mike is paid double today because he is doing two of these sessions. >> just that i prepared for. >> good. filling in for larry summers. >> tough job. >> i will introduce each of the speakers and they will briefly introduce what subject they would like to talk about. focus on one thing about competitiveness. will you guys on the end move a little bit so we can see each other? feel free to jump in and ask questions of each other. i'm not the only one who has questions. we will start on my left. ursula burns.

she joined xerox corporation as a summer intern in 1980. it is safe to say she has moved up the ladder. she is now chairman and chief executive. she's also vice-chairman of the president expert counsel. next to her is general james jones. former -- in the marines and security advisor to obama. he once worked for the chamber of commerce working on issues. to my right is the president of the center for american progress. shall we say, a centerleft think tank in town. she worked on the obamacare at the department of health and human services as an advisor.

at one time she worked on senator clinton's presidential primary campaign. and michael, whom you know very well by now. if you can focus on month in, what should we focus on? >> normally i would focus on education, but i'll don on my hat and speak about exports and shipping them around the world in an effective way. >> ok. >> general jones, what is the thing you want to focus on? >> it is important to realize just how the world of energy figures in our future, both from a competitive aspect, but also a national aspect. there are many solutions to our

problems. one of the bright and shining paths that we should follow is the energy path. rewiring energy and have the u.s. leads throughout the world on the energy potential. this is one of the bright things we have to look forward to. criticalk the most element is human capital. looking at education from zero to 22 and 25. we are seeing increasing competition from asia and other countries that traditionally we did not see as competitors. i think that element of the education system is critical to

long-term competitiveness. >> michael? >> a variation on your theme i'm afraid. >> glad i went first. >> i think i will focus on talent. basically, how do we educate, train, develop our citizens? second, how to attract and retain people from overseas that come to the united states to work? they often have big contributions to make. they're frequently unable to stay because the policy issues and other factors. i will not talk about enabling that talent. that is what this conference is about. it will be much the same. talent is the key. >> ok.

we're doing pretty well in exports. imports and exports go down and recession and now both are going up. problem solved? >> not at all. when i joined the president's export council and talked about doubling exports in the next five years, the 2010 export grew 16.5%. in 2011 -- the trend is slowing if we don't fundamentally change. we can have some trade agreements signed. in order for us to meet the goal and continuing double- digit expansion, we need to address this problem.

we need to think about being enablers. trade agreements, broader enforcement -- >> enforcement so that we can get into markets that we are shut out of for reasons that are not surely about the trade treaty, but things that go beyond it? >> exactly. what is happening around the world is that as we are changing the game, we have signed trade agreements and countries figure out another way to limit exports. a lot of issues around trade. we have to have the agreement signed and have a serious

enforcement mechanism, which we are improving, which is good. if you do not follow the rules, you are out. we have penalties. we have been infrastructure, a broad infrastructure that allows us to be ready to sell around the world. it has to do with infrastructure and education. the entire system is a system that makes trade and exports that needs to be stepped up another notch to get that double-digit growth. >> the question about enforcement, it is a real dilemma for the united states. and the business community. they say, enforced these agreements. open these markets. we have a lot to sell, particularly in the area of services. and so, you know, other countries do what they do. they slow and drag on having informal ways of keeping us out.

it is time to get tough. we are for free-trade and you're violating the of it. if you're not willing to take some hits, you cannot really enforce these. how will we resolve that? >> this cannot be handled by any individual country going rogue. but infrastructure expected -- what they've expected is that somebody has wrong or sinned they would lead the charge. one of the things the export council worked on and administration helps with is for us to force behind the words. a coalition of companies that would go against the country if there is intellectual property violations in say software.

have a coalition with the government will allow companies to be more brave and forceful. without that, it would be silly for companies to stand alone. >> does that mean like sign a complaint? >> we are working on mechanisms to make it work. how do you streamline the rules and to make it more public. together, business and government would go forth and say, yes, this is a violation. we will take our toys back just like you would take your toys back. >> the business community is right.

we need to get tough with country x. some say, you cannot do that because we have this thing going on with them. how do we resolve that? >> i think we're in a new world and the aspect of our competitiveness is center stage of our national security policy. so it is not just about -- as it was in the 20th century about the defense department and the state department and the

national security council and everyone else is on the outside looking in. we have cyber security concerns, we have economic security concerns. one of the things that the president asked me to do was go to capitol hill and talk to them about the necessity of leadership in reforms. i think we have to move major pieces in our structure of our government so that american business is, in fact, brought into the -- if you will, the situation room on the same level as other issues. we have to have -- those actions toward us have to have consequences.

one of the things i've learned in the last decade or so, there's a real affinity of american private sector involvement, generally speaking. but at the governmental level, we're not where we need to be, i don't think in terms of helping american business succeed. >> the good news is there is a place now being made at the table to at least participate in the conversations early. i don't know how other export councils work, but this one i'm surprised we actually do work. we meet with the administration, we meet with the state department, with meet with all the agencies to make sure they understand and we work together to move the ball forward. this is not going to be easy. we can't say we're going to be forceful against china tomorrow. we'll make small steps every day to make it easier for businesses to do business around the world -- for u.s. business to do business around the world. >> let's turn to human capital. what is it -- so education, everyone is for education. everyone knows we have an education problem and we've been talking about it until we're blue in the face. we're making some progress but i would not say anyone is happy with the pace of it. how do we get out of this rut? >> i think there are a few things.

the u.s. is making marginal improvements but i think if you learn the lessons from around the world there are unique challenges to the u.s. education system. if you look at what happens in finland or other nations. fin land has one of the best educational system in the world and they don't pay teachers dramatically more. but they think teachers as almost like business leaders.

how do you track top talent -- how do you attract the top talent to do the best in the classroom. they provide teachers a lot of aument in the classroom -- autonomy in the classroom. we can learn from the private sector in terms of education because, you know, in most of our private sector in most areas in the u.s. life -- in the u.s. economic life if we're professionalizing a field we give them more autonomy and more accountability for success. when you look at our higher education system, that is the best in the world, that is what we're doing. that is a big set of challenges. one thing we did at the center was how china and india are ramping up their investments and human company. one thing we found was by 2030, china will have more college graduates than our entire work force. they are very much thinking

about how their work force competes on manufacturing against our work force and innovation in a variety of areas. so when we think -- in washington it becomes sterile. >> you noticed? >> not just in education but when we think about how to move forward, you know, i think we're competing with countries that are looking at this, looking at education as part of a whole fleet of areas. one of the issues that raises is china is moving asia to compete in a more international place. they are thinking of that, their education system that way as well. their education system is an asset of the state to make them more competitive over long term. it is not just making people happier and good citizens, it is about making them good competitors for the u.s. and the world. >> you don't think we do that? >> i think we actually shun

thinking about education as a partnership between the government. we don't think strategically about education as an economic issue and a national economic issue. there's a lot of partisanship about the federal role around education and, you know, what role we should have in terms of what we should test and etc. i think that core belief becomes more difficult and it is more challenged in a world countries are competing at a different plane. >> so you're associated with the left side of the political spectrum. so let me ask you this question. >> obamacare, left --

>> you're on the right right now. >> that's true. >> would -- do you think that liberal democrats and the teachers' union would accept your formula, which i think is a good one, autonomy plus accountability. the two a's. you want more autonomy you got it. but here's the accountability but we're going to be tough about that. >> i can't speak for everyone. we would, obviously. right now, we have -- we are creating accountability mechanisms that are rigid under mining autonomy. how do you get the best person in the business? how does google attract engineers? how do you attract business leaders? >> money. >> you might want to look -- because i know how he attracts them. >> i think part of the reason that people get more money because they can make individual decisions. >> they make a lot of autonomy.

