, satellite-based air traffic control procedures and accelerate the 

implementation of FAA’s Navigation Procedures Implementation Plan. Faster implementation of a NextGen air traffic 

control system would not only dramatically smooth the daily 

flow of travelers and goods, it would also reduce energy consumption and add greater capacity to U.S. airspace. In addition, we should facilitate air travel through the expansion of 

a “Trusted Traveler” pre-flight screening program to expedite 

the physical screening process at TSA checkpoints.

6. Promote construction of broadband networks 

and new technologies to reach all Americans, 

especially the 7% with no access to broadband. 

Broadband access can connect more Americans to jobs, and 

not only by linking them to the powerful information flows 

on the Internet. Access to the Internet is essential to education, updating skills through online learning and online job 

searches. Broadband Internet access can also allow workers to participate in the home services revolution, a change 

that allows the United States to once again be cost competitive with global service providers like India for more complex, higher-value services. Indeed, the FCC, as part of its 

broadband initiative just announced commitments to create 

100,000 jobs from companies looking to create or repatriate 

jobs to home-based workers and low-cost areas of the United 

States15. In addition, underutilized and unlicensed spectrum 

should be made available to promote the deployment of wireless and satellite-based technologies. 

We should also deploy broadband to unserved areas of 

the country by modernizing the FCC’s Universal Service 

Program, and we should develop programs to close the 

digital divide. For example, the Universal Service Fund (USF) 

generates more than $4 billion annually from surcharges paid 

by telecommunications users to subsidize telephone services 

in high-cost areas. The USF should be repurposed to allow 

broadband services. 

In addition, USF funds should be directed to unserved areas. 

We are pleased that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has 

already taken important steps to modernize the USF and 

target support for broadband to areas where the market does 

not currently support investment.

Moreover, to assure that universal broadband achieves 

its ultimate goals, Congress and the FCC should develop 

programs to reduce the primary barriers that prevent 

millions of Americans who have access to broadband from 

adopting it: lack of digital literacy and the cost of broadband 

services. Though broadband is available to 93%16 of American 

households, only an approximate 66% currently subscribe. 

Adoption rates are lowest among low-income households, 

creating a digital divide. 

7. Streamline permitting and approval processes 

for jobs rich infrastructure projects.

The permitting systems for infrastructure projects must be 

streamlined to eliminate duplication and unnecessary delays. 

(The Council’s recommendations on permitting reforms 

are discussed in the regulation section of this report.) The 

President’s recent Memorandum directing departments and 

agencies to act on the Council’s recommendation to identify high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects that 

can be expedited through outstanding review and permitting processes is an important first step17. The President also 

announced the creation of a Projects Dashboard, another 

Council recommendation, which ensures that the details of 

every project as it moves through the expedited review process are available to the public for input and review.

A New Era for Energy

New technologies are transforming the global energy business. Therefore, new modes of production, transmission 

and distribution are needed to maintain America’s low-cost 

energy advantage. As a nation, America needs to be “all-in” 

on energy, open to a balanced portfolio of innovative solutions for our energy needs. Most reasonable observers understand that our future will entail a simultaneous reliance on 

older energy sources even as new and cleaner forms of energy 

become more widespread and economically viable. In this 

context, getting our energy infrastructure right is now every 

bit as important as the traditional focus on bridges and highways if we’re to capture the business, environmental benefits 

and jobs at stake. Importantly, most energy investment can 

be completely funded from the private sector. Three areas 

require immediate action: energy investment projects; electric transmission siting; and innovative public/private methods of financing advanced energy technologies. 

Energy investment projects

While domestic production of oil and gas has been increasing, environmental concerns regarding development have 

sparked controversy in several areas. Two examples are 

the pipeline that would transport heavy oil from northern 

Alberta in Canada to Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast, and the 

resumption of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in the 

wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010. Another is the 

horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing of shale gas supplies 

(a matter largely governed by state rules), which led President Obama to note that “recent innovations have given us 

the opportunity to tap large reserves—perhaps a century’s 

worth” of shale gas. 

The Council fully recognizes the important environmental and 

safety concerns surrounding these projects and techniques. 

Initiative 1
14 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

What’s gotten less attention, however, is the number of jobs at 

stake. External estimates suggests that these three streams of 

private investment could together support or preserve hundreds of thousands of jobs in the next few years18. 

The Council is addressing these energy investments specifically because they are controversial. We understand the challenge of developing balanced regulations, but we believe that 

the jobs and energy security benefits of continuing to exploit 

these resources require that we tackle these issues head-on. 

We therefore urge all stakeholders to make extraordinary 

efforts to strike an intelligent balance that protects people, 

safety, the environment and our nation’s water supplies while 

also allowing the economic benefits of these innovations to 

be realized. 

While regulation of this development is primarily a state 

responsibility, the federal government can play a constructive role as well. For example, on the shale gas question, the 

shale gas subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board recently issued a promising framework to reduce environmental impacts19. The group’s interim report charts a path 

to best practices and continuous improvement in production 

techniques, increased measurements and disclosures that can 

build public confidence, and better coordination and communication between state and federal regulators. 

As the Advisory Board noted, “The approach benefits all 

parties in shale gas production: regulators will have more 

complete and accurate information; industry will achieve 

more efficient operations; and the public will see continuous, measurable improvement in shale gas activities.”

To take full advantage of our resources and the jobs and 

energy benefits they provide, the federal government, 

states and industry must work together. We must start taking on tough energy challenges with a spirit of resolve and 

cooperation.

Transmission siting reform 

According to the North American Reliability Corporation, 

“transmission permitting and siting reform is considered one 

of the highest risks facing the energy industry over the next 

ten years.”20 While most of the energy industry has undergone 

massive development over the last two decades, the majority of today’s electricity transmission infrastructure is more 

than 25 years old and has failed to keep up with rapid industry changes. As the U.S. Department of Energy noted in its 

2009 transmission congestion study, metropolitan areas in 

the midAtlantic and western regions of the United States are 

experiencing major transmission congestion problems that 

threaten system reliability, while renewable energy development in the regions with the nation’s best resources is being 

significantly constrained because of a lack of adequate transmission capacity.21

To put the challenge in perspective, there are currently 

275,000 megawatts of proposed wind projects in the United 

States that have applied for and are waiting for transmission 

access22. By comparison, the entire capacity of the United 

States’ coal plants is about 315,000 megawatts23. Unfortunately, only a small fraction of this capacity has the potential 

of being built under these conditions. The California Public 

Utilities Commission says one of the chief obstacles in meeting its ambitious target for the use of renewables is the lack of 

adequate transmission.

The current process for siting (i.e., locating and permitting) 

a transmission line was established in 1935, when electricity 

delivery was local in nature. The process relies on dozens of 

agencies and authorities with different requirements and little 

coordination. Successfully working through the permitting 

process can literally take years. For example, a 90-mile transmission line from Virginia to West Virginia took American 

Electric Power 13 years to site and the American Transmission Company’s 220-mile line from Minnesota to Wisconsin 

took more than six years.24 25

New merchant generators have added thousands of megawatts to the grid without investing in grid expansion, while 

new types of energy resources like wind and solar are rapidly 

being added to the grid as well. What’s more, a large number 

of old coal-fired power plants are being retired, which will put 

further pressure on the nation’s electric system.

Additionally, the United States has among the best clean 

energy resources in the world, but there is a lack of transmission capacity to fully take advantage of these resources. Currently, almost 40% of the energy in the United States comes 

from clean sources such as renewable energy26. President 

Obama has laid out a goal to get to an 80% Clean Energy 

Standard by 2035. Reaching this goal offers an extraordinary 

opportunity for private investment and job growth—which 

will not be realized without upgrading the United States 

transmission system27.

Initiative 1

We need to be ‘all-in’ on 

energy as a nation—open 

to a balanced portfolio of 

innovative solutions”
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 15

The Council believes there are opportunities for the executive branch to reform and accelerate the siting process under 

existing federal law. Consultation with states and interested 

parties would remain integral to the process. Indeed, reforming the transmission siting process will help create a more 

reliable and efficient transmission system and bring a number 

of economic benefits to power providers and consumers.

In order to maintain electric system reliability, improve efficiency and customer affordability, and help facilitate the 

delivery of power from renewable resources, the Council recommends the following actions: 

•	 Reimplement the transmission siting process under Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and

•	 Use the public-private partnership opportunities under 

Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Section 

402 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

to develop electric power transmission lines in geographic 

areas experiencing transmission capacity congestion or 

constraints or that facilitate the delivery of power generated 

by renewable energy resources. 

These recommendations do not require legislation and can be 

initiated quickly by presidential order. Previously, they have 

been authorized by Congress to promote the development of 

new transmission facilities, reflecting recognition that siting 

delays are a significant factor holding back investment and 

fueling congestion in the nation’s transmission grid. 

Upgrading and expanding America’s transmission system 

will create jobs that are driven by private investment. One 

recent analysis projects that in order to meet transmission 

requirements, the utility industry and independent transmission providers will need to invest $12 to $16 billion annually28. Based on historical investments and assuming current 

barriers to project planning, cost allocation and siting can be 

overcome, that means the industry can likely support 150,000 

to 200,000 full-time jobs each year over 20 years29. Additionally, new transmission development will facilitate the development of new renewable energy projects, which have the 

potential to create hundreds of thousands of additional jobs.

Financing advanced energy technologies

The United States is in a global race to invent, commercialize 

and manufacture advanced clean energy technologies. However, demonstrating and proving these technologies at commercial scale, a critical hurdle in the innovation value chain, 

presents significant technical and financial risks. 

Advanced energy technologies tend to be highly capital 

intensive and require deep, liquid financial markets for commercialization. However, current markets face significant 

uncertainty—tax policy, pollution restrictions, and performance standards are all in flux—and the recent economic 

turmoil has left already-constrained credit markets thin. As a 

result, even though our nation has a lead in many technologies, there is an insufficient flow of capital to commercialize 

new advanced clean energy facilities in the United States. Foreign competitors like China, Canada and the United Kingdom have already put in place targeted, well-funded financing 

programs to drive their new energy enterprises. Without bold 

action, the United States risks falling behind its international 

competitors in the clean energy industry and, thus, losing its 

leadership position in one of the largest growth industries of 

the 21st century.

To date, the federal government has taken important steps to 

address challenges of financing clean energy. The U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantee program has demonstrated 

how low-cost federal financing incentives can accelerate and 

deploy advanced technologies and help create jobs. The loan 

Initiative 1

Pilot scale

(e.g. predominantly VC funding)

First-of-a-kind

commercial scale plant

If the scale plant is successful,

next ~10 commercial plants 

Total Investment Required

Private-Sector Contribution

Government-Backed Portion

$75M

$75M

$0

$350M

$100M

$250M*

$350M x ~10 plants = $3.5B

$350M x ~10 plants

$0

Government financing could leverage private-sector capital when successful.

*Because the government can leverage its capital, the direct investment required would likely be significantly less than $250M and would be based on the 

expected default rate of the project and technology.

Clean Energy Finance Example
16 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

program has also shown how less than $2.5 billion in federal 

funds could catalyze over $25 billion of capital investment 

in about 30 energy and manufacturing projects, helping create thousands of jobs30. Building on this success, the United 

States needs to do more to increase its competitiveness by 

commercializing advanced energy technologies here at home. 

The plain fact is that more than 200 gigawatts of solar energy 

will be installed by 2020 around the world31. In India and 

China, solar industries are on fire. America must stake out a 

leadership position in clean energy. With our competitors on 

the move, the Council believes the country should establish 

an independent, full faith and credit-backed government 

financing institution to mobilize the private sector in 

accelerating advanced energy technologies in support of 

U.S. national security, environmental, and competitiveness 

objectives. Such an institution should be charged with 

catalyzing private sector investment in a number of 

promising, commercial-scale clean energy technologies in 

order to overcome capital market hurdles and bring new 

technologies to market. 

Creating a new financing institution could boost and maintain annual energy investments to the $30 billion or $40 billion required for the United States to play a global leadership 

role32. Because the federal government can uniquely leverage 

its resources and credit through loan guarantees and other 

financing tools, a new targeted, energy financing institution 

funded with $1 billion to $2 billion per year in appropriations could unlock on the order of $10 billion to $20 billion 

in financing assistance and leverage additional private sector 

investment, which could support United States leadership in 

this emerging industry and help create thousands of goodpaying jobs33. 