navigatek as we greater systems of accountability in our education system, i worry that we're actually, you know, we are repeating the industrial model in the 21st century in education when we need to move to different models. where individuals have autonomy and they are account ability. i think actually, right now they have accountability and no autonomy. so that would be a step up. >> another big issue in education is choice. students and parents ought to be able to take their public money, ecertainly, their voucher and be able to go to any school, public, private, and

that sets up a competitive dynamic. are you in favor of that? >> well, you know, i'm in favor of what works. >> does that work? >> every analysis that has been done of private school charters and even public school charters -- i'm a big fan of public school charters. they have not shown positive results. i don't think -- i think we should do what works. i would be totally open to these models if they succeeded but so far we don't have evidence of them succeeding. >> general, do you want to talk about energy? frack is going save us, right? >> i don't know if fracking will but with the right science and if it is done by people who are responsible, is certainly a

viable option. >> what would you do -- what else would you do in energy to stimulate our exports? >> well, the first thing i think needs to be done is to recognize that we are now organized as a government to handle strategically the concept of energy. we have just finished a three- year study, i was co-chairs in this study, so balanced all good guy partisan and a very, very good of the representation of the energy savings trying to come up with a strategic path for the future. if we don't do this we're going to be right back where we were. we have not had a strategic energy policy for the last 40 years.

there is no such thing. the department of energy, the secretary of energy, this is a criticism, this is a fact. the secretary of energy is not the secretary of nuclear energy. in my view, the best thing for the president to do is to organize the executive branch so that energy is dealt with one single point of responsibility and accountability and that's the secretary of energy. just as the secretary of state handles foreign policy, secretary of defense of the defense policy. so it is important to say that, because if you don't have a strategic point in our government that is responsible to bring together the 15 or 16 different agencies that have a lot to say about energy and the 30-32 oversight agencies on capitol hill, we're not going to get there.

point one, that is extremely important to do. i think you should have a senior director in the national security council, i think we should have -- we also think we should have an energy q.d.r. review. we advocate for the fact that we need all of our energy, it would be a tragic mistake to say got shale gas and shale oil and we don't have to do else.ng we need to have a complete portfolio from wind and renewables. if we do this right we can move forward to advocating throughout the world and leading throughout the world on this very, very important subject that affects energy for everyone but also on our climate and everything else. it is a big way for the united states to lead dramatically in

the 21st century. but the first thing we have to do is get our house in order. >> let's talk about getting our house in order for a bit. tost of all, now i'm going play the right wing. this is american, general. we don't have strategies for anything. that's the beauty of america. the government doesn't have a strategy for business. business figures out what to do. the invisible hand does it. when we get into economic planning and we're moving toward russia. >> or china.

>> or china. we don't do that. >> i certainly recognize that and i wouldn't dispute that. i agree with the fact that we do strategic thinking poorly. but somehow we muddle through. but this 21st century that we're in is one we created. we advocated for other countries to be like us, compete like us, bring the private sector forward and compete fairly. of course, we don't like it when other countries have a close parallel between their government and the business sector. notome cases, it is distinguishable. i'm not advocating that is where we should go. but there is nothing wrong, matter of fact it is good that the two sides come together and it shouldn't be too restrict pitch it should not choke off the winners and the leasers will be determine fwid free -- losers will be determined by the free market. if you can do, that i think we, by the way, with the complete agreement of the private sector that was represent ed around the table, if you read the

report, there is way you can have a strategy that doesn't that doesn't limit the private sector vifment and allows the free market to -- investment and allows the free market to compete. oldducation is where the model of, like, you know, the government stays far away just won't work. that is my opinion. we need private sector involvement more than that, they need to be the drivers and leaders but we need integrated strategy on education, we need one on energy, i think we have one on defense. this is place where there is a strong coordination -- so it can work. i think just because we didn't do in the past that is not a good reason to not do it in a

going forward basis. the people around the world are trying to be like us and playing it more swiftly and a little bit better. >> on that point, can i say, education is a great example of, sort of the middle ground, right? germanny is doing well economically, it is not china. there's a free market, etc. germanny has had a real partnership between the elementary school system, the higher education system, and their businesses. they have a system that trains -- that really drives the work force, creates a work force of high-end manufacturers. they have engineers, well-paid engineers and their education system is partnered with the

private sector to figure out the human capital needs of the private sector and drives the education system in that direction. is everyone forced to do certain things? no, they direct them more than what we would but there is that partnership. when we look at the higher education system or the community compliege system there are some models that we want to learn from. we hear from the private sector that we have huge gaps. there are huge areas where people in silicon valley want to hire engineers and can't find them. maybe if there is more of a strategic partnership between the public and private sector on some of these issues we could be more productive overall. >> there are political issues on the planet right now that

have private sector solutions. if you could bring those two together, the united states can retain its potion well into the 2 -- position well into the 21st century. >> give us an example. >> you have one in turkey, afghanistan and it has to do with the transmission of oil and gas. turkey would like to wean itself from the dependence on russia energy. they would like a pipeline from the northern part of iraq and into turkey and into the mediterranean. the government of the kurdish region for its own reasons would like to have that pipeline built also because they get 17% of all revenues that go through any pipeline. baghdad, i think has an interest in getting its 83% of that and

they could announce a pipeline being built from baghdad to the mediterranean. washington has a strategic interest in kind of being the arranger and the proposer and so i'm giving you a scenario that could, if all the players chose to play nice g.o. politically would have huge economic ram my nation for the entire region. it could be that american companies would participate and -- in that kind of development. >> so retaining and attracting talent, particularly, non- american talent do you want to talk about that or something else? >> no, i would like to

based on our success coming up with umbrella solutions to any issue, i am dubious. something we need to work on, for sure, but it will be difficult to accomplish. but i think there are some micro steps that one could take that would improve our situation. thisyear at this time, at conference, rahm emanuel was here, talking about a partnership between the community colleges in chicago, businesses in chicago, trade associations, unions, etc. that was really focused on changing the curriculum of those community colleges to specifically focus on not only the jobs of today, but the jobs of the future. i gather that is moving along. promising, an example of a fairly localized approach that will hopefully generate some good success.

we have this odd situation where 750,000 of our students universities are foreign. approximately half of them are from china and india. you will not be surprised to learn that many of them focus on science, math, technology, subjects that, unfortunately, have not been en vogue in the u.s. for some time. but we grant every year 70,000 h1c visas. h1b visas. students that come to our great universities that we find difficult to retain, given that situation.

but it gets worse than that. of that number of visas, basically no country can take more than 7%. india and china, a 50% of our students at universities, yet they are constrained because of that 7% limitation. their focus is on precisely the skills that we need. >> people have been talking about this for years. this would seem like the easiest problem in the world to solve, but actually, either against h1c visas, so visas, so what is the problem?