A new clean energy financing institution should have 

significant independence, deep technical capabilities, and 

financing and hiring flexibility. It must also be well capitalized 

initially and should operate transparently and at market 

speed. Although a new institution could be designed from 

scratch, currently the U.S. Senate has proposed creating a 

new financing institution—the Clean Energy Deployment 

Administration (CEDA)—that incorporates the design 

elements described here. With adequate funding, CEDA 

would fill the financing gap associated with first commercialscale energy technologies, help commercialize the advanced 

energy technologies needed to spur domestic competitiveness 

and economic growth, and propel the United States to a 

leadership position in clean energy.

Early analysis suggests that a new institution that supports 

the domestic build out of advanced energy technologies 

could increase employment by more than 100,000 jobs 

for the duration of the program34. U.S. leadership in these 

technologies would support more rapid job growth as the 

United States exports these technologies to rapidly growing 

global markets. 

In short, a new government-backed financing program, 

focused on accelerating the deployment of and competition 

among new technologies, could play a significant role in 

establishing U.S. market leadership in advanced energy 

technologies. 

Initiative 1

The Council in Action: 

How Energy Efficiency 

Can Power Jobs

The Better Buildings Challenge (BBC) is part of 

the Better Buildings Initiative (BBI) that President 

Obama launched in February to catalyze private sector investment in commercial building upgrades. The 

goal is to make America’s commercial buildings 20 

percent more efficient over the next decade, which 

would save businesses an estimated $40 billion per 

year. Independent analysis suggests that more than 

114,000 jobs could be supported by the initiative35. 

Earlier this year, the Administration announced initial 

BBC commitments from fourteen building, financial, and 

community leaders that totaled more than 300 million 

square feet of real estate and $500 million in financing 

for energy upgrades. The first fourteen leaders to join 

included Best Buy, Green Sports Alliance, USAA Real 

Estate Company, Transwestern, and Lend Lease; financial 

allies included Citi, Green Campus Partners, Transcend 

Equity, Abundant Power, Metrus Energy, and Renewable 

Funding; and the cities of Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Seattle.

Some Challenge members are already breaking ground 

on projects that will put people to work. Council members are helping to expand the Challenge to more 

companies and communities, with the goal of significantly increasing the amount of commercial real estate 

and financing commitments throughout the Fall. These 

efforts will help put engineers, architects, manufacturers and construction professionals back to work.
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 17

Over the last three decades, young firms less than five 

years old have created 40 million new jobs, according 

to a series of recent studies of U.S. labor data36. Those 

40 million jobs actually account for all net new jobs created 

in the United States over that period37. Contrary to popular 

belief, aggregate employment among big corporations and 

small businesses is relatively steady on an annual basis. While 

these large and small firms are an integral part of the overall employment picture,* young firms are the most powerful 

engine of jobs growth.

Dig further into the data and we find that among young firms 

there is a critical subset of high-growth businesses sometimes 

referred to as “gazelles,” firms that double their revenues and 

employment every few years. These high-growth entrepreneurial companies account for an average each of 88 new 

jobs a year and are found in all sectors and regions, not just 

high-tech firms in Silicon Valley38. It is worth remembering 

that Fortune 500 companies like Boeing, FedEx and Apple all 

began as start-ups that grew into high-growth businesses in 

relatively short order. 

Indeed, the story of America is in many ways the story of 

entrepreneurship. The United States did not become the 

leading economic power in the world by accident. Our 

emergence was the byproduct of the innovative companies 

that were built in America. Entrepreneurship has been the 

“secret sauce” that has led to America’s economic leadership 

in the world. A country that started with the “Yankee 

ingenuity” of its settlers evolved over the past two centuries to 

become the most entrepreneurial nation on Earth—and that 

entrepreneurial zeal has long been the envy of the world.

Over the past decade, however, the environment for these 

high-growth businesses to grow and thrive has become 

increasingly unfavorable. For example, in the past three years 

the number of new businesses launched each year has fallen 

by an unprecedented 23%39. There were fewer venture-backed 

IPOs in 2008 and 2009 than in any year since 198540. Moreover, the share of IPOs smaller than $50 million fell from 80% 

in the 1990s to 20% in the 2000s41. Optimism among entrepreneurs has fallen to its lowest level in years, according to 

polling data. And the firms being formed are adding fewer 

jobs on average than they were in previous decades. In fact, if 

* Multinational companies also play an outsize role providing employment in the United States economy. Despite accounting for 1% of all U.S. firms, MNCs account 

for 22.4% of all U.S. jobs. 

Nurture the High-Growth Enterprises 

That Create New Jobs

Initiative 2

’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10

550

584 588 615 610 610 634 631 612 609 603 633

667 656 627

548

505

Declines following

pre-recession peak

-23%

The United States would have 1.8 million more jobs had the 

2007 rate of start-ups continued.

1. Calculated using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Business Employment Dynamics data set. The annual total indicates the 

number of businesses less than one year old that were in existence in March of that year. 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; McKinsey Global Institute

Number of Private-Sector Establishments Launched

March 1994 to March 2010,1 thousand
18 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

we had maintained the same level of start-up activity that we 

witnessed in 2007, we would have nearly two million more 

jobs than we do today42.

This must change. If the United States is going to grow its 

labor force and sustain that growth over the long-term, government must foster an environment in which entrepreneurs 

can create high-growth companies that succeed in a global 

economy. 

The Administration, Congress and the private sector must 

rally around a comprehensive entrepreneurship agenda. The 

Council has surveyed a range of policy proposals that relate 

to entrepreneurship from a wide variety of experts: academics, economists; political leaders on both sides of the aisle at 

the federal, state and local level; business leaders; serial entrepreneurs; workers; labor leaders and others. We have identified a series of steps that can be taken to jumpstart innovation 

and job creation. Unleashing the next era of entrepreneurship 

will ensure our nation remains competitive in an increasingly 

interdependent world.

Our work suggests there is no single solution. We need a comprehensive, multi-sector, multi-year commitment to an entrepreneurship agenda. To that end, the Council recommends 

that Congress improve the environment for startup firms to 

flourish; that the Administration take several related actions 

immediately; and that the private sector redouble its efforts to 

support the next generation of entrepreneurial companies. 

What Congress Should Do:

Build bipartisan support for reforms 

that will unleash the next wave of 

American entrepreneurship 

Congressional action is essential to get America’s entrepreneurial growth engine going again. We recognize that the current political climate is challenging, but our work suggests this 

is an area ripe for bipartisanship. We call upon both parties to 

make new laws aimed at helping startups a top priority. 

The key components of a legislative solution include: ensuring America wins the global battle for talent; expediting the 

process of high-growth companies going public; expanding 

investment capital for early stage start-ups as well as later 

stage growth companies; and lowering regulatory burdens on 

small businesses. 

Immigration: Win the global 

battle for talent 

Some of the most iconic American companies now employing hundreds of thousands of workers—Google, Intel, Yahoo! 

and Home Depot—were started by immigrant entrepreneurs 

or the children of immigrant entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, 

today many of the foreign students completing a STEM 

degree at a U.S. graduate school return to their home countries and begin competing against American workers. The 

United States must encourage the world’s most talented workers to start businesses or help grow existing firms here in the 

United States. Our success may well be found in the answer to 

one question. Will the next generation of great companies be 

started in China and South Korea—or will existing barriers to 

entry be modified so foreign-born entrepreneurs can create 

those companies in California and South Carolina? 

Bottom line: Highly skilled immigrants create jobs, they 

don’t take jobs. And in a competitive and interdependent 21st

Initiative 2

Innovation Ecosystem

Research & 

Development

Venture Capital 

Funding

Intial Public 

Offering

American Job 

Creation Enterpreneurs

Research & 

Development

Venture Capital 

Funding

Intial Public 

Offering

American Job 

Creation Enterpreneurs

1980 1990 2000 2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Initial Public Offerings (%)

Mergers & Aquisitions (%)

Mergers and Acquisitions vs. 

Initial Public Offerings

Percent

Source: Thomson Reuters/National Venture Capital Association
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 19

century economy, we must attract these entrepreneurs to the 

United States. 

Almost all members of the Council propose:

•	 Granting automatic green cards or provisional visas to all 

foreign students after they earn a STEM degree from a U.S. 

university;

•	 Establishing a new provisional visa program for immigrant 

entrepreneurs; 

•	 Fully implementing within two years the August 2011 

immigration initiatives regarding EB-2, H-1B, EB-5 and 

E13 categories, primarily around speeding up the process 

for making visa decisions; and,

•	 Increasing, by a factor of at least four, the number of entrepreneurs from other countries allowed entry into the United 

States, mainly though expansion of the EB–5 program.

We are sympathetic to the political sensitivities around the 

topic of immigration reform. But when it comes to driving 

job creation and increasing American competitiveness, separating the highly-skilled worker component is critical. We 

therefore call upon Congress to pass reforms aimed directly at 

allowing the most promising foreign-born entrepreneurs to 

remain in or relocate to the United States. 

Initial Public Offerings: Reduce 

regulatory barriers and provide financial 

incentives for firms to go public

Accessing public capital markets is a critical step for highgrowth firms transitioning from early to later stages of 

development. Not only are public markets a traditionally 

leading source of financing, but once that financing is secured 

research indicates that 90% of job creation for public firms 

occurs after they go public43. Lowering the barriers to and cost 

of initial public offerings (IPOs) is critical to accessing financing at the later stages of a high growth firms’ expansion. Yet, 

in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble and unintended consequences stemming from the Spitzer Decree and SarbanesOxley regulations, the number of IPOs in the United States 

has fallen significantly. This is especially true for smaller companies aspiring to go public. 

As noted earlier, the share of IPOs that were smaller than 

$50 million fell from 80% in the 1990s to 20% in the 2000s44.

Well-intentioned regulations aimed at protecting the public from the misrepresentations of a small number of large 

companies have unintentionally placed significant burdens 

on the large number of smaller companies. As a result, fewer 

high-growth entrepreneurial companies are going public, and 

more are opting to provide liquidity and an exit for investors 

by selling out to larger companies. This hurts job creation, as 

the data clearly shows that job growth accelerates when companies go public, but often decelerates when companies are 

acquired. Thus, to stimulate the IPO market and spur more 

job creation, nearly all members of the Council recommend 

that Congress take the following actions:

•	 Amend Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) to allow shareholders of 

public companies with market valuations below $1 billion 

to opt out of at least Section 404 compliance, if not to all 

of the requirements, of Sarbanes-Oxley; or, alternatively, 

exempt new companies from SOX compliance for five years 

after they go public.

•	 “Right size” the provisions in the Spitzer Decree and the 

Fair Disclosure Act to lessen the burdens on high growth 

entrepreneurial companies.

The Council, in conjunction with other groups working in this 

area, believes these reforms can help ensure that high growth 

entrepreneurship will again flourish in the public markets.

Capital: Enhancing access to capital 

for early stage start-ups as well as 

later stage growth companies

The challenging economic environment and skittish investment climate has resulted in investors generally becoming 

more risk-adverse, and this in turn has deprived many highgrowth entrepreneurial companies of the capital they need to 

expand. As a result, they are growing their workforces more 

slowly than they would if they had better access to capital. 

Therefore, the Council recommends enhancing the economic 

incentives for investors, so they are more willing to risk their 

capital in entrepreneurial companies. 

Incentivize Investment in Start-ups

One of the most significant obstacles to starting or expanding a young company is access to financing. Nearly all Council members recommend several reforms that will incentivize 

earlier stage investment and provide firms with more growth 

capital, which, in turn, will lead to more job creation. First, we 

recommend Congress eliminate capital gains taxes on investments of $25 million or less in a privately held company so 

long as that investment is held for at least five years. This will 

encourage investment as well as encourage investors to take a 

longer-term horizon, giving young companies time to blossom. Second, we recommend Congress reduce taxes in the 

first three years of a company’s existence, so the entrepreneur 

can use that cash to fund growth and expansion. Specifically, 

we recommend embracing the National Advisory Council 

on Innovation and Entrepreneurship’s proposal that there be 

no corporate income tax in year one, and a 50% reduction in 

corporate taxes in years two and three45. 

Incentivize Investment in Later Stage 

Growth Companies

Once companies move out of the “start-up” phase the opportunity for job growth accelerates. At this stage, companies have 

typically figured out how to offer a compelling product or service, and the pace at which they grow their business—and their 

work force—is often dependent on their ability to obtain capital 

Initiative 2
20 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

to grow. The most sustainable solution is usually taking the company public. As noted earlier, however, young companies are now 

much less likely to go public. Some of this relates to regulatory 

issues, but another factor is the ability of young emerging companies to attract the attention of public investors. We recommend establishing a 10% capital gains rate for investors who buy 

stock in companies in the first six months after they go public, 

and hold the stock for at least three years. This would provide 

additional incentive for investors to fund the growth plans of 

entrepreneurial companies in this critical growth stage—and it 

would also encourage investors to adopt a “buy-and-hold” strategy that is particularly important for these younger companies. 