>> what is the problem of trying to figure out our economic problem? [laughter] it seems pretty obvious. >> i could answer it, but i want you to answer. >> i think the facts are pretty straightforward. is there the political will, to take this stuff on him? last year, in the house, basically it was called s.t.e.m., giving visas to foreign graduates, providing that they focused on math, science. that seems sensible. is it law? >> it is coming pretty close to a deal. >> let me give you an indication of how this town works. this is something that everybody thinks, this is a good idea. but there isn't a battery problem. the problem is half of these visas go to indian firms that use them to bring indian graduates over here, to spend one or two years working in a call center at very low wages,

so that they can go back and be able to do call centers back at home. so all we need, to be frank about it, your friends in the republican party to say, we will not do that. >> [laughter] >> it is not that simple and straightforward. >> that seems to be what is causing them not to do this very simple thing, which is we do not want those visas to be used by indian outsourcing firms. you want them to be used for the purpose that mike said. >> the issue is broader than that. this is a problem like a problem that the general was talking about, the political will. this is not rocket science, by any stretch of the imagination. we know who the people are, we

know what kind of jobs we want them to be in. here is the problem. you have a bunch of people that are interested in other immigration issues. the high skilled immigration issue, we look at it and say, that is clear, let's keep them here. then we look at the low-skilled immigration issue. >> so we are going to hold this hostage until we get this? >> it is part of the discussion that we were having earlier. it is not problems. we are not always discussing problems. we are discussing the deals. this whole thing about the deal -- what are we talking about? let's just fix the problems. it is not easy. you know washington better than anyone on the panel. >> you say that we need an export strategy that has more government, business

participation. the government having somebody at the table represents business. so there is a report that says, let's take ustr, commerce, the export controls, a few other agencies, put them under one cabinet officer who has a real clout, the economic development director of the u.s., the way that most are for their states, and let the person be at the table. what is the reaction of the two ranking members of the senate finance committee? we will oppose that until we die, because it would mean that my committee loses jurisdiction over the ustr. that is why this will not get done. how do we get this system out of

these petty, narrow things to get to the big issue? as you all say, none of this stuff is all that complicated. we could do this. how do we do this? >> part of the issue is we all left some of these guys. [laughter] [applause] >> i'm sorry, are you a democrat? >> i am a centrist. i am perhaps the only living rockefeller republican. >> i have a salton star republican from massachusetts, the same thing. >> we do not have a party, so i

had to join one of the others. this is getting to be a real problem. there are actually hard issues. if we cannot do the easy ones, and we really have a problem, generally. >> there are things the administration can do. obviously, it is great to consult with congress, things that we can do in the interest of the country, and these kind of reorganizations of the debt plate are good and i have to be done. wey reflect the environment are in. a sure sign of decline for a company or country is when it cannot change itself to meet the environment they are in. they do not compete. there are a lot of people that are calling this the era of the decline of the united states. i do not believe that. we have always figured out ways to get out of predicted declines, but this is a serious moment. we have opportunities to do the right thing, and we have to do them. with all due respect to the congress, somebody gave me some advice years ago in washington, if you want to succeed, you should be for what is going to happen. the private sector will force this to happen, one way or another.

>> i do not want us to be completely cynical about this conversation, but immigration reform is an area in which are optimistic signs. if any issue is resolved, it will be immigration reform and there will be an h1b resolution. there will be more visas, more in the system. maybe even a new system. we will be keeping more of the graduates here. i think the challenge in washington is easy to say that people are really down and petty and stupid, and we seem to evidence every day of that, in specific examples, but the challenge we are struggling with is that parties are farther apart than they have ever been

in any other era. there are deep differences on the role of government, whether it makes any sense -- let's remember, we were having a debate last year about whether we should have an export-import bank. businesses were lined up on that issue, it seemed, and yet, a fundamental question about the role of government. that question about the role of government took place in an era where a lot of the world is shifting the other way. countries are taking their own capital and investing it in industries to contend again -- compete against us in ways that it is hard to win head-to-head. we can get particularly cynical about these debates, but there are principles animating it, the country is very polarized, even after the election where one side won by a law. -- a lot.

we still have this polarization. we are electing these people, said that as part of the challenge. >> business is far from cynical about this. one of the great things about being in business --[inaudible] withere is a problem education, businesses in gage with local institutions to try to do the best they can. what we found is the gauge a lot. a lot of money and time in engaged in grade school all the way up to university. one of the things we are doing is we formed this organization called change the equation, tried to get companies to more effectively use the money they

are already using. a lot of work at the business roundtable as well. cynicism is not the name of the game when you actually try to operate a business. we try to work to solve problems. i am saying a little help from government is nice, but if not, we can figure out a way to have the turbocharge behind us. imagine if we did. in exports, we have a lot of work, today, to try to lay a system that is fundamentally helping small and large companies export their goods and services. that is the goal of the president's export council, part of the ex-im bank. there are private companies in energy saying we are not going to wait, debate over the health reasons of the keystone pipeline. we're going to continue to explore, so on and so forth. there is not much cynicism until we come here and talk about the

problem. when they go back to our home bases, we just work and try to solve problems. >> let's have some questions from you for this was an experienced panel. there is a microphone over there. all the way over there. that is another microphone. no questions? >> this is always an odd process. >> my name is angela guzman from atlanta, georgia. consulting.g and i love what you just said. when you talked about businesses going back to their own home base and still working

in their communities to be able the problem. you also stated, when they tried to take away ex-im bank, the businesses came together and spoke up, and there was change. so i loved this panel, this has been great. why not take the same concepts and use the platform of our export-import and all the businesses who are here, and take on issues one at a time and let all the businesses come behind it, and the money? >> anyone want to take a stab at that? i could take a stab, but it would be very controversial. >> there is a vehicle that is

try to do that. obviously, all the issues are too numerous to take on. one of the things i am pleased about in the current working of the business roundtable is we are stepping back from a million issues and trying to line up around some key issues. education, energy, immigration reform, try to get the voice of business, big to small, having a common voice and a consistent voice around key problems. so when ex-im bank -- when we had that silly discussion, business did way in in front and behind the scenes, and we

made it clear what we wanted to happen. there is work being done on energy as well, education, immigration reform. on cybersecurity. there are things that are moving forward. it just takes a long time. it just takes a long time. >> the short answer to your question is large parts of the organized business lobby in washington became partisan. some people who ran those organizations decided they could get more if the allied themselves with the republican caucus and house of representatives. for a while, they did. but that wound up poisoning the well in a way that now makes it difficult for those organizations to be part of the solution, because they are perceived by democrats as being in the pockets of republicans. that is maybe beginning to change but that has been, i

would say, just analyzing, that that has been a problem in the last decade. it was a strategy that worked, and that it worked too well. now it is hard to pull back from that strategy and for the business organizations to be what they usually work, which was quite bipartisan, and provide the political ballast for the political conversation here on these issues. they are not the issues that people talk about in the country, -- how they treat h1b visas is not what they talk about in coffeeshops in muncie, indiana. that is how those things are resolved. until very recently, the business community was not providing the ballast. i think they have an immigration -- the chamber sat labor unions and things, but that

was unusual, for the last 10 conversation did not go on. 20, 30 years ago, that went on all the time. >> i am way over here. i ask this question the other day as well. since it is global, keeping the economy competitive in global market, in my opinion, you need to have a weak dollar. i think it is very important. if you agree with that, is there anything that we can continue to do to keep the dollar at a lower rate, so that we can export more competitively? >> this is a fairly standard argument that our currency is overvalued because it is the world's currency, among other things, because it is better than the alternatives, that it

causes a problem for us in terms of our balance between and exports. who agrees with that idea? >> some people, particularly export-oriented developing countries, have manipulated their currency, the question. for a country like ours to manipulate the dollar would be difficult to do. the more you do it, clearly, exports are down, we have a lot of people that own our debt. the notion that it becomes worth less overtime is not particularly attractive. >> it might help at -- it might help exporters in the short but it will be very expensive for us to get our debt financed in the future. that made more than offset the economic benefit. >> there is a real conflict there. >> he has covered it all. i agree, this is a place, as a

company leader, we tried to stay far away from. we are going to make the best product, provide the best service, and go for it. somebody else can deal with the currency issues. we would prefer if other countries did not to currency manipulation to make it an unfair, fundamentally, and that is the only thing that i would call for. everything else, we will play for it. not getting too involved in currency manipulations. >> we had another question over there. >> i have a comment on the education front. i just turned on the tv at the hotel the other night and a person who came on said that the u.s. education is not geared towards communities. we are looking at individuals. i want to see my child be the best. the community is irrelevant

when it comes to educating. in some european countries, public schools is where even the richest people send their kids. here who -- in the community i live in new jersey -- three- quarters of our taxes go to the public-school system, yet 60% of people in that town send their kids to private schools. so too good to public-school is wasting your time. so where will we change the focus to make public education the central focus of people, the middle-class and upper- class, where they have the power to make the teachers teach properly and get the same skills that we need for business? >> if you look at the american public school system and compare it to the world, we -- our schools are on a continuing. our best public schools are as good as the best schools in the

world, it is just that the challenge of the american school system, our worst schools are like the schools of kurdistan, which are the worst in the world, literally. on that challenge we have better middle schools, and they are doing pretty pour the compared to the middle schools of finland, singapore, etc.. that makes me look at what are the best public schools doing? it is the case that the best public schools in massachusetts, in minnesota -- which i would add, states that are heavily unionized -- they do have the best schools in the country. often they have property taxes, local support supporting them. that leads to equity issues. but they do have strong, local support for the schools, and the wealthiest people in the community, as well as the

middle-class and lower income people, all send their kids to those schools. i happen to go to one of those schools, i went to bedford public schools, k-12. there are some private schools, but pretty much the engineers, the ceo's from raytheon, everybody said their kids to public school. you cannot say to a parent, go to an inferior school when you can afford not to. that is not going to happen in the united states of america. as a parent, i would not do that with my child. i send my kid to d.c. public schools, and they are good schools. i am proud to do that. but if you have poor schools, you cannot do that. we have to improve the public school system and make it so that parents want to send their

kids. you see this in new york city, a concerted efforts of schools and middle class neighborhoods that kids are going to, high end, middle income, low income, all going to the same school. a system where everyone is invested in the school. that will build over time. what the parents have the option and will send their kids to those schools. those schools work and compete as well as any others in the world. >> there is a good example of where, at some level, you think we got to have a strategy. maybe we ought to have a strategy where everyone sends their kids to the same school. but this is america. that strategy can not conflict with the individual rights to send your kids to whatever school you want to send them to.

this is sort of our problem. we think we know what the solution is, but it runs up against our political philosophy. >> those are two extremes, but they are not even on the same plane. having everyone go through the same school is not the issue, rich or poor. having every school be reasonable to go to is the issue. every school should have a minimum standard of performance. >> but the argument is on less everyone is invested in the schools in a personal way, the bad and mediocre one will not ever get better because they are on a downward spiral. anyone who can take their kids out does, and that weakens the whole system. >> i do not agree with you. i go to the harlem children's school zone, parents are involved. they have to be involved. maybe not the parents, but somebody has to be involved.

the community people go to the school -- it is getting better right now -- but it was a fairly bad community. this is as much about will and not being embarrassed to say that we are not doing well and then say we are going to fix it. i was watching this news program about teachers cheating, which was interesting. i understood their motivation, but it was a little odd. if you actually want to educate the child, if the customer is the child, then having that customer have a good result that is not release the results, it seems -- it is an oxymoron. the problem now is we literally have a view on the wrong customer. the customer is not the teacher. the teacher is the provider of service. the customer is not apparent. the customer is their kids.

finland is a fairly monolithic society. we have people from all over the place speaking different languages, different backgrounds, so we have to adjust the system that works in communities. it will not be the same everywhere. it will be public, some will be public. some people will send their kids to private schools, repeal -- parochial schools. we have to make sure it is reasonable. the one that we are discussing are the ones that we pay out of tax dollars. i would say, treat them like any other problem. what is the problem, how are we going to solve it, who is the customer? the customer is the child, not the teacher, not the administrators, not the unions, but the kids. if we think about it from that perspective, which jeff tanden did, we will figure out a way to serve the kids.

we get ourselves confused and get political. we should do a lot of what these countries do, but we also have to realize that we are not these countries. >> even in states that are much more homogeneous, our schools are not competing with the best in the world. >> i would agree with that. >> there are lots of ingredients to the harlem children's zone, and i wish every child had that, but the question is, if the upper income families are pulling their children out of public schools -- we see this in cities -- it does leave fewer taxpayer resources, soose how do you make those schools attractive? then the school declines. how do you make the school more attractive? i agree, the best way to do that is to always focus on what the child is learning. that is the number one thing.

that is the no. 1 standard. how we get there is the number one issue that politics involves itself in. >> let's thank the panel. we are at the end of our time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] now, a conversation with transportation secretary ray lahood. he talks about transportation safety in the impact of spending cuts on air travel. this is 20 minutes. >> i want to be very brief in the introduction. this man needs no introduction. we were very fortunate because we sat next to each other in a program that did not start on time, so we had a chance to see

each other. wifeecretary and his kathy, i know them very well. we have traveled in together, as well. and he is a great fellow traveler in the obama administration. and the brief introduction i would just say is last year, working together, they said we want to make sure that transportation is helping exports. we formed the grid with the maritime administration on the transportation to have greater transparency to make it easier for u.s. exporters to ship on u.s. ships to make sure we stay competitive and meet delivery deadlines, so let's just give the secretary a round of applause. tom is fred's partner. they have the best dinner parties. i doubt he could invite all of

you. if you get an invitation, they are the best. and the best wine. >> let me ask you this question. you are theoretically wrapping up your time as secretary. what has been the best part about the job? >> carrying out the president's agenda. the thing about president obama is, he is a big infrastructure president. he has a big, bold vision for infrastructure. we launched for the president his spite -- his high-speed rail initiative. people in america have traveled in europe and asia and they ride the trains on the come back say, why don't we have them? president eisenhower had signed the high-speed rail bill. we have the state-of-the-art interstate system. it's the best. what we have tried to do is implement the president's vision for high-speed rail, and

for safety in all modes of transportation. safety is a very strong part of our agenda. we also had the privilege four, right in the beginning, he signed the economic stimulus bill, which for our part really did work. you may have seen articles that it did not work. it did work. we got $48 billion. in two years we took the 48 billion dollars and created 65,000 jobs and 15,000 projects. all kinds of projects all over america. what we do creates jobs. what we do creates economic opportunities. that is what we do at the ot. -- at dot. that is what infrastructure does, whether it is modernizing an airport -- we have great airports in america. whether it is modernizing a

road, implementing a streetcar system or light rail system, as we have done in atlanta, detroit, charlotte, all over america -- we create opportunities for economic development, for jobs, and we are really improving local and state economies. our best partners are governors and mayors. i have been to every state in the country. i've been to 15 or 16 countries looking at high-speed rail. the goal and vision for the president is to connect america over the next 25 years, 80% of the country will be connected with passenger rail. that's what we're going to leave to the next generation. the next generation of

transportation for america is passenger rail. on the northeast corridor, amtrak is making money. they are providing a good service. we've made over $3 billion worth of investments on the court or for new equipment, to fix up the infrastructure so that we can get a faster train. in california, they have a plan where we have invested $3 billion. they have over $10 billion invested. they're going to have a train from san francisco to san diego, 200 miles an hour, within the next 10 years things to the leadership of governor brown and the assembly and other rail enthusiasts. we are not going to have 200 mile an hour trains on the northeast corridor. were going to have faster trains, and on-time trains. >> how does this job compared to when you were a house member? >> best job i've ever had. i would not go back to the

house of representatives if you all elected me. being in congress is a good job. it takes forever to get anything done. in four and a half years, we have done a lot of good in terms of putting people to work, building infrastructure, creating economic core doors, economic -- economic core doors, -- corridors, economic development. and that is because you don't need to get 218 people to agree with you. i still have many colleagues and former colleagues and friendships, but this is a great job. and mainly because the president really believes in infrastructure, and really believes it is a way to get america back to work, moving again, and creating economic opportunity. >> you answered about six of my questions already.

i think there is a microphone roving around. if i don't see a microphone, i will pick someone who can stand up and speak with a loud voice. any questions? what do we need to do on the freight rail side? >> great question. we have created a freight rail policy committee within the department, and we have just gone out and solicited the advisory committee. all forms of transportations, so we can coordinate. the way that they deliver goods all over america, and goods coming from the outside into country -- we need to make sure there is a lot of

coronation between trucking and maritime industry. the freight rail policy group within the department will rely on this advisory committee which we have just solicited. we have lots of interest for this advisory committee to help us put together a very strong coordinated freight rail policy that includes all modes of transportation. >> is our question back there? >> yes. there is one. >> there is one. >> hi. alan levin from bloomberg. >> he's from the media. we need to let these people who a question. >> let the record show that i differed -- deferred -- >> go ahead, alan.