When investors are given solid reasons to take a longer-term 

view, high-growth entrepreneurial companies can invest to maximize growth over a longer-time horizon—and that, in turn, will 

maximize job growth as well as tax revenues over the longer run.

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION 

SHOULD DO: Take immediate administrative actions that help entrepreneurs grow 

and create jobs 

While it is critical that Congress pass the entrepreneurship 

reforms outlined above, the Council has identified a number of 

areas where the Administration should take action now to make 

it easier for high growth entrepreneurial companies to flourish. 

Patent Reform: Make it easier for 

entrepreneurs to get answers faster

The recently passed Patent Reform Act sets the stage for a 

new patent system. Many aspects of this act have the potential 

to be positive for companies, but there are concerns among 

many entrepreneurs that, as written, the act advantages large 

companies and disadvantages young entrepreneurial companies with fewer resources Therefore, as the Administration 

puts the act’s provisions into place, the Council recommends 

taking specific steps to ensure the ideas from young companies are handled appropriately. 

Specifically, we recommend increasing the patent office staff 

to handle the demand; hiring a dedicated team of employees 

at the patent office to work with small companies; allowing an 

expedited review of “in-market” patents; and implementing 

an annual monitoring program to ensure young companies 

are not harmed by the “first-to-file” rules. The patent office 

should also make adjustments, as needed, if there is evidence 

that the patent reforms are slowing the expansion possibilities 

for high-growth entrepreneurial companies.

SBA Financing: Streamline access, 

so more high-growth companies 

get the capital they need to grow

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has provided 

early funding for a wide range of American companies, 

including Apple, Costco, FedEx, Staples, Intel, Quiznos, and 

Under Armour. While the private sector must play the lead role 

in financing entrepreneurial companies, the SBA’s programs 

can reduce risk for lenders and investors, and thus increase 

the flow of growth capital. The SBA has already taken steps 

to increase awareness of its financing options and streamline 

the application process. Nevertheless, the Reducing Barriers 

roundtables the SBA conducted around the country earlier this 

year identified a number of potential areas for improvement.

We recommend that the Administration take action to 

streamline and shorten application processing with published 

turnaround times, increase the number of full time employees who perform a training or compliance function including 

those dedicated to growth counseling, and expand the overall 

list of lending partners. Additionally, we request that Congress permanently affirm and fully authorize Small Business 

Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology 

Transfer (STTR) funding for the long term, rather than for 

short-term re-authorizations, and consider offering smaller, 

simpler credits (e.g., microgrants).

Finally, there is broad consensus that a key step towards jumpstarting economic growth would be removing regulatory barriers and simplifying overly complex government processes. 

Their inefficiencies cost businesses time and money. The 

Administration has made some positive strides. For example 

the Department of Commerce has improved the speed at 

which it pays bills to businesses, and a number of government 

agencies have already removed hundreds of pages of forms 

that are unnecessary. But the Council believes that more 

should be done, including a mandate that agencies post their 

turnaround times online for public review, and the creation 

of a “one-stop-shop” for owners through an online portal of 

all government needs (Other reform ideas are discussed in the 

“Initiative 4: Simplify regulatory review and streamline project approvals” section of this report.) 

Getting Started: Expand 

seed/angel capital

Most entrepreneurs do not rely on banks or venture capitalists to get started; friends and family provide the initial seed 

capital. Recently, there has been the emergence of “angel” 

investors and networks that have also played a crucial role in 

the initial funding for companies. The Council recommends 

clarifying that experienced and active seed and angel investors (and their meeting venues) should not be subject to 

the regulations that were designed to protect inexperienced 

investors. We also propose that smaller investors be allowed 

to use “crowd-funding” platforms to invest small amounts in 

early-stage companies. Additionally, we embrace the National 

Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship recommendation that accredited angel group investors receive 

a 30% refundable tax credit46. Similar adjustments made in 

other countries have resulted in a significant uptick in the rate 

of early-stage startup investment. 

Initiative 2
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 21

Research: Enhance commercialization 

of federally funded research

The government continues to play a crucial role in investing 

in the basic research that enables America to be the launch pad 

for new industries. The Internet, for example, was made possible by government investments nearly a half-century ago. As 

companies cut back on their basic research budgets, the need 

for the government to vigorously fund the research to enable 

the next generation of businesses becomes all the more critical. However, the Council has concluded that the Administration needs to do more to build bridges between researchers 

and entrepreneurs, so more breakthrough ideas can move 

out of the labs and into the commercialization phase. This 

is true not just at government agencies, but also at national 

labs and at the universities that get significant federal funding 

for their research. Building on successful programs like the 

Department of Energy’s program and Oak Ridge would be a 

good start. Adopting the “lab-to-market” recommendations 

of the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) would also be a step forward47. Lastly, 

the Administration should test an “open-source” approach to 

tech transfer and commercialization.

Talent: Address talent needs by 

reducing student loan burden and 

accelerating immigration reforms

Our research indicates that a large number of recent graduates who aspire to work for a start-up or form a new company decide against it because of the pressing burden to repay 

their student loans. This has a direct and negative impact on 

job creation. Younger, newer firms tend to be founded by 

younger entrepreneurs and populated with younger workers. 

Moreover, we believe that if a student has taken out loans and 

graduated on time, he or she deserves the chance to take a risk 

at a new firm. The Council therefore recommends that the 

Administration promote Income-Based Repayment Student 

Loan Programs for the owners or employees of new, entrepreneurial companies. Additionally, as it relates to addressing talent needs, we recommend that the Administration 

fully—and rapidly—implement the August 2011 immigration initiatives regarding EB-2, H-1B, EB-5 and the E13 visas. 

It is critical that the Administration speed up the process for 

making visa decisions so that talented, foreign-born entrepreneurs can form or join startups in the United States. Delays 

all too often result in these talented people opting to start or 

join companies in other countries, where they will compete 

against American firms. 

What The Private Sector Should

Do: Lead the way in backing the next 

generation of American entrepreneurs

While Congress and Administration action can take the 

steps outlined here to dramatically boost entrepreneurship 

in the United States, ultimately the private sector must lead 

in creating and expanding the companies that will drive economic growth and create jobs. The private sector cannot sit 

on the sidelines, or wait for all the necessary entrepreneurship 

reforms to be put in place. The private sector must lead. To 

that end, the Startup America Partnership was formed in January to mobilize resources to help entrepreneurs and build 

up entrepreneurial ecosystems in regions across the country. These early efforts are building momentum. The Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other 

influential business groups have also indicated a willingness 

to take steps to support the next generation of entrepreneurs. 

The Council believes the key steps the private sector should 

take include:

Regional Ecosystems: Foster regional 

ecosystems of innovation and support 

growth of startup accelerators 

While entrepreneurship is America’s “secret sauce” and the 

envy of the world, the entrepreneurial culture and supportive 

ecosystems are not evenly spread throughout our nation. In 

the technology sector, for example, California’s Silicon Valley 

continues to dominate, much as Detroit has dominated our 

automobile sector for the past century. There is a significant 

opportunity to build stronger entrepreneurial ecosystems in 

regions across the country—and to customize each to capitalize on their unique advantages. To that end, the private sector should foster regional ecosystems of innovation-friendly 

environments and support growth of startup accelerators by 

scaling up in at least 30 cities the efforts of groups like the 

Startup America Partnership that are aiding vital networking 

connections (e.g., roundtables and workshops). Private entities should also invest in at least 50 new incubators nationwide and big corporations should link up with start-ups 

through corporate “hotlines” with dedicated staff who can 

advise entrepreneurial companies during their nascent stages. 

Networking: Bring together investors 

and entrepreneurs, particularly 

from neglected geographic areas

To expand regional ecosystems, it will be vital to lift up parts of 

the country that traditionally go unnoticed but which possess 

the ingredients for success. Companies in these regions should 

be encouraged to sponsor events like Startup Weekends. 

Initiative 2

The United States did not become 

the leading economic power 

in the world by accident—

it was the byproduct of the 

innovative companies that 

were built in America.” 
22 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Mentorship: Expand programs to help 

entrepreneurs 

Research consistently shows that a key element of successful 

enterprises is active mentorship relationships. These relationships form the core of most accelerators and incubators. Yet, 

if young companies do not have the benefit of being part of 

an accelerator, they often struggle to find effective mentors to 

coach them through the challenging early stages of starting 

a company. Therefore, we recommend working with existing private sector networks to create, expand and strengthen 

mentorship programs at all levels. 

Commercialization: Allow university 

faculty to shop discoveries to any 

technology transfer office

America’s colleges and universities, funded with federal dollars, have produced many of the great breakthroughs in clean 

energy, information technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology that have led to new industries and jobs across the country. However, all too often potentially groundbreaking research 

that could find market success lingers in university labs. 

The Council recommends allowing research that is funded 

with federal dollars to be presented to any university technology transfer office (not just the ones in which the research has 

taken place). Additionally, we recommend adding successful 

entrepreneurs to university academic staffs on 25 campuses 

nationwide; incentivizing the creation of 15 additional entrepreneurship centers like the University of Michigan’s Center 

for Entrepreneurial Studies; and winning commitments from 

25 universities in the next 12 months to use an “open-source” 

approach for researchers with government funding.

Over the past two centuries, America’s economic vitality has 

been tested repeatedly. But at every key juncture, the ingenuity, creativity, and sheer resilience of America’s entrepreneurs 

have uplifted our nation and inspired the world. As America 

faces economic headwinds yet again, our nation must once 

again look to entrepreneurs to create the companies that will 

help the nation bounce back and help put Americans back to 

work. If Congress, the Administration and the private sector embrace these recommendations, and commit to working together to put them into action, our nation will be better 

positioned for the 21st century, and we will usher in the next 

wave of American growth and vitality. 

Administration-led ideas

• Modernize patent system to 

reduce the average delay in patent processing times, and reduce 

lawsuits; provide patent filing help for entrepreneurs.

• Incentivize match for private investments in SBA Early 

Stage Innovation Fund.

• Increase use of SBA financing 

particularly SBIC, SBIR (including 

requesting Congress to fully authorize) and STTR through streamlining, 

shortened application time, education, expanded list of lending partners, expanded growth counseling.

• Expand seed investment and 

angel capital e.g., refundable tax 

credits in Qualified Small Businesses (QSB), crowd funding, 

shared costs and due diligence.

• Improve commercialization opportunities for federally funded research.

• Lower regulatory burden by 

simplifying and speeding up 

government processes. 

• Address talent needs by reducing 

student loan burden and accelerating immigration reforms.

Congress-led ideas

• Address talent needs by establishing new provisional visa program 

for immigrant entrepreneurs and providing automatic green cards or provisional visas for STEM graduates.

• Lower regulatory burden on small 

business, while maintaining regulatory protection, e.g., by allowing 

adjustment periods for growth 

related regulations, passing legislation needed to change the most burdensome of government processes.

• Reduce regulatory barriers to 

IPO for small businesses, e.g., 

requirements of Spitzer Decree, 

Sarbanes Oxley, Dodd Frank, 500 

Shareholder, Extend 144A.

• Establish incentives to stimulate 

IPOs: Sustain extension on capital 

gains exclusion for SB, 10% capital 

gains rate for IPO purchasers and 

investors, extend rollover period 

on QSB capital gains to 9 months, 

sustain current capital gains level.

• Incentivize broader investment 

in early-stage firms.

Private sector-led ideas

• Foster regional ecosystems of 

innovation and support growth 

of startup accelerators. 

• Create intermediary mentorship 

programs and growth counseling to foster entrepreneurs. 

• Systematically bring together investors and entrepreneurs particularly 

from neglected geographic areas.

• Allow university faculty to shop 

discoveries to any technology transfer office, other than solely to their 

own university’s technology office.

The Council recommends the following initiatives to help spur renewed entrepreneurship:

Initiative 2
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 23

Some truths are so self-evident that it’s easy to forget 

them. Like this one: the United States became the largest economy in the world by being the best place for 

companies to invest and grow. Yet the little-noticed truth is 

that we’ve lost substantial market share in global investment 

in recent years—partly because it’s a more competitive world 

out there, and partly because we’ve been resting on our laurels 

and not making the special effort other nations do to attract 

new investment from leading firms. If we get serious and 

take action, and also take advantage of the shifting economic 

equation that can now tilt more investment decisions in our 

favor, there’s every reason to think we can recapture this share 

of global investment and the jobs that come with it. 