>> did you pay to get in here? >> yes. >> you get a free question. >> we don't want to stand in way of the first amendment here. >> go ahead, alan. >> alan is a great reporter. we have never had a complaint against him. >> my question is on the 787 and your eventual role in putting it back in the skies. do you have any sense on the timetable that once boeing completes its tests -- >> they are doing the tests now. we have agreed with the tests they are doing. when they complete their test, they will give us the information and we will make a decision. i know you wanted something more definitive.

so does boeing. [laughter] we want to do it right. we will see what the results are. >> while we're waiting, safety issues. safety is a big issue, one of the most critical issues. >> here is what we say about safety. is what we think at dot. planes, trains, got an automobile today -- got in an automobile today. but they did not think about safety. we want to make sure that when somebody boards a plane, the pilot is well-trained and has

the experience, that the plane is mechanically ok. that is what we do at the faa. now that is what we do when it comes to transit systems. that is what we do when it comes to automobiles. we make sure that automobiles are safe. if they are not, we hold automobile companies'feet to the fire. we take the safety agenda is one of our top priorities. we know that people just don't think about it, and take it for granted. it's a very important part of the work that we do. we have people who get up every day and come to d.o.t., and the thing they think about more than anything else is safety. >> have you seen anything in your travels in other countries that we can emulate as far as safety? >> actually, we have a lot of countries coming to the united states to work with our safety people particularly when it

comes to cars. we have just taken a group of bus companies off the road because they are fly-by-night companies. we take them off the road. they slap another name on their bus in their back on the road again. we have taken that is one of our top priorities, to make sure we get those bus companies so their buses are safe, but also that their drivers are properly licensed. we do the same with trucking companies. trucking companies do take safety as their number one priority. we have got some fly-by-night bus companies we have taken off the road. we have a lot of folks who come to us because they know that we have the experts in safety. >> a question there, then in the front. >> i have a question about the high-speed rail. i'm from the east coast but i live in california now. the 200 mile an hour train -- the east coast is a very dense area. california and the western states are not a dense area. even a 200 mile an hour train, what is the plan to make them

cost effective? just because i live in california -- it is kind of losing steam. the high-speed rail. it probably will happen, but not probably as fast as the administration would like it too. how are we going to make it cost effective for someone to get from los angeles to separate cisco -- san francisco when there is nothing in between? on the east coast you have four or five major cities between new york and d.c. >> ok. we got it. >> part of what we're doing in california and part of plan is to tie in transit so that people can use the transit system in bakersfield or merced, and make sure there is a connectivity between cities where there may not necessarily be a stop -- although there would be for bakersfield -- so that the transit systems can connect. that is what they do in other countries, certainly in asia, china, japan.

connectivity, so that people have a way to get to the trains that are running on the court or -- on the corridor, is part of what california is planning. it is an important component of it, so you don't just have a straight line, but there are ways for people to have access to the strains from cities where the train may not stop. in illinois, we have invested over $3 billion in infrastructure there to get trains to move faster, from 79 miles an hour to 110 miles an hour. there aren't going to be stops in my home community of peoria, for example, but were going to provide connectivity from peoria to bloomington normal so that people can get back and forth. that has to be a part of the plan. i know there was a recent poll

in california, and i don't know what the question was -- i can tell you there is still very strong sentiment from the people. the people are ahead of the politicians. people want alternatives. any of you who have driven in california know what a mess it is on the highways. people would love to happen opportunity to be able to get on a train for an on-time arrival. that is what the plans are in california. i think it is going to happen. >> i'm going to take one quick second. we've got a number of our advisory committee members here. can i take one second to stand -- they have done a great job advising us. and i have not had a chance to acknowledge them yet.

[applause] there is another 10 or 12 beyond them. >> how can we truly expect the sequester to have impact on air travel? >> it will have a huge impact. there is a recent article that said it had not had any impact. it did not start until april 1. for example, the faa we have defined $1 billion. -- to find the $1 billion. we had to find $600 million at the faa. we can't move money around. that is a lot of money to find. it makes it very difficult. that is why we are looking at

closing towers and looking at furloughing some of our faa employees, which is a very tough thing to do. it is not anyway way to run an aviation system. >> question in the corner there. >> i have had the pleasure of meeting the secretary. i graduated from the united states academy, and you have done wonderful things for the maritime industry. you might want to relate that to the list of the gentlemen and ladies here. >> i'm going to keep us moving with questions. >> fred does not want me blowing my warrant. -- michael bourn. -- my horn. >> i am from "business times." the city where i live, the roads are full of holes. why not get other countries to come to america and help our infrastructure projects? america has done so much things for the world. i think the world has to come

back to america. >> there are some investors from japan and china looking at investing in high-speed rail. from japan they're looking at investing on the northeast corridor. from china they are looking at investing in rail out west. there are people that are interested in making investments, particularly in high-speed rail. that is something we have really encouraged, because we know there is not enough money in washington to be able to fund the high-speed rail. we need the private investment. we know of people that are here in america. let me say word about maritime. we have worked very closely with the export-import bank on

this to make sure that the maritime industry -- which creates a lot of jobs. we have tried to update the merchant marine academy, where we have over 1000 students who are training to be -- work in the maritime industry, which is a great reservoir and supply of young people who eventually will be in the industry. we have put out the marine highway program, a plan to use the waterways along our ports, and we have also emphasized our ports. we have funded 19 different ports in the country. we believe ports are a real economic engine and communities. we believe with the expansion of the panel on canal ports, canals are going to expand medically.

-- are very critical. >> this is related to pr-17 in marin. i want to complement the department. it is good to see revival of some of the u.s. flag fleet. we have here some u.s. flag carriers. i did study at suny maritime. how do you see this revival and bringing back this innovation that the u.s. brought to shipping? >> we have to continue to invest in ports. we have to take advantage of the expansion of the panama canal. he have to implement our marine highway plan. -- we have to implement our marine highway plan. meeting with fred and putting together a good agreement on the use of american ships, american companies to transport our goods around america and around the world.