A few facts make clear what’s at stake. U.S.-based multi-national 

companies (MNCs)—particularly those in the tradable sectors 

which can locate operations elsewhere—are a powerful force 

for jobs and growth. MNCs headquartered in the United States 

account for 17.8% of total U.S. employment and contribute 

70% of R&D, 44% of exports and 29% of total capital investment48. Global companies headquartered elsewhere, once here, 

also make significant economic contributions. While subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies represent less than 1% of 

all U.S. firms, they account for nearly 5% of private sector jobs, 

11% of capital investment, 14% of R&D and 18% of goods 

exported49. And their jobs pay an average of $71,000—about 

one-third more than the economy-wide average50. 

Reversing the erosion in our leadership as an investment destination in recent years now presents a major jobs opportunity. In the late 1990s, the United States attracted nearly 26% 

of global foreign direct investment (FDI), but that figure has 

dropped roughly a third, to about 18%, today51. At the same 

time, jobs in the tradable sectors, where firms are likely to 

invest, underperformed the rest of the economy from 1990 to 

2008, contributing only 2% of jobs growth over that period, 

according to economist Michael Spence52. 

A National Investment Initiative

Initiative 3

Australia

Canada

Netherlands

Singapore

Japan

U.K.

Switzerland

Ireland

South Korea

Germany

Belgium

France

Spain

Sweden

India

UAE

Denmark

Russia

Italy

Norway

Brazil

Hong Kong

China

Malaysia

Austria

55

15% Global 

Average

Above Average

Below Average

Average U.S.

Share

Average U.S.

Share

33%

11%

50

36

35

26

24

21

16

15

14

13

12

11

9

6

6

4

3

3

3

2

1

0.4

0.3

0

U.S. Share of FDI Outflows

Percent, 2005–2009

U.S. share of FDI from many emerging markets 

is below its global average.

1. U.S. incremental share of 2.5% from above average countries, and 5% from below average countries.

2. U.S. incremental share of 5% from above average countries, and below average countries brought up to 15% global average.

Source: OECD
24 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Changing economics, however, give the United States a 

chance to regain this lost market share. In both manufacturing and services, recent studies by the Boston Consulting 

Group and McKinsey find that the United States is rapidly 

closing the cost gap between low-cost U.S. locations and offshoring centers5354. These and other studies have found that, 

as wage rates and other costs rise abroad, companies are seeing anew the advantages of locating in the United States. The 

typical hourly wage gap between the United States and China 

has fallen and is expected to narrow further. Both China and 

India are projected to experience 18% and 11% wage inflation respectively each year for the next five years55. On top of 

skyrocketing wages, the cost to transport goods from these 

locations has also increased and become more volatile. From 

October 2009 to October 2010, for example, ocean freight 

prices to the West Coast from China rose an average of 66%56. 

Real estate prices have surged as well. Throughout China, for 

example, industrial rents rose 16% in 201056. 

By capitalizing on these shifts in costs with a more aggressive 

marketing of America’s attractiveness as an investment destination, the United States has an opportunity to recapture 

lost market share and grow jobs previously lost in the tradable sectors. How big might the prize be? A new report from 

the Boston Consulting Group suggests that up to 3 million 

jobs could be created by this trend of locating operations in 

the United States by 202058. The Council calls for a National 

Investment Initiative to capture this opportunity and to 

increase global investment to the United States.

Any effort to boost investment here needs to start with a cleareyed look at why our share of global investment has fallen off. 

Economic trends and financial crises have certainly played a 

role, but the bigger factor is that competition for FDI is stiffening. While countries around the world aggressively court 

foreign investment as a matter of national strategy, the United 

States just hasn’t thought that way. 

Consider this: The island nation of Singapore spends more 

than $500 million a year on personnel and programs to 

attract foreign investment and boasts an investment promotion staff of more than 500 people—many of whom are 

located in offices across the United States59. Similarly, Germany Trade and Invest, the investment promotion arm for 

Germany, employs more than 300 people in 48 offices around 

the world60. By contrast, the recently created SelectUSA 

program—meant to be an American version of these countries’ investment promotion offices—is comprised of four 

people at the Commerce Department, with a lesser budget. To 

be sure, some states do a good job luring foreign investment, 

but they’re generally competing against each other in a zerosum game. It’s time to boost the overall “deal flow” America 

sees as a nation. And let’s face it: At the national level, our 

efforts to attract investment from the world’s best companies 

simply aren’t serious today. 

Public attitudes also play a part. The outcry in the past over 

large announced investments in the United States has raised 

flags for future global investors, particularly those with state 

links. For example, after its unsuccessful bid for Unocal in 2005, 

CNOOC, the major Chinese oil company, did not seek another 

large deal in the United States until 2010. Chinese companies 

alone have $100 billion invested abroad, very little of which 

comes to America61. As companies and wealthy investors from 

emerging markets look beyond the natural resources of Asia 

and Latin America for investments higher up the value chain 

in Europe and the United States, we need to change current 

perceptions of the U.S. political and regulatory environments 

around foreign direct investment in order to attract our share. 

The first step is rolling out the welcome mat.

Fortunately, America has a host of advantages that can be 

freshly marketed to promote such inward investment and 

encourage global firms to expand or deepen their investment 

and job creation here. Our workforce is among the world’s 

most talented; and even as other nations dramatically increase 

their production of engineers, ours remain of an internationally competitive caliber. In addition, with our excellent system 

of intellectual property (IP) and information protections, companies that locate innovative or proprietary processes in the 

United States have a much lower risk of losing their own competitive advantages through IP theft. Locating in the United 

States also gives companies privileged access to the world’s 

largest source of final demand. For manufacturers, this means 

close proximity to customers and infrastructure networks; for 

services, a highly productive workforce capable of navigating cultural connections and complex problems. Finally, with 

industrial electricity costs in places like China now 42% higher 

on average than in the United States, energy-intensive industries have natural reasons to locate within our shores62. 

The National Investment Initiative (NII) is comprised of a 

series of proposals aimed at making the United States a more 

attractive place to invest. The effort would be modeled on 

the National Export Initiative, which is already making great 

progress toward the goal of doubling exports in five years, 

with the leadership and support of the President’s Export 

Council. The primary goal we propose for the NII is to attract 

one trillion dollars of foreign direct investment over the next 

four to five years, which would be a 20-25% increase over 

recent trends. 

Initiative 3

Part of our problem is attitude.

At the national level, our efforts

to attract investment from 

the world’s best companies

aren’t serious today.”
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 25

By marrying other Council recommendations to improve America as a place to do business with a much more sophisticated 

national capability to lure investors, we can achieve this goal.

Key recommendations

•	 Leverage Local Advantages through Innovation Investment Zones. Investment zones and clusters can build up on 

positive interaction effects to make the location equation 

work for investors. The Jobs Council recommends leveraging advantages locally through the creation of “Innovation Investment Zones.” Located near major universities, 

these zones would offer a unique environment for companies to do business and create jobs. Zones could magnify 

economic activity and benefits through leading edge tech 

transfer practices as well as competitive tax policies.

•	 Set up partnerships between U.S. companies and the federal government to attract businesses in their supply chain 

to invest in America.

•	 Dramatically upgrade the capabilities of SelectUSA—

which is the federal point of contact for companies looking to invest in the United States—and expand the role, 

responsibilities, and training of the hundreds of Commercial Service officers we deploy worldwide to promote not 

only exports but investment in the United States.

•	 Improve coordination between a supercharged (and possibly rebranded) SelectUSA and individual states so we 

can compete with foreign governments who are investing 

heavily in attracting FDI. A world class investment promotion agency serving as an investment “concierge” that 

directs interested investors to appropriate federal and state 

resources while streamlining the process of gaining the 

approvals to invest, would put the United States on par 

with the best efforts of other countries such as Singapore. 

•	 Improve our visa policies to allow companies that invest 

and create here to more easily bring high-skilled workers to 

our shores (discussed elsewhere in this report).

•	 Explore tax reforms that would increase the competitiveness of companies that locate in the United States. 

As we build these new muscles, we need to bear in mind 

that the sources of foreign investment are also shifting. Currently, more than 90% of FDI into the United States comes 

from Europe, Canada and Japan. Less than 2.5% comes from 

China, Brazil and India, combined63. Rapid growth in these 

developing countries is creating a new generation of worldclass companies—think Wipro, or Tata, or Infosys. As they 

expand abroad, we need to make America their destination 

of choice. To bolster our appeal we will also need to address 

broader tax and regulatory policy reforms. (The Council will 

address these issues in its year-end report on the fundamental 

factors influencing American competitiveness.) 

It’s worth remembering that the United States still boasts 

tremendous competitive advantages. Among other benefits, we offer companies access to the largest economy in the 

world; a culture of innovation, outstanding institutions of 

higher learning; leading intellectual property protections and 

superior quality of life. But to win with these advantages in 

the global economy of the 21st century, we need an aggressive strategy to compete for the investments and jobs of the 

future. The National Investment Initiative can bring focus 

and energy to such a strategy. 

Initiative 3

How did a small island nation with 4.8 

million people earn its first-place ranking 

in the World Bank’s competitive listing 

of ease of doing business? One reason: 

Singapore’s leaders, recognizing that 

foreign trade and investment are matters 

of national necessity, set investment 

attraction as a matter of national priority. 

As a result, Singapore leads the world in 

investment promotion best practices. 

Singapore’s leaders set investment 

attraction as a matter of national priority, 

routinely holding meetings between prime 

ministers and investing CEOs. Since 1961, 

Singapore’s Economic Development 

Board has been responsible for maintaining a clear strategic focus on investment 

promotion and laying the long-term 

foundations for competitiveness through 

national talent and infrastructure policies. 

Fully resourced, the EDB has 500 employees, including 100 spread across 19 

international offices, and a budget worth 

approximately 0.2% of GDP. 

Each year the EDB conducts a strategic 

review assessing Singapore’s ability to 

attract investment from targeted sectors 

based on its country’s talent pool, location, and research strengths. To augment 

these strengths, the EDB funds trainings 

to prepare Singaporeans for the talent 

needs of investing multinational companies and promotes infrastructure projects 

that ease business operations in the 

country. In addition, the EDB advises other 

government agencies on how to make 

their operations more business friendly—

contributing to Singapore’s Number 1 

ranking in the World Bank’s competitive 

listing of ease of doing business. 

Finally, the EDB serves as a central portal 

that eases the process of navigating 

government information and regulatory process. The EnterpriseOne Portal 

provides a centralized on-line resource 

on all government policies and resources 

pertaining to investing businesses. EDB 

staffers also help multinational companies 

locate land in business parks and they 

provide fast-track support for visas and 

other permitting needs. 

As a result of Singapore’s best in class 

investment promotion efforts and exceptionally competitive business environment, in 2009 it had a net stock of $485 

billion Singaporean dollars of foreign 

direct equity investment or approximately 

$100,000 Singaporean dollars of direct 

equity investment per Singaporean (1 USD 

equals about 1.30 Singapore dollars).

HOW SINGAPORE DOES IT
26 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

The Council applauds the Administration’s current 

efforts to streamline existing regulation, but we need to 

do much more. Intelligent regulations are essential to 

protect Americans and set a level playing field for competition. Yet sensible rules should never morph into bureaucratic 

nightmares of delay, duplication and complexity. To make the 

United States competitive and to speed the creation of jobs 

already in the pipeline, we need to adopt global best practices 

to streamline approval processes and use common sense metrics to measure progress. The key is vigilance and persistence. 

Regulatory reform can’t be a fad or a flavor of the month. Real 

change won’t come with a one-off push. It will take a relentless, 

institutionalized effort with the Administration, civil society, 

and private sector working in tandem. To date, the Council has 

taken a forward-looking approach, focusing on several substantial areas where real progress can be made, as well as some 

targeted areas where immediate impact was possible. 

Creating Substantial Change

Our efforts to achieve broad strategic change have focused on 

two areas: overall process reform for permitting in the United 

States and ideas to improve the work of the Independent 

Regulatory Commissions. The Council believes job creation 

can be accelerated if the following broad areas of regulatory 

reform are made a priority:

Reform permitting processes 

to accelerate job creation. 

The current system for permitting and approving job-creating projects, which involves federal, state and local agencies, 

can lead to delays, litigation, and inconsistent standards. This 

is true of transportation projects in particular. “I think we’ve 

been rated 27th at this point in the speed of actually being 

able to construct something,” President Obama noted at the 

FAA One power plant built

in Wisconsin required

46 regulatory

reviews

State Historical

Society

6 State

Agencies

MISCCOUNTYCITY

City, County,

and others

EPA

FERC

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

Example of Current Regulatory and 

Permitting Requirements

Current lengthy and complicated regulatory processes hinder 

jobs creating infrastructure projects.