it is a priority for us, making it a priority in making sure that the maritime industry has all the tools that it needs to be successful. that is a we tried to do for the last four and a half years. -- what we try to do for the last four and a half years. and we appreciate the support of the industry. >> let's give the secretary around of applause. i have 13 seconds. [applause] spectacular. >> now, vice president biden. he repeated his goal of concluding negotiations on a wide ranging transpacific partnership. his remarks are part of the export-import bank conference. this is about 35 minutes. ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the vice president of the united states, and joe jenny fulton. ♪ [applause] >> good afternoon, chairman, members of the board of directors and ladies and gentlemen. my name is jenny fulton. i'm the founder and co-owner of miss jenny's pickles. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. our pickle world headquarters is located in north carolina. i am so honored and grateful to be introducing vice president

biden, our keynote speaker. but before i do, i'd like to share our story. miss jenny's pickles was born after ashley fur, my business partner and i were laid off during the recession. we took a family recipe and, by god's grace, we started our own pickle company. in the beginning, we grew our own cucumbers. we jarred every jar. we formed a partnership with the local ymca to use their kicken. we knocked on doors for stores and by the end of 2010, we were in 50 stores. by the end of 2011, we were carried in 200 stores. and by the end of 2012, we are now in over 900 stores. [applause] thank you. thank you.

knowing that 95% of the world's population lives outside the united states -- >> i was just telling them to sit down. >> yeah, please sit down. why didn't you tell me that earlier? i'm so sorry. >> i didn't think of it. i'm glad you're with me. >> i'm glad you're with me. >> i do apologize for that. let's start over, you ready? knowing that 95% of the world's population was outside the united states, we knew that exporting was crucial to our success. we have now been exporting for two years. we have pickles in china. in fact, they left yesterday. which is our second shipment. mongolia, the u.k., and very soon canada. in three short years, exporting has allowed us to grow our staff to 12 employees. that's 250% increase in employment. and by the end of 2013, we're

going to do $1 million in gross sales. exporting. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. early on, i had the pleasure of hearing x.m. north carolina. i was so impressed by his remarks to help small businesses like me export that i was running out to the car and i gave him his driver, chris, a jar of miss jenny's pickles. and today we partner with the ex-im have increased. and it is my great honor and privilege to introduce our luncheon keynote speaker. with president obama, he has worked in the last four years to

strengthen our economy, to help small businesses like mine, and to open the world to american exports. please join me in welcoming our vice president of the united states of america, joe biden. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, this is the world. this is the reason. >> thank you, sir. >> you did a great job. >> thank you. good luck. [applause] >> thank you. jenny said to me, good luck. i tell you what, man. i was telling jenny backstage that a lot of you know my ohm for the chemical industry and the banking industry. but i remind everybody the

single biggest industry back in delaware is agriculture. and pickles are part of that. and it employs a whole hell of lot of people, and it generates a whole lot of balance and surplus. and an awful lot of it. you know, i kid with people who don't know much about farm economies, and i would challenge you this. you can go to any -- this is obviously an ad lib here. but you can go to any major city in america, walk into a fancy restaurant and sit down to talk that restaurant or i'll take you to a diner in southern delaware or out in the middle of midwest and you sit down with a bunch of farmers and they can talk foreign policy, literally. they know. they know more about what's going on because they're -- they know the folks they want to to over there.

and that's what y'all are about. i especially want to start by thanking fred. fred has has done incredibly important work, and we owe him a great deal. fred, we owe you a great deal of help for the -- what you've done to boost american exports. but every single job you've ever taken on, you've done extremely well. and i want you to know, and i mean this seriously personally and on behalf of the president, we appreciate your dedication more than you know. and it's an honor also to be with all the rest of you this afternoon, to have a chance to speak to so many people on the frontlines of our economic renewal. i understand better than almost anyone, you understand, the sheer potential this global economy affords the united states of america. and you are well aware of the challenges as well. this is a familiar story. in the post war era, post world war ii era, we faced a slightly different set of challenges as a global economy reemerged we knew that institutions and rules

were needed to navigate through and because our parents and grandparents were wise and because they were committed, we did what we've always done best. we exercised our global leadership. a were driving -- we were driving force behind the creation of the world bank, the international monetary fund, as well as the gatt, as well as the world trade organization. the architecture for the global economic system. our economies and our financial institutions from that period through the mid 1980's and 1990's were also instrumental in establishing the standards for corporate responsibility and transparency and governance. defining the norms that shape the good business practices in an increasingly global economy. and thanks to all of you, participating in that global economy, you all know better than most that this is self- evident, and while many

americans, too many americans, to those institutions and norms seem to be abtract, but not to all of you. they would help us glow the largest, most successful middle class in all the world. they set the road to economic expansion and shared prosperity in the united states and throughout the world. we didn't just stumble upon our economic destiny. we shaped it. we shaped our economic destiny. and now we have to reshape it. it's a different world. my colleagues are always kidding me and fred's heard me say this for quoting irish poets all the time. they think i do it because i'm irish. i don't do it. for that reason. i do it because they're the best poets. [laughter] there's a poem -- there was a poem that yeats wrote easter sunday 1916 about his ireland. that's what irish catholics call the last time we tried to get rid of the british.

but all kidding aside, he wrote a poem called easter sunday 1916. he used a line in there that better describes the state of the world today than it said all has changed. changed utterly. in the last decade, almost changed in terms of the globalization of a world economy. in terms of rules of the road, or lack of. trying to figure out where they fit and how we fit and so on. these institutions at the affirmative task we have now is a new worldcreate order. the global order is changing again. the institutions that worked so well in the post world war ii era need to be strengthened.

some have to be changed. .e have to do what we do best we have to lead. tohave to do it the way maximize benefits for everyone. obviously it is overwhelmingly in our interest. ours overwhelmingly interest that china prosper, that mongolia prospered. , easttions again large and west, latin america and africa, prosper. because, you know that old expression, they ask where the -- why you rob banks? that's where the money is. we want everybody to have a little money. to make sure they can buy american products. [laughter] we don't view -- economic growth as a zero-sum game here. but somehow we grow and it is

not in the interest of other major powers to grow as well. that is the paradox of this new global order. so much of our success depends on the success of those with whom we compete. that is the challenge the president and buy an entire administration take very seriously. it has been the center of our our economic philosophy from the day we took office. from our perspective, there are two things that we must do a broad to ensure our strength at home. first, we have to reorient our focus, not just were the greatest stretch, but toward the greatest opportunities that exist for us. second, we have to level the playing field, that old phrase that is almost overused, but it is true. we have to level the playing field so that american companies and workers can compete in the world that the competition is fair and healthy. we came into office facing the worst financial restriction --

recession since the great depression. we had to reform the financial system, save the economy. while this agenda is far from complete, we have made significant aggressive all of your help. , privatemy is now sector jobs, they have added jobs. even so, we still found that the need for anis a ambitious, affirmative agenda. re-strengthen and signed three free-trade agreements. we are making historic progress toward meeting our incredibly ambitious goal of doubling american exports, adding 2 million exports by the end of 2014. we read oriented our development strategy to focus on sustainable economic growth. there is so much more we have to do. the president and i believe we have to take up the task of updating economic architecture

that serves as the foundation for long-term american economic growth. that is one of the reasons that we dedicated so much attention to asia. we are proud payroll we played for decades in ensuring stability and security in the asia-pacific region. when i had a number of my long meetings over a. days,days -- period of 10 president obama wanted us to establish a relationship, it was fascinating. asked about how we view ourselves. we are a pacific power. .e will remain a pacific power he and others acknowledged that. , our influence in the region since world war ii is one of the reasons why china has been able to expand in economic

growth and conditions of stability. the world's economic engine has shifted eastward. we know it is in asia where much of the opportunity of the 21st century will be found. asia already accounts for more than one quarter of the global gdp. over the next five years, the asian pacific may account for as much as 60% of global growth. , through some of our dialogue strategic with the chinese, indians, and others, we are continuing to assert ourselves as a resident economic power in the region. think about the opportunity that the partnership alone represents. 11 members, comprising 658 , a combinedle

economic output of $20.5 trillion a year. we are working to forge an agreement that will bring together economies from across the pacific, developed and developing alike. the partners are perhaps the most ambitious trade negotiations under way in the world. onwill break new ground important issues from the challenges of state owned enterprises to ensuring the free flow of data across -- ensuringnhancing transparency and cutting red tape. we are also working to strengthen protections for labor and the environment. the trans pacific partnership is open to countries willing to meet our ambition. since we started these negotiations, vietnam, canada, mexico have all enter in the negotiation. we continue to welcome other countries. the interest of other countries. including japan. that was a source of discussion

when the prime minister was here several weeks ago. our goal is for high standards for the transpacific partnership to enter the bloodstream of the global system and improve the rules and norms. inends up affecting conduct those countries as well. thehe president noted, , weers have clearly stated intend to conclude negotiations this year. our economic engagement with .urope is no less ambitious we build especially deep and robust security institutions that span the atlantic. now it is time for that economic cooperation to catch up and sink deeper roots. the united states and the european union are each other's most important trading partners. and will remain so. the commercial relationship today is $5 trillion.