Source: RFF “Reforming Permitting”; expert interviews

Simplify Regulatory Review and

Streamline Project Approvals 

Initiative 4
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 27

meeting of the Council in June. “Now that’s not very good. I 

think there’s a way for us to maintain our environmental standards, make sure that communities that are being affected by 

construction have a voice, but not just have layer upon layer 

of bureaucracy that is slowing projects up.”

We agree. And the good news is that stasis is not inevitable. 

For example, New South Wales, Australia’s most populous 

state, has received international recognition for streamlining 

its permitting processes with broad stakeholder support. (See 

“It CAN Be Done: How Australia Sped Up Permitting Time”) 

Other countries have made strides as well. The Council has 

proposed and is working closely with the Administration on 

improving the federal permitting process. The thrust is to give 

stakeholders visibility into the process, deliver timely reviews 

and avoid duplicative analysis and requirements. Highlights 

of the Council’s recommendations include:

•	 Data collection and transparency. We propose tasking 

an agency to develop a template for a unified online permit tracking tool for federal permitting and environmental review processes, and to develop metrics for improving 

accountability and sharing best practices.

•	 Early stakeholder engagement. Lead agencies should be 

designated for each project to drive reviews and resolve 

conflicts among federal agencies and other stakeholders. To promote transparency and accountability targets 

for permitting milestones should be set and shared with 

stakeholders.

•	 Centralized monitoring and accountability for federal 

agency performance. A task force, or other administrative structure, should be convened to develop standards, 

metrics, and accountability mechanisms over a 12-month 

period. Following this initial effort, a permanent White 

House-led council would monitor agency performance and 

be a forum to resolve interagency bottlenecks.

•	 Limiting duplication among local, state, and federal 

agency reviews. Changes in practices (and law if necessary) should be made to allow greater acceptance of Statelevel analysis by Federal agencies, and vice-versa. Ideally, 

authorities at all levels of government would cooperate in 

developing multi-jurisdiction “one-stop shops” that would 

provide a standard template and accelerated consideration 

for all phases of project review.

•	 Improve litigation management. Improved up-front processes in permit approvals could be helpful in litigation 

management.

Many of these changes could be constructively piloted 

through the top priority infrastructure projects that the 

Administration has identified. Best practices and lessons 

learned from these projects can then be applied broadly to the 

overall permitting process in the United States. 

Initiative 4

IT CAN BE DONE: 

HOW AUSTRALIA SPED 

UP PERMITTING TIME

Australia, whose multiple layers 

of state and federal oversight 

resemble the U.S. structure, recently 

implemented a series of reforms to 

reduce the regulatory burden facing 

large infrastructure projects. The 

states of New South Wales (NSW) 

and Victoria have led the way. In NSW, 

permitting times have shrunk from a 

once-typical 249 days to 134 days. 

The NSW department of planning 

fast-tracks projects based on their 

economic significance. The state 

has final decision rights over project 

approvals. Thanks to bilateral 

agreements between agencies, 

projects are subject to a single set 

of requirements. NSW also tracks 

and publishes performance metrics, 

with a goal of 95% of decisions being 

completed within five months.

In Victoria, the state government 

has developed an expedited process 

for major transportation projects 

under a 2009 reform. There’s now 

a mandatory review and decision 

timeline for environmental permits—

typically a maximum of 175 days 

after a proposal’s submission to the 

Ministry of Planning. The process 

still provides multiple periods for 

public input on both project scoping 

and the final permit determination. 
28 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Regulatory process reform 

for Independent Regulatory 

Commissions (IRCs). 

The Council commends the Administration’s efforts to review 

old regulations and eliminate unnecessary ones, including 

taking action on a Council recommendation to review regulations that were initiated by IRCs. More, however, needs to be 

done. Since the Reagan Administration, every U.S. president 

has required that executive branch agencies assess the costs 

and benefits of significant regulatory actions, analyze alternatives to proposed actions, and submit proposed actions and 

the related analyses to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA’s review serves as an 

independent audit of agencies’ analysis, provides analytical 

feedback, considers alternative approaches and ensures that 

new regulations are consistent with applicable laws and do 

not conflict with proposed regulations from other agencies. 

Conducting a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis is 

an important step in the rule-making process. It helps agencies better understand the issues driving the need for proposed regulation and to more thoughtfully consider the value 

of alternative approaches that could achieve the same goal. 

For instance, the FCC’s work on broadband policy, including 

its broadband speed tests and the National Broadband Plan,

is a positive example of a fact-based, data-driven analysis that 

can proactively shape a key policy discussion. OIRA’s review is 

also important as it serves as an independent audit of agencies’ 

analysis, provides analytical feedback and ensures that new regulations are consistent with applicable laws and do not conflict 

with actions or proposed regulations from other agencies. 

Unfortunately, the Executive Orders mandating regulatory 

analysis and review did not apply to IRCs, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission because the law won’t allow it. While 

some IRCs employ economic analysis when crafting new 

regulations, many do not routinely do so. As an example, in 

2010, IRCs issued 17 economically significant regulatory 

actions—16 of which were promulgated by the Securities 

and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve System64. 

None underwent the comprehensive regulatory impact analysis or included the cost-benefit analysis that is expected from 

executive branch agencies. 

The Council therefore recommends that legislation be passed 

that requires IRCs conduct cost-benefit analysis for all new 

“economically significant” regulatory actions that may have 

an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more as 

well as any significant guidance that meets the same threshold. 

In addition, to ensure quality and accuracy, an objective third 

party with extensive qualifications and experience consistent 

with their mandate should review regulatory analysis by IRCs.

Providing oversight while still allowing the IRCs final authority will not only help raise the quality of the analysis that is 

performed but could also create coordination among all regulatory agencies—something that is missing today. That coordination could help make agencies aware of related actions by 

different agencies that may overlap with or duplicate actions 

they’re considering, and help make agencies aware of cumulative 

impacts that new regulations from multiple agencies could have. 

These recommendations are not designed to weaken regulation 

or regulatory agencies, but rather to improve the rulemaking 

process, and to create more effective and less burdensome regulations that will promote economic growth and job recovery. 

Create Immediate Impact

We have worked closely with the administration on a number of specifically targeted initiatives to create an immediate 

impact, including initiatives at: 

	 • 	Department of the Interior

	 • 	Department of Transportation

	 • 	Environmental Protection Agency

	 • 	Council on Environmental Quality

	 • 	Department of State

	 • 	U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

	 • 	Department of Homeland Security

	 • 	General Services Administration

	 • 	Food and Drug Administration

A few of these initiatives are described in more detail below.

Boost tourism by reforming 

the visa process

Between 2000 and 2010, the global long-haul travel market 

grew by 60 million travelers each year. Yet our share of this 

market fell from 17% to 12.4%. This means travelers are 

going somewhere—just not to the United States. If we make it 

a national priority to increase our share, over the next decade 

we could potentially add up to $390 billion in international 

visitor spending and create 1.3 million more American jobs 

according to the U.S. Travel Association65. 

While many factors have contributed to the decrease in U.S. 

market share, tourist visa requirements and long wait times 

convince many tourists to simply go elsewhere. Some multinational companies stop holding conventions in the United 

States because they cannot count on staff being able to get 

visas in time. When coming to the United States is such a 

hassle—and when the United Kingdom, the European Union, 

Russia, and the rest of Latin America have far fewer visa 

requirements—is it any wonder we’re losing market share? 

The Council believes that improving the tourist visa process can help the United States compete for the global tourist dollar while protecting national security. What’s more, 

many of these reforms don’t require legislation. In some 

cases, to achieve reductions in wait time, we need to invest 

Initiative 4
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 29

in more offices and personnel. Another promising approach 

is to apply “lean” process improvement techniques that have 

helped boost productivity in countless private sector contexts. Recommendations include: reduce the wait times for 

visa interviews to days rather than months; increase State 

Department and other federal personnel with a greater focus 

on in-bound tourism promotion and visa processing speed; 

and expand the visa waiver program (VWP). 

Historically, VWP countries, or countries with similarly 

streamlined tourism access (such as the United Kingdom, 

Japan and Germany) are the largest source of inbound travel 

to the United States. Potentially eligible nations such as 

Argentina, Chile, Poland and Taiwan should join the VWP as 

soon as possible (which would require legislation). In addition, given their burgeoning middle class, Brazil, India and 

China deserve special attention; the State Department should 

open additional offices and continue to bolster existing staff 

in these priority markets. 

The Council has been working with the Administration to 

pilot some of these recommendations. Over the last few 

months, the State Department reports great improvement in 

wait times at Chinese consulates and across Brazil, with particular improvements in Rio de Janerio and Sao Paolo. Specifically, visa wait times in China have been reduced from a 

high of 60 days down to a 13-day average66. 

Improve the FDA approval process

The United States has long been the global leader in medical 

innovation, leading to improved quality of life for patients and 

the creation of millions of high quality American jobs. Today, 

however, our medical innovation ecosystem is in jeopardy. 

Investment in the life sciences area is declining at an alarming 

rate* because of the escalating cost, time, and risk of developing 

new drugs and devices. While many factors have contributed to 

this decline—including challenges around reimbursement and 

the general state of the economy—an important factor is the 

uncertain FDA regulatory environment. These concerns come 

at a time when Europe, China and India continue to entice 

companies to take their medical research and development 

enterprises abroad, putting at risk our ability to keep private 

investment and jobs here at home.†

2000 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09

26 24 24 23

27 29 31

34 36 34

22 26 22 19 18 20 22 24 25 24

7

2 5 5

7

9

10 11 11

Actual

overseas

visitors

(millions)

Potential

visitors

lost

(millions)

A sharp decline in international arrivals since 2000 has cost the 

United States an estimated $200 billion.

•From 2000 to 2009, international long-haul travel 

increased by 31%.

•Had the U.S. simply kept pace with this growth (maintaining 

market share), an additional 68.3 million visitors would have 

entered the U.S. over the past decade.

•In 2010, total tourism-related employment was 14.1 million, 

suggesting 1 in 9 workers were tourism related—which would 

have been higher with more visits.

Source: WTTC

Number of Overseas Visitors in the U.S.

Millions

The tourist visa process 

can be reformed to allow 

the U.S. to compete 

for the global tourist 

dollar while protecting 

national security.”

Initiative 4

* The share of venture capital invested in biotechnology declined from 18% in 2009 to 12% in 2010, the lowest level since 2001. From 2008 to 2010, venture 

investment in U.S. life sciences companies declined by $2 billion. Venture capital investments in seed and first round medical device startups declined nearly 50% 

in the first half of this year

† For example, in 2007, the European Union and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations sought to attract life sciences companies 

to Europe by establishing a $2 billion Innovative Medicines Initiative. In 2010, while the amount of capital invested in private U.S. biotechnology companies declined 

3.2%, Europe saw a 29% increase. The Chinese government is also pursuing an aggressive strategy with a five-year national plan that identified the biopharmaceutical 

industry as one of the seven emerging markets to target with a commitment of a $1.5 billion for investments. India has similar plans to expand biopharmaceutical 

activities and in 2010 announced a plan to establish a $2.2 billion venture fund for supporting drug discovery and research infrastructure development projects.
30 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Protecting patients from harm is without question an essential element of what the public expects from the FDA. Another 

important element is enabling the timely development and 

availability of new therapies and technologies. Achieving 

both goals simultaneously is the critical challenge for the new 

drug and medical device approval process. 

Despite the challenges, the Council believes there are promising ways forward. For starters, the FDA should develop a 

qualitative framework for benefit-risk assessment of new 

therapeutics and diagnostics that incorporates robust input 

from stakeholders, including both patients and consumers. 

The FDA should also consider a more flexible benefit/risk 

paradigm that explicitly adjusts all the elements to be considered in light of clinical need, patient risk tolerance and the 

need for innovation. We also propose that the FDA explicitly 

consider the impact of its decision making on medical innovation, and formally interact with relevant stakeholders to 

make this happen. 

While continuing to focus on patient safety, the FDA should 

also improve the Accelerated Approval pathway into a socalled progressive approval system. Rolling out new drugs, 

diagnostics or medical devices to specific subpopulations 

of the public with significant unmet needs (with appropriate safeguards) will allow for additional data and learning to 

inform the full approval decision and provide patients with 

earlier access to innovative medicines. 