far and away the world's largest. we know, you know, we can do more. that is why we are announced negotiations this partnership. is a big opportunity. a partnership can build on what is already our leading export market, supporting more than an estimated 2.4 million it is about the possibility to track progress together on shared priorities. we have an ambitious agenda. not just to eliminate terrorists, but to tackle behind the border barriers to the flow of goods and services. improve transparency and develop rules and principles that can --among competitive this promote competitiveness.

when i was in china, i made it clear when i was recently in germany, in paris with the president, in england prime minister. we americans welcome competition. it is stamped into our dna. it is not a problem. it is not a problem. period. that is the fundamental point with regard to both these trade agreements. we are talking about shaping a new standard that can become the metric by which all future trade agreements are measured. that is the first part of the question. i knowond is something this audience understands well. i don't have to tell you. about just stated competition. you are out there fighting every single day. that genuine competition pushes our companies

and our people to perform better. genuine competition. americans welcome it. it is stitched into the very fabric of our society, our economic system. a levelfits require playing field. or at least a close similarity to a level playing field. we even win when the field isn't quite level. thisally, i mean sincerely, this is not hyperbole. when the field is level, , the americanrs capital system, the american market system, the american ingenuity, can and does compete with anyone in the world in any level. [applause] overwhelming confidence on the competitive capacity of the american worker.

they are the most productive workers in the world today. we will not fully realize our potential if the game is rigged and there is a lot of rigging going on right now. that is why we are troubled by state owned national champion competitors. that enjoy subsidized financing. artificially inflating their competitors i restricting foreign investments portrayed designed to reduce american companies to transfer their technology, their manufacturing, as a condition of market access. by procurement rules that unfairly to american companies the chance to compete. increasingly we are seeing wholesale theft of confidential business information and protect -- proprietary

technologies through cyber tech. that has to stop. it has to stop. as i point out when i travel to other countries, and i have travelled 700,000 miles worth in other countries, i really mean this. when i talk to leaders of other countries about the theft of intellectual property, i point out that they are denying their own people the promise of being able to become more competitive because indigenous capacity to grow creatively is stifled when they engage in the theft of intellectual property. these are serious challenges. they are growing challenges. we are taking them on each in turn. we are enforcing trade rules already on the books, bringing a record number of cases to the wto and setting ambitious standards for global trade and working multilaterally to strengthen global financial systems.

we are fighting for american companies. i make no apologies when i travel abroad to make the case for american companies. no apologies. part of our obligation is to be an extended chamber of commerce to make sure american companies get an even shot. that is part of our responsibility. we are fighting for american companies, and doing the hard, grinding, daily work of economic diplomacy. these are outside of the public eye. it pays off. in the last few days, the usda opened taiwan's $8 million fresh potato markets to our farmers. u.s. exports have grown by 1000% in four years.

the economic dialogue with the united arab emirates will build on our $20 billion exports last year. we have celebrated a record- breaking deal this year, a $5 billion loan that will support more than 18,000 american jobs. these efforts involve everyone from the president down. last year, i sat to hammer out a deal to open china's also insurance market and to bust the quota that unfairly limits chinese imports of american movies, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. if you want to play on the world stage, you have to play by the rules. as i have said, i traveled the world for the president over the last four years. everywhere i go, i along with everyone else, fights for america's economic interests. i have made the case that

publicly and privately, at a level playing field is not just in our interest. it is in their interest to develop their economy and their countries. an open, dynamic economic system requires systems that are open, transparent, and stare. when countries stick to the rules of the road globally, the build better institutions at home. this requires the kind of reform that can secure any country pose a long-term stability and prosperity. we support values we would like to see everywhere. free enterprise, transparency, anti-corruption, the rule of law. we take these issues seriously. we also take seriously the need to attack global business to the united states.

in the past, that has been an easy sales pitch. america has the most productive workers in the world. we have the best research universities in the world. we honor contracts and legal obligations. we protect intellectual property. it is about our culture of an ovation. i do not know of any other country in the world, including our european -- it is about our culture of innovation. i do not know of any country in the world that has our culture of innovation. children are encouraged to challenge orthodoxy, to not accept it. we do not just encourage it, we

teach it. steve jobs in that famous exchange at stanford. he said, what do have to do, be more like you? think different. you cannot think different in a country where you cannot speak freely. you cannot think different in a country where you are not allowed to challenge the orthodoxy. he cannot think different in a country that limits what you can be engaged in. that is why i am is so optimistic about our future. i believe in the 21st century, the true wealth of the nation is found in the creative mind of its people to build and innovate, to create new products and new industries. more than any other country, the united states of america is hard wired for innovation. it has enabled generation after it generation to give life to world changing ideas -- generation after generation to give life to world changing ideas. this is made possible by the bonn less capacity of the american people and the immigrants that constantly and boundless capacity of the american people and the immigrants that constantly enrich and revitalize our national fabric.

we have to make sure we are equipped for the coming competition. that takes me to the last point. that is why we are investing so much in education. that is why we are making early education, stem education such a high priority. that is why we have made research and development so critical and essential to our economic agenda. we are investing in the cutting edge technology that helps us ensure that the new new thing is not just an old old phrase, is not just imagine here, but it is made here. we want to accommodate the rapidly-changing world. it will create jobs on the scale we require right now. we also think it is essential to reform the immigration system.

every year, we export. every year, our university system generates 40,000 people with ph.d.'s and master's degrees in science and technology that we need. we make sure they are probably escorted back to their country. at the same time, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on stem education. it makes no sense in my humble opinion. seen them back to the country denies them an visas when they have a job waiting for them. we should be giving them a green card with their diploma as they walk across the states. i mean this literally, not just figuratively. if they have a job here, they should be able to stay here.

we should want them here. adding additional h1b visas so that american employers can hire the best and brightest the matter where they come from. in real terms, our future national competitiveness can be tied to getting a comprehensive education reform bill on the president's desk. those are the things we are doing right now. infrastructure, an investment, education, immigration. these are the things. when the president announced the $100 million, if we had our way we would be a $100 billion project. that is not an exercise no matter what these talk-show guys think.

we should scan their brains. [laughter] i am serious. since when did we become the nation extending ourselves. since when is that anti- competitive or anti-business or liberal? ladies and gentlemen, these are the things we are doing right now that continues to make america a place where foreign companies will want to put down roots. we have one of the most open economies in the world. we know there are great opportunities for investment in the united states of america. we are determined to make sure foreign investors know about them.

for the first time ever, we have an initiative dedicated to helping foreign companies that want to invest in america to figure out how to do so. it is in our interests for that to happen. each of these actions will have another effect, which is the most important of all, the most important to do. i think this audience probably understands it. it will help grow the base of american exports to include the type of products and services that are not exported at the rate they could be. it includes encouraging more first way -- first-rate exporters in the united states. reaching the 95% of consumers who live beyond our borders is not just an opportunity for american companies. it is a necessity for american companies. we have already made incredible progress.

last year american exports worth 200 -- $2.20 trillion. we have created 6 million jobs over the past 30 months. if we get it right, we can achieve even greater results. i believe we can do this. i am referred to in the white house as the white house optimist. i read that all the time. as my grandfather would say, like i fell off of the turn of truck yesterday. in case you have not noticed, i have been here longer than any of them. [laughter] i hope you all have not noticed that, but i am afraid it is self-evident. i am optimistic not out optimistic -- not out of naivete.

i know the history of the journey of this country. we have unleashed american people who have never failed to meet the challenges. we have challenges that we are tending to. as long as we are in the white house, we will continue to tend to them. the reason america has been a global leader for so long is not luck. it is not a matter of chance. it is a matter of luck. it is a matter of thinking about the next step. it is a matter of understanding how much it matters. we have always listened to the challenge. that is what we have been. it extends into our dna. it is why so many people, as

corny as it sounds, why so many people still want to come to the united states. we will rise to this challenge. hopefully, we will be led by all of you in this room. as i have told many foreign leaders, it has never been a good bets to bet against the united states. it is -- good bet to bet against america. fred, you are doing a good job. all of you are in this for yourselves and for your country. i just think the next 20 years, we have a chance to leave our kids and our grandkids in a position where they are clearly, unequivocally better position and remain better positioned than any country in the world to be the leading economy in the world. thank you all for listening.

i appreciate it. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> i had a very political marriage, much like john and abigail. in the hallslobby of congress. she was always very careful to say, my husband believes this, my husband advocates that. but she was doing the pitch. husband's opponents said, he hoped that if james were ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. and she said, if james and i are neithercted, i will keep house nor make butter. >> monday night, one of the most politically active and influential first ladies, sarah pope.

we'll also look at margaret taylor and abigail fillmore and take your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. life monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span three. grace, julia, and maggie has the president to focus on funding for education in their video documentary. they are middle school students in knoxville, tennessee. ♪ >> dear mr. president, after the economic downfall of 2008, the education budget has definitely felt the effects of

the situation. cutting education causes more problems down the road and puts the u.s. behind in global rankings. theudget cuts probably have biggest disadvantage for american students for needs that are not being met. we have to be able to meet him educationally. >> the resources, if used correctly can make a difference in terms of learning and student success. >> just for investment sake is not a justification. but to improve student achievement is very important. >> education is what drives jobs, our economy. schools all across the nation are facing a budget crisis. here at our middle school, we are faced with many budget challenges. one thing our school faces is a lack of updated technology and resources that have become a

necessity for modern education. without this technology, teachers are unable to give their students the best knowledge and opportunities. >> every time we have budget cuts, a budget crisis, it seems like the number of students in our average classes goes up. when you have more students in a class, you have less activities, less time for each individual student, you have more stress on the teacher because of the added demands of grading. students are directly affected. the quality of instruction goes down the cuts cuts. it just does. should be more teachers and a lower student- teacher ratio. >> others believe there should be less teachers and a more adequately trained -- >> when it comes to staffing ratios, when it comes to benefits, when it comes to compensation structures, what we , we have increased

nominal funding threefold since the early 70s. most of this money has gone into hiring more warm bodies. we have gone from a 23 to one student-teacher ratio to about ratio today. lots more bodies who we can train adequately. i would much prefer to have fewer educators, pay them better, at the end of the day, educators educators may or may not feel that this is a trade- off. these kinds of terminations are going to have to happen whether or not teachers are comfortable with them. >> not only are students and teachers affected, but these cuts also affect the school as a whole. >> everybody is affected. it is never just teachers. ,ecretaries, receptionist

bookkeepers, teachers assistance. all of them play an important role in meeting the needs of our students. teacher pay gets cut or does not move ahead to where it should be and you are not competitive with school systems around you. and you lose great teachers. >> every day millions of students across america are affected by budget cuts in their schools. these cuts not only affects their education but also their future in the 21st century workforce. budget cuts don't only affect students. they can make a huge impact on all american citizens. higher education for students is crucial. educationsecondary degree, students don't have the same advantages that others do. in current times, having a good quality education is everything. >> there are less people getting into those -- coming out of our colleges and getting into the workforce. the one complaint we hear is

that they don't get enough students after graduating from college that are ready to take on the job. they don't have the skills needed. that is why as leaders in government we need to make sure that our priorities are focused on education. it is the most important thing that state government does. >> one of the things i am haunted by is that at the same time as we have this 10% -- 10% -- nine percent unemployment , there are 3 million jobs of the skillause mismatch. that is the kind of thing that we should be working on on a micro level right now. >> the link to economic development is incredibly strong. we know that individuals make significantly more money depending on their educational attainment.

the unemployment rate decreases as educational level increases. there is a direct link between our economy and education. >> we need to make sure that we that weh standards, have the resources to help our teachers and students meet those very high standards that will be well-positioned for our future. and have a strong and vital community and economy. our students aren't just going to be competing with other kids from knoxville, east tennessee. they will be competing for jobs and other opportunities with young people from across the country and around the globe. >> we need to find a way to get everybody fully engaged in education in our county and in our state to understand the needs. we need to come up with ideas to fix the problems that we have.

mr. president, without funding, students are losing opportunities to go fill their maximum potential. because of the current economic situation, schools haven't received as much funding as they should. this is the most important issue right now. mr. president, whose help fund education. -- please help fund education. ♪ >> congratulations to all the winners in this years competition. to see more mining mining videos, go to student camp -- studentcam.org. is axt, former congressman hutchinson discusses an nra proposal to protect schools. after that, jim e-government -- mcgovern talks about the news

media. monday, deputy secretary of defense ashton carter discusses the u.s. defense strategy in asia. live from the center for strategic and international studies beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span. >> the sec is actually structured, the way things used to be. it has got a wired division and a wireless division. it issues an annual report that is required by congress on the state of wireless. the hidden assumption, the implicit assumption is that the wireless market is somehow separate from the wired market area in fact, in the world of broadband, these two have increasingly converged. >> one thing that stands in the way of the telcos pushing up the network is that, unlike the cable companies, they are

beholden to a special tax. this is sometimes called the legacy regulation. they have to maintain two separate networks, a copper network, our grandparents who insist on a landline telephone. and a broadband network. the problem is, this is a diversion of resources. it is not a trivial diversion, it is significant. if they were free from those obligations, they would have legions of dollars could go back and invest and expand their broadband networks. >> finding a roadmap for developing broadband in the u.s.. monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> a recent report commissioned by the nra says school teachers should be allowed to carry firearms if they receive proper training. former congressman asa the reportpresented tuesday in washington. this is 45 minutes.

>> good morning. i am asa hutchinson, director of the national school shield task force and i welcome you to this important presentation of our national effort to increase school safety. last december, i received a call from the nra who asked if i would be interested in doing something, leading a national effort on school safety. we arrived at an agreement, which is my mandate and the agreement is that we would have full independence, that we would not have any preconceived condition or predetermined outcomes, and thirdly that we would have the full support that we needed to employ the experts to develop a review of our national efforts on school

safety and to make the recommendations that we believe this -- we believe as exports is appropriate. i'm here to tell you that the nra has fulfilled its side of the bargain and has given us the level of independence, given us the support that is needed to reach the product that we are presenting today. and even to the point that there is no guarantee, the nra will accept these recommendations. these recommendations are the recommendations of the task force. this is our event and the nra will separately consider and respond to it. i did want to introduce the task force members that are here present today. we are delighted that some of them have joined us. not all of them. but