Streamline Patent Office processes 

to bolster innovation

As noted earlier in the Council’s discussion of high-growth 

firms, Congress recently passed the first major reform of our 

patent system in decades. The legislation moved the U.S. system from a “first-to-invent” to “first-inventor-to-file” rule (to 

both simplify determining who was first with an invention 

and align with systems worldwide); authorized the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to charge higher fees for 

expedited service; allowed the USPTO to receive the revenues 

from the fees it collects so it can hire more examiners and 

reduce today’s backlog; and granted rebates on fees to small 

businesses and simplified the process of contesting a patent 

application to minimize litigation on the backend. 

But there’s still a long way to go to streamline the process. Our 

top priorities on this front should be to ensure the USPTO 

does in fact hire more examiners to reduce the average delay 

in patent processing times (which currently average almost 

three years), and to use “lean” reform techniques to speed up 

a patent process so cumbersome that months of back-andforth can occur to answer “simple” questions the examiner 

has about an application67. 

Speed payments to small 

federal suppliers

Rules governing how Uncle Sam pays suppliers can inadvertently hurt job creation in a struggling economy. The federal 

government pays small businesses nearly $100 billion each 

year for goods and services68. The government typically pays 

30 days after being invoiced. For small firms in tough times, 

that wait can be costly. Some firms sell the receivables, an 

oftentimes expensive form of financing, or else defer activities requiring cash. At the Council’s urging, the President has 

directed the federal government to implement new terms 

so that small suppliers will be paid in 15 days, thus boosting 

their working capital. 

Initiative 4
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 31

In the 21st century global marketplace, a nation’s economy can 

only be as strong as the skills of its people. While the United 

States has traditionally enjoyed a competitive advantage 

thanks to the productivity of its overall workforce, a growing 

mismatch has emerged in key sectors between worker 

preparation and business needs. Among the dimensions of 

this skill gap: 

•	 The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the United 

States could be short as many as 1.5 million college graduates by 202069. The Georgetown University Center for 

Education and the Workforce’s estimates is even more 

alarming: a 3 million shortfall by 201870. This could mean 

losing our current lead in areas that give us an edge in business and engineering innovation.

•	 While the United States currently has an edge in “Big Data” 

analytics—cutting-edge firms that harness the power of 

massive databases to derive new business applications and 

insights—we’ll be short 1.5 million data savvy managers and 190,000 deep data analysts in the next five years 

according to the McKinsey Global Institute71.

•	 As baby-boomer retirements loom, U.S. manufacturing 

faces a deficit of skilled workers, ranging from universityeducated aerospace engineers to community collegetrained precision machinists. Currently U.S. manufacturing 

is the most productive in the world. Who will fill the gap 

left by retiring baby boomers in this critical area?

•	 And the skills gap is not just at the level of rocket scientists and PhDs; the McKinsey Global Institute predicts an 

even larger 1.6 million shortage of workers with technical 

or vocational level training72. 

•	 We have a persistent unmet demand of 400,000 to 500,000 

jobs openings in the healthcare industry, a higher rate than 

in other service industries, many of which could be filled by 

training workers in community colleges73. 

Bottom line: Analysis by the IMF and the Federal Reserve 

Bank of Minneapolis suggest the skills gap may account for

one-quarter to one-third of today’s unemployment rate74. What 

the skills gap really means is that even in the current jobs 

crisis, jobs are going unfilled today partly because employers 

can’t find workers with the appropriate skills. Meanwhile, 

the problems plaguing our K-12 education system—where 

U.S. schools depressingly rank in the middle to bottom of 

international comparisons—pose fundamental threats to our 

future prosperity.

The Council believes there is an urgent near-term agenda 

on talent that can help ease today’s jobs woes, and a broader 

long-term talent agenda to renew America’s competitiveness. In this interim report we focus on ways to accelerate 

Develop Talent to Fill Today’s Jobs

and Fuel Growth

Initiative 5

1.2%

1.7%

0.8%

0.4%

1.7%

4.3%

3.3%

Business

Social Science

Science, Technology,

Engineering and Math

Education

Humanities / Arts

Health

Other

11.5

10.6

9.3

8.1

8.0

4.5

4.5

The skills mismatch will worsen over time as the 

number of graduates in science, technology and math 

continues its slow growth.

1. Bachelors Degree or higher. 

Source: National Center of Education Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; McKinsey Global Institute

College Graduates by Specialization1

2020 Labor Force Projections

Millions
32 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

near-term progress through private sector-led initiatives. 

(America’s longer-term talent strategy will be discussed in 

our year-end report).

To help alleviate the near-term skills gap, the Council has 

organized consortiums of private-sector leaders to launch 

nationally replicable programs to train workers in highopportunity sectors quickly. We believe that once these initiatives prove that we can capture the jobs opportunity that 

is the flip side of today’s skills gaps, policymakers will be 

emboldened to expand these efforts. In addition, to further 

plug the near-term skills gap, the Council has already unveiled 

a business-led effort to boost the supply of engineers in the 

United States. And nearly the entire Council agrees on calling 

on Congress to open our shores to high-skilled immigrants 

who help build businesses that fuel growth and jobs. We discuss these actions and ideas in turn. 

Advanced manufacturing 

training in Minnesota

A just-released study by the Manufacturing Institute reported 

that over 80% of manufacturers cannot find people to fill 

their skilled production jobs75. As a result, there are over halfa-million manufacturing jobs open right now. Responding to 

this talent crisis, and the need to create jobs in this country, 

the Council worked with the Manufacturing Institute to tailor their national manufacturing certification system into a 

nationally replicable fast-track solution that can deliver “just 

in time” talent to small manufacturers. This accelerated program allows individuals to earn both national industry certifications and college credit in 16 weeks, preparing them for 

immediate employment in high-quality manufacturing jobs 

and giving them a solid foundation to advance in higher education and careers. 

This Council-led initiative, called Right Skills Now, is an acceleration of the National Association of Manufacturers-endorsed 

Manufacturing Skills Certification System, which includes 

nationally portable, industry-recognized certifications that 

are combined with for-credit education programs. Right Skills 

Now fast tracks and focuses career training in core employability and technical skills by “chunking” relevant curriculum that 

leads to interim credentials in critical machining skills. 

While the initial model focuses on machining skills, for which 

there is immediate demand, the program can accelerate skills 

development in other foundational skills areas for advanced 

manufacturing, like production or welding. By following 

the NAM-endorsed Manufacturing Skills Certification System, these education pathways are directly aligned to career 

pathways in manufacturing, allowing students progressing through the programs to earn college credit towards a 

degree, a national certification with labor market value, and 

the hands-on technical experience to be successful on the job 

from day one.

Right Skills Now is now being deployed at two Minnesota colleges, Dunwoody College of Technology and South Central 

Community College. Other partners include ACT, the certifying 

body for the National Career Readiness Certificate (the foundational credential in the Skills Certification System) and the 

National Institute of Metalworking Skills (NIMS), the certifying 

body for the series of machining and metalworking credentials 

in the System. In concert with Skills for America’s Future, the 

Council, through Right Skills Now, is leveraging the ongoing 

work of NAM and our other partners to help eliminate the skills 

gap for 500,000 manufacturing jobs in the next few years.

Healthcare workforce training 

in New York and California

Continuing growth in the healthcare sector nationally, along 

with the promise of high-wage, high-skill jobs, is drawing an 

increasing number of people to the field. New York’s example 

is typical. With nearly 12% of total state employment coming 

from health care and the sector’s growth expected to increase 

another 16% by 2018, health care will continue to be a major 

source of new jobs in New York76. 

However, as is the case nationally, a skills mismatch exists 

between those seeking employment and the positions 

employers are seeking to fill. This mismatch occurs at several levels as new graduates and experienced workers look 

to advance their careers and adjust to new healthcare service 

delivery models. As a result, positions that could be filled are 

currently sitting open. Nationally, there are roughly half a 

million job vacancies in healthcare, a 33% higher rate than 

in other service industries77. The Council believes that proving that we can fix what causes this skills gap—an outmoded 

healthcare curriculum not suited to today’s needs, a mismatch between graduates and the work experiences necessary 

to make them employable, and the lack of a clear progression of training courses that interested students can tailor to 

their careers—can go a long way toward helping capture the 

healthcare jobs opportunity.

To maximize this opportunity, the Council asked stakeholders in New York and California to develop national models for 

accelerated training and placement of healthcare workers into 

available jobs within their states. Both states included leadership from industry, labor, academia, government and workforce-development organizations in designing their initiatives. 

Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 

the Partnership for New York City led New York’s effort. Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Community 

Initiative 5

The skills gap may 

account for one-quarter 

to one-third of today’s 

unemployment rate.”
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 33

Colleges system and the Health Workforce Initiative, a longstanding advisory structure comprised of health care employers, led California’s effort. Both states are establishing critical 

links between healthcare employers and the entities training 

and credentialing the workforce. These linkages will accelerate the placement of thousands of New Yorkers and Californians into career-track jobs and ensure adequate preparation 

of a highly qualified labor supply. Both initiatives will serve as 

national models for how states across the country can address 

their healthcare workforce training needs. 

In order to fill current vacancies, one of the first projects of 

the New York initiative will be to fast-track the development 

of a curriculum aimed at training in-demand medical laboratory technologists. On a parallel track, this initiative will 

launch a transition-to-practice program for newly graduated 

registered nurses and develop a blueprint for “stackable” credentials across a number of healthcare occupations. Industry 

will be continually engaged to make sure all training and credentialing programs are updated to meet evolving needs in 

this fast-changing field.

In California, based on employer input, the Healthcare Workforce Initiative (HWI) will focus on sector-specific basic 

skills, such as medical terminology and computer skills for 

health information management. Tailored to local employer 

needs in each of California’s different regions, the HWI will 

include the development of a standard “allied health prerequisite” package consisting of core courses, core professional 

skills, and other foundational skills needed for a number of 

health careers. HWI will also feature, among other things, 

new entry-level bridge programs that will integrate work 

readiness, career guidance, support services, basic skills and 

technical training to accelerate students into promising 

careers in health.

10,000 engineers

American engineers drive innovations that improve our quality of life, lift our standard of living and boost our competitiveness. But in recent decades we’ve lost our edge when it 

comes to producing top engineering talent. While the number 

of bachelor’s degrees awarded by U.S. institutions increased 

from 1.1 million in 1990 to 1.6 million last year, the number 

of engineers graduating annually has stagnated at around 

120,000. By contrast, between 850,000 to 1 million engineers 

a year now graduate from universities in India and China78. 

Even if those statistics overstate the gap and only a portion of 

those foreign-trained “engineers” truly possess skills equivalent to our own, the trend remains ominous. A shortage of 

engineers slows economic recovery, stunts long-term growth, 

and leaves firms having to look elsewhere for talent. Most U.S. 

employers say that engineering and science-related jobs are 

the hardest jobs to fill. If we don’t produce good candidates 

for these jobs, companies will find them overseas.

In response, the Council has launched a private-sector initiative to yield 10,000 more engineering graduates in the United 

States each year. This goal requires a commitment, starting at 

the top, from U.S. engineering employers. 

As it turns out, the engineering gap is largely a retention 

problem. Thirty-five percent of students enrolled in science, 

technology, engineering and math programs leave them after 

the first year79. If we can simply lift the retention and graduation rates of these qualified, interested students, we can move 

a long way toward our goal. 

The Council has a three-part strategy to inspire and encourage young engineers: a plan for direct student engagement; 

better alignment of university incentives; and the launch of a 

consortium of companies committed to making a difference. 

More than 60 companies have already signed on to the effort, 

pledging to double their engineering internships in 2012. 

These additional 7,000 internships, representing nearly $70 

million in additional investment by these companies, will create opportunities for hands-on learning that can cement student commitment to the field. Due to the strong interest the 

Council has already received from the private sector, we hope 

to double this commitment by the summer of 2012. 

The nation’s top engineering universities have also agreed 

to address this issue. In addition, the Council, in partnership with several of the top deans in engineering schools, is 

establishing a “Tech Standard of Excellence Seal” to recognize 

those schools that attain high retention rates. We expect this 

seal will become a mark of distinction that boosts an institution’s prestige as well as reward it for focusing on retention 

and graduation. Companies in the consortium will together 

focus some of their college-related charitable spending on 

retention programs to help these schools deliver. 

The Council sees this private sector-led effort as an important 

first step that can provide lessons for national policymakers. Ten thousand is a good start, but given the pace at which 

China% of total degrees produced

S. Korea

Japan

Italy

Mexico

France

Germany

Poland

Australia

Canada

U.K.

U.S.

33

25

17 16 15 14

7 7 6 5

13 12

The United States awards a smaller share of its degrees in 

engineering compared to other countries.

Source: NSF

Bachelors Degrees in Engineering

Percent of total degrees produced

Initiative 5
34 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Initiative 5

Engineering a competitive future
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 35

our competitors are growing their own talent, it’s just a start. 

If we want the next Intel, Google or Facebook to be born in 

America, we’ll need a broader national campaign to make 

engineering truly “cool.” 

High-skilled immigration

When a company routinely lets talented workers slip away it’s 

called mismanagement. When America does the same thing, 

it’s called politics as usual. At a time when growth is sluggish 

and jobs are scarce—and in an era in which brains are the 

only sure source of lasting competitive advantage—it’s wrong 

that America pushes talented immigrants away. 

Nearly every Council member believes that no discussion 

of the intersection between talent and jobs can ignore the 

“reverse brain drain” we continue to face. This point, which 

was touched on earlier in this report’s chapter on highgrowth entrepreneurship, bears underscoring as we think 

more broadly about the nation’s talent agenda. Many of our 

most talented STEM workers are immigrants living legally in 

America, often after having been educated here as well. They 

are high earners, pay their taxes, contribute to their communities, and want to stay. Yet due to the endless wait for employment-based visas, these workers and their families can’t fully 

embrace life as Americans. Many grow disenchanted and end 

up putting their skills to work in other countries that are only 

too glad to welcome them. 

While the Council is hardly the first to call attention to this 

self-inflicted economic wound, and there are a host of technical recommendations we’re proposing to remedy the situation, two points should be lit up in neon here. 

First, we need to fully subscribe and radically expand the socalled EB-5 “entrepreneur’s visa” for immigrant entrepreneurs who invest $500,000 to $1 million in a new commercial 

enterprise and create at least 10 full-time jobs (or preserve 

10 jobs in a troubled business). If the EB-5 program reaches 

maximum capacity, it could result annually in the creation 

of approximately 4,000 new businesses $2 billion to $4 billion of foreign investment capital and create 40,000 jobs. But 

streamlining the application process and fully subscribing the 

program is just a start. Why have any cap on this kind of visa 

at all? Why not advertise it worldwide? Indeed, why not go 

further, as some have suggested, and set up human resources 

offices in key countries around the world to recruit their most 

talented young people to come to America to realize their 

dreams while fueling the next generation of U.S. innovation? 

Our second point is a plea: America can’t afford to let highskilled immigration reform remain attached to the controversies that surround “comprehensive” immigration reform 

more broadly. As some of our members have different viewpoints on this subject, the Council recognizes the legitimate 

passions on all sides of this question, and understands how 

complex it can be for policymakers to reconcile differing 

views. But given the challenges our economy now faces in 

a global age, we all need to rethink. How is anyone served 

when great immigrant talent trained at our finest institutions 

leaves our shores to work for the competition? If the next million jobs these men and women create could be in America, 

shouldn’t we peel off and pass that portion of immigration 

reform right now? 

Initiative 5

HOW THE PRIVATE 

SECTOR CAN HELP

Government alone can’t solve today’s jobs crisis. We need 

everyone to pitch in. To be sure, the first duty of private 

firms is to run their businesses well and generate the profits that enable growth and hiring. But business can play a 

civic role that goes beyond just minding the store. 

Business can help close the skills gap, for example, by helping shape educational programs so they fit the needs of 

employers. The Council, at its initial meeting, established 

a goal of graduating an additional 10,000 engineers each 

year. Since the program launched, over sixty companies have 

committed to sponsoring an additional 7,000 internships. 

Can your company support the engineers of the future?

In partnership with the National Association of Manufacturers, a related initiative, Right Skills Now, focuses 

on filling the thousands of open advanced manufacturing 

jobs. Unemployed workers with years of manufacturing 

experience are sitting on the sidelines. Developing accelerated training programs can get this latent labor force back 

in the game. Similarly, employers in New York State and 

California, along with the system of community colleges, 

are taking the lead in shaping new curriculums to meet 

their current and future needs, making a degree translate 

far more readily into an actual job. What can you do to help 

your community better train local workers for the needs of 

local employers?

Here’s another way to contribute. Though America remains 

the global innovation leader; the creation of startup 

companies, which fuel job growth and innovation, has not 

recovered from the recession. Bigger firms can help lift the 

prospects of entrepreneurs by partnering with promising 

early stage companies. As one example, the Council is helping small businesses increase their access to international 

demand by organizing symposiums that tap established 

international supply chains of larger companies. What can 

your large firm do to help a small business today? 

 Finally, fourteen companies have already signed up to 

participate in the Better Buildings Challenge, which asks 

the private sector to dramatically improve the energy 

efficiency of commercial buildings. Not only are these companies poised to save huge sums over time through greater 

energy efficiency, they’re helping put construction workers, 

among the hardest hit sectors, back to work right now. How 

might your business help expand this program?

The Council can help pair interested businesses with 

opportunities to make a difference in the jobs crisis. 
36 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Aspirations

The Council has tried in this report to chart a practical path 

to accelerate job growth in the next few years. In the business 

world, when a troubled company needs to be turned around, 

executives often invoke a three-step sequence. First, stabilize 

the situation; next, rebuild confidence; and finally, once the 

right strategy is in place, march toward excellence. 

The American economy faces similar 

challenges. We’ve gone through the 

worst economic and financial crisis 

in decades. The human toll has been 

immense. Frustrated citizens are asking 

hard questions about our leaders and our 

institutions, and with good reason. In 

response, we should stabilize the situation 

and boost job creation by accelerating 

training, reining in regulation and 

filling open positions. We should rebuild 

confidence by showing the world that we 

can take on our tough infrastructure and energy challenges, 

and march toward excellence by showing that the United States 

can be the most innovative country in the world. 

The Council doesn’t plan to let this report gather dust on the 

shelf. We intend to continue to get things done. We’re going to 

engage groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Business Council, the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Association of 

Manufacturers to help turn these ideas into action. To be sure, 

the first duty of private firms is to run their businesses well and 

generate the profits that enable growth and hiring. But business can—and in today’s jobs emergency, must—play a civic 

role that goes beyond just minding the store. We need the private sector’s help to “Take Action and Build Confidence.” We 

will continue to host “Listening & Action” sessions to receive 

input from the public. The Council is working closely with a 

senior team in the White House Office of Management and 

Budget, which is helping us drive initiatives and results across 

the executive branch. We have and will continue to reach out to 

Members of Congress. Indeed, the Council believes that bipartisan action on this agenda in Washington—even on modest 

issues, to start—would boost confidence at this juncture and 

have a positive effect on our economy. 

In the end, however, action matters most. 

Americans have always risen to a challenge. 

And once we work through this near-term jobs 

shortfall, we’ll find the longer-term challenges 

we face are, in fact, “high-class” problems to 

have. The rest of the world is getting wealthier. 

That means billions of new customers around 

the globe for the kinds of good and services 

American ingenuity can produce. True, we 

won’t be able to coast along on old ways of 

doing things, the way we could in an era marked by less competition. We’ll be forced to raise our game. But that will only 

make us bolder, smarter and more creative.

If we’re pushed toward bolder strategies to develop people’s 

skills and talents, we’ll be helping more of our fellow Americans 

realize their human potential. If competition forces us to find 

smarter ways to fund government in an aging America while 

promoting growth, or to finally pursue sound energy policies, 

or to make our health-care system more efficient, then competition will have given us the spur to improvement we need. 

The flip side of every challenge is opportunity, and while 

the economic threats we face are real, the Council believes 

there’s no question we will surmount them—so long as 

we think differently, and act differently, together. More on this 

in December. 

Aspirations

Americans have

always risen 

to a challenge. 

The flip side of

every challenge 

is opportunity.”
37 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

IN THE END, HOWEVER,

ACTION MATTERS MOST.

“

”
38 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

APPENDICES
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 39

Jobs Council 

June Recommendations

Appendix 1

Energy retrofitting (Better Buildings)

Graduate 10,000 more engineers

Build workforce skills in advanced manufacturing

Healthcare workforce development

Leverage EB-5 program

SBA loan “one-stop shop”

Promote small business exports

Establish mechanisms to attract more Foreign Direct Investment

Streamline permitting

Federal agency supplier financing

Accelerate demand for U.S. travel/tourism
40 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Jobs Council 

October Recommendations

Appendix 2

Invest Aggressively and Efficiently in Cutting-Edge Infrastructure and Energy

• Reauthorize the main surface transportation programs

• Leverage and expand existing public-private infrastructure financing mechanisms

• Create a national infrastructure financing organization to attract private capital 

to infrastructure projects

• Protect and preserve the user-based funding of the highway trust fund

• Speed implementation of the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System

• Promote broadband construction to reach all Americans

• Streamline permitting and approval processes for jobs rich infrastructure

• Make extraordinary efforts to strike a balance on energy investments

• Modernize and expand the electric grid through transmission siting reform

• Mobilize private sector financing for advanced energy technologies

Nurture the High-Growth Enterprises that Create New Jobs

• Win the global battle for talent

• Reduce regulatory barriers and provide financial incentives for firms to go public

• Enhance access to capital for early stage startups as well as later stage growth companies

• Make it easier for entrepreneurs to get patent-related answers faster

• Streamline SBA financing access, so more high -growth companies get the capital 

they need to grow

• Expand seed/angel capital

• Bring together investors and entrepreneurs, particularly from neglected geographic areas

• Foster regional ecosystems of innovation and support growth of startup accelerators

• Expand programs to mentor entrepreneurs

• Allow university faculty to shop discoveries to any technology transfer office

• Enhance commercialization of federally funded research

• Address talent needs by reducing student loan burden and accelerating immigration reforms
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 41

Jobs Council 

October Recommendations (continued)

Appendix 2

Launch a National Investment Initiative

• Leverage local advantages through Innovation Investment Zones

• Establish supply chain partnerships

• Upgrade SelectUSA and improve coordination between SelectUSA and U.S. states

• Improve immigration policies to bring jobs to the U.S.

• Explore tax reforms that would increase the competitiveness of businesses 

locating in the United States

Simplify Regulatory Review and Streamline Project Approvals

• Reform permitting processes to accelerate job creation

• Conduct regulatory process reform for independent regulatory commissions (IRCs)

• Boost tourism by reforming the visa process

• Improve the FDA approval process

• Streamline Patent Office Processes to bolster innovation

• Speed payments to small federal suppliers

Develop talent to fill today’s jobs and fuel growth

• “Right Skills Now” advanced manufacturing training

• “10,000 Engineers” initiative to graduate more U.S. engineers

• Healthcare workforce training in New York and California

• Stop the “reverse brain drain” by letting high-skilled immigrants stay in the U.S.
42 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Project Life Cycle

Prioritization and 

fast-tracking

•	 Segment projects by 

importance to increase 

speed and efficiency

•	 Prioritize and fast-track 

mission critical and 

strategic projects (e.g., 

renewable energy, 

critical infrastructure)

•	 Dedicate resources and 

expedite workflow (e.g., 

delivery units)

Decision rights

•	 Designate clear roles 

and accountabilities 

to ensure time-bound 

outcomes

•	 Empower project 

sponsor or planning 

authority to set timelines 

and drive decisions

•	 Establish single point 

of accountability to 

ensure outcomes

Harmonization and 

standardization

•	 Facilitate a one-stop shop 

permitting process to 

lower applicant burden 

and reduce red tape 

•	 Integrate approach in 

all project elements 

(planning to permitting) 

to minimize duplication

•	 Harmonize for various 

agencies (e.g., fish and 

wildlife, forests, water 

quality, U.S. Army Corps)

•	 Standardize forms and 

evaluation requirements 

in various jurisdictions

Performance, transparency, 

and certainty

•	 Increase public 

transparency on 

process to enhance 

performance and 

increase business 

certainty

•	 Specify and publicly 

disseminate process 

requirements including 

time frames

•	 Introduce electronic 

application interfaces

•	 Share real-time data 

on permit applications 

and approvals

Key elements of an efficient permitting regime to drive development of projects 

having environmental impact

Prioritization and fast-tracking

Decision rights

Harmonization and standardization

Performance, transparency, and certainty

Applications Approvals/

rejections

appendix 3

Efficient Permitting
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 43

U.S. performance

Prioritization and 

fast tracking

•	 Weak prioritization mechanisms for strategic projects 

•	 Fear of litigation frequently results in excessive documentation

•	 50% of alternative energy projects suffer delays

•	 Substantive decisions made at field level with little strategic oversight

Harmonization and 

standardization

•	 Short-term and long-term planning is done at local or state levels 

•	 Permitting decisions involve all levels of government and multiple federal agencies

•	 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) frameworks can require repeating analysis that 

may have already been done in planning phases of a project 

•	 Wide variation of emphasis at state and local levels (e.g., “one-stop” state siting councils in 

Oregon and Minnesota)

•	 Federal, state and local governments each impose their own requirements on projects

Decision rights

•	 The environmental review process is often designed to maximize stakeholder participation 

and discussion, not reach decisions

•	 Political considerations, not a common set of economic facts frequently drive the stakeholder 

negotiating process

Performance, 

transparency, 

and certainty

•	 Government agencies do not publicly share data on status of permit applications

•	 Significant uncertainty for businesses (e.g., wind energy facility siting can take anywhere from 

a month to a few years)

Opportunities for improvement

appendix 4

U.S. Permit Approval

The Administration has recently begun an effort to address 

a number of these issues, including the creation of a dash 

board for tracking permits across federal agencies, the 

identification of the top U.S. 10 infrastructure projects, 

and the identification of White House Personnel with the 

accountability to coordinate key projects. We urge that 

these efforts be given top priority and intend to follow up 

with the Administration on progress in this area.
44 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

More than 60 companies have already signed on to the private sector initiative to yield 10,000 more 

engineering graduates in the United States each year. These companies pledged to double their 

engineering internships in 2012. These additional 7,000 internships for students, representing nearly 

$70 million in additional investment by these companies, create opportunities for hands-on learning 

that can cement student commitment to the field.

appendix 5

10,000 Engineers
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 45

This blank page is intentional.
46 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Jeffrey Immelt, Chair

Chairman and CEO, GE

The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (Jobs Council) was created to 

provide non-partisan advice to the President on continuing to strengthen the Nation's 

economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States and on ways to create 

jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.

The Jobs Council is made up of members appointed by the President from among 

distinguished citizens outside the Federal Government, including citizens chosen to 

serve as representatives of the various sectors of the economy to offer the diverse 

perspectives of the private sector, employers, and workers on how the Federal 

Government can best foster growth, competitiveness, innovation, and job creation.

Ursula M. Burns

Chairman and CEO, 

Xerox Corporation

Steve Case

Chairman and CEO, 

Revolution, LLC; Co-Founder, 

America Online; Chairman, 

The Case Foundation

Kenneth I. Chenault

Chairman and CEO, 

American Express 

Company

Christopher Che

President and CEO, 

Hooven-Dayton 

Corporation

John Doerr

Partner, Kleiner Perkins 

Caufield & Byers

Roger W. Ferguson

President and CEO, 

TIAA-CREF

Mark T. Gallogly

Cofounder and Managing 

Principal, Centerbridge 

Partners

Joseph T. Hansen

International President, 

UFCW

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL

ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 47

Lewis Hay

Chairman & CEO, NextEra 

Energy

Gary Kelly

Chairman, President and 

CEO, Southwest Airlines

Ellen Kullman

Chair and CEO, DuPont

A.G. Lafley

Former Chairman and CEO, 

Proctor & Gamble

Eric Lander

Director, Broad Institute of 

MIT and Harvard

Monica Lozano

CEO, impreMedia

Jim McNerney

Chairman, President and 

CEO, The Boeing Company

Darlene Miller

President and CEO, 

Permac Industries

Paul Otellini

President and CEO, Intel

Richard D. Parsons

Chairman, Citigroup, Inc.

Antonio M. Perez

Chairman and CEO, 

Eastman Kodak Company

Penny Pritzker

President and CEO, 

Pritzker Realty Group

Brian Roberts

Chairman and CEO, 

Comcast Corporation

Matthew Rose

Chairman and CEO, 

BNSF Railway

Sheryl Sandberg

Chief Operating Officer, 

Facebook

Richard L. Trumka

President, AFL-CIO

Laura D’Andrea Tyson

S.K. and Angela Chan 

Professor of Global 

Management, Haas School 

of Business, UC Berkeley

Robert Wolf

Chairman, UBS Americas

President, UBS Investment 

Bank
48 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

Sources

Sources

1. Building America’s Future Educational Fund. Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind. (http://www.bafuture.org/).

2. American Society of Civil Engineers. Infrastructure Report Card. (www.asce.org/reportcard).

3. Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner, Miller Center of Public Affairs. Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agenda. (http://

millercenter.org/policy/transportation).

4. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission. Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Infrastructure Finance. (http://

financecommission.dot.gov).

5. Federal Highway Administration. Estimated Time Required to Complete the NEPA Process. (http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/

nepatime.asp).

6. Federal Highway Administration. Employment Impacts of Highway Infrastructure Investment. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/pubs/

impacts/index.htm).; Council of Economic Advisors. Estimates of Job Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/estimate-of-job-creation/) Heintz, James, Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, 

How Infrastructure Investments Support the U.S. Economy (http://www.engr2.pitt.edu/mac/images-t/How_Infrastructure_Investments_

Support_Econ.pdf.

7. Department of the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisors. An Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment. (http://www.

treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/infrastructure_investment_report.pdf).

8. Mark Zandi. Moody’s Economy.com. Assessing the Macro Economic Impact of Fiscal Stimulus 2008. (http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/

documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf).

9. President’s Export Council. Transportation Infrastructure Letter. (http://trade.gov/pec/docs/PEC_Transportation_Infrastructure_

Letter_031111.pdf).

10. American Society of Civil Engineers. Failure to Act. (http://www.asce.org/economicstudy/)

11. Federal Communications Commission. National Broadband Plan: Connecting America. (http://www.broadband.gov/).

12. Federal Highway Administration. Tools and Programs: Private Activity Bonds. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/tools_programs/pabs.htm).

13. FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery. TIFIA. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/)

14. American Federation of Teachers. Strengthening Retirement Security and Building a Better America. (http://www.aft.org/pdfs/press/

StrengthRetireSecurity0411.pdf).

15. FCC. Press release. (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-chairman-genachowski-announces-100000-new-broadband-enabled-jobs-callcenter-business-l)

16. Aaaron Smith. Pew Internet Research Center. Home Broadband 2010. (http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/

Home%20broadband%202010.pdf)

17. White House. Memorandum – Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/

memorandum-regulation-and-independent-regulatory-agencies)

18. See for instance: Chamber of Commerce. Open Letter to Congress and the President of the United States. (http://www.uschamber.com/

sites/default/files/110905_jobs_letter.pdf). ; API. The Economic Impacts of Marcellus Shale: Implications for New York Pennsylvania, and West 

Virginia.; Wood Mackenzie for API. US Supply Forecast and Potential Jobs and Economic Impacts (2012-2030).

19. Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Shale Gas Production Subcommittee 90 Day Report. (http://www.

shalegas.energy.gov/).

20. North American Reliability Corporation. 2010 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=4|61).

21. Department of Energy. National Electric Transmission Congestion Study. (http://congestion09.anl.gov/documents/docs/Congestion_

Study_2009.pdf).

22. American Wind Energy Association, UNITED STATES Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2010. 

23. U.S. Energy Information Administration

24. American Electric Power. Wyoming-Jacksons Ferry 765kV Project, (http://www.aep.com/about/transmission/Wyoming-Jacksons_Ferry.

aspx.).

25. American Transmission Company. Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Line. ( http://www.atc-projects.com/NCNE1.shtml).

26. The Whitehouse. Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.

pdf). 

27. President Obama. 2011 State of the Union. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2011).

28. Johannes Pfeifenberger and Delphine Hou. Employment and Economic Benefits of Transmission Infrastructure Investment in the UNITED STATES 

and Canada. The Brattle Group prepared for WIRES. (http://www.wiresgroup.com/images/Brattle-WIRES_Jobs_Study_May2011.pdf).

29. Ibid.

30. Center for American Progress. Don’t Let Clean Energy Die on the Vine. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/doe_lgp.html)

31. McKinsey Quarterly. The Economics of Solar Power. (https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_economics_of_solar_power_2161). 

32. Pew Charitable Trusts. The Clean Energy Economy. Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race. (http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/

wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Global_warming/G-20%20Report.pdf?n=5939).

33. Similar analysis available from CBO estimates for CEDA. Congressional Budget Office. Clean Energy Financing Act of 2011. (http://www.cbo.

gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12386/s-ceda.pdf). 

34. Impact estimates developed by the Bipartisan Policy Center using McKinsey & Company’s UNITED STATES Low Carbon Economics Tool

35. Political Economy and Research Institute. A New Retrofit Industry. (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9531).

36. John Haltiwanger et. al. Business Dynamics Statistics Briefing: Jobs Created from Business Startups in the United States. (http://www.

kauffman.org/research-and-policy/bds-jobs-created.aspx).; Bureau of Labor Statistics data suggested 44 MM net jobs total created in the 

relevant time period.
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS INTERIM REPORT 49

Sources

SOURCES

37. Tim Kane. The Kauffman Foundation. The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction. (http://www.kauffman.org/

uploadedFiles/firm_formation_importance_of_startups.pdf).

38. Dane Stangler. Kauffman Foundation. High-Growth Firms and the Future of the American Economy. 

39. Burea of Labor Statistics. Business Employment Dynamics. (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/)

40. David Weild and Edward Kim. Grant Thorton. Capital Markets Series: Market Structure is Causing the IPO Crisis – and More. 

41. Ibid. 

42. McKinsey Global Institute. An Economy that Works: Job Creation and America’s Future. (http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/

us_jobs/index.asp).

43. The Economist. A Helping Hand for Startups. (http://www.economist.com/node/21531482).; David Weild and Edward Kim. Grant Thorton. 

Capital Markets Series: Market Structure is Causing the IPO Crisis – and More.

44. Ibid.

45. National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Improving Access to Capital for High Growth Companies. (http://www.

eda.gov/PDF/NACIE_Report-Access_to_Capital.pdf)

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Council on Foreign Relations. Independent Task Force Report No. 67: UNITED STATES Trade and Investment Policy. (http://www.cfr.org/

trade/us-trade-investment-policy/p25737).

49. Ibid.

50. Economic Statistics Administration. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. (http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/

documents/fdiesaissuebriefno2061411final.pdf).

51. UNCTAD

52. Michael Spence and Sandile Hlatshwayo. The Evolving Structure of the American Economy and the Employment Challenge. (http://www.cfr.

org/industrial-policy/evolving-structure-american-economy-employment-challenge/p24366).

53. Boston Consulting Group. Made in the USA, Again. (http://www.bcg.com/media/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-75973).

54. McKinsey and Company. The New Allure of Onshore Locales for IT Services. (https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/IT_services_The_

new_allure_of_onshore_locales_2661).

55. Oxford Economics.

56. Shanghai Containerized Freight Index

57. Cushman and Wakefield. Industrial Space Across the World 2011.

58. Boston Consulting Group. Press release. (http://www.bcg.com/media/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-88775)

59. Singapore. Economic Development Board. (http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index.html).

60. Germany Trade and Invest. (http://www.gtai.com).

61. UNCTAD

62. Energy Information Administration. Industrial Electricity Price Index and CEIC data comparison

63. Economic Statistics Administration. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. (http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/

documents/fdiesaissuebriefno2061411final.pdf).

64. OIRA. 2011 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_reports_congress) 

65. US Travel Association. Ready for Takeoff. (http://www.ustravel.org/)

66. Department of Homeland Security

67. USPTO. August 2011 Patents Data at a Glance. (http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml)

68. Small Business Administration.

69. McKinsey Global Institute. An Economy that Works: Job Creation and America’s Future. (http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/

us_jobs/index.asp).

70. Anthony Carenvale. Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements 

through 2018. (http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/ExecutiveSummary-web.pdf).

71. McKinsey Global Institute. Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. (http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/

publications/big_data/).

72. McKinsey Global Institute. An Economy that Works: Job Creation and America’s Future. (http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/

us_jobs/index.asp).

73. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

74. Narayana Kocherlakota, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Back Inside the FOMC (September 2010). (http://www.

minneapolisfed.org/news_events/pres/speech_display.cfm?id=4532).; Marcello Estevao and Evridiki Tsounta. IMF Working Paper: Has the 

Great Recession Raised U.S. Structural Unemployment? (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11105.pdf). 

75. National Association of Manufacturers.

76. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

77. Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

78. National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/appendix.htm).; National 

Bureau of Statistics China. China Statistical Yearbook.; NASSCOM; U.S. National Center for Education Statistics

79. Business Higher Education Forum. Increasing the Number of STEM Graduates: Insights from the UNITED STATES STEM Education and Modeling 

Projecti.
www.jobs-council.com

52 INTERIM REPORT JOBS COUNCIL

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL

ON JOBS AND COMPETITIVENESS

www.jobs-council.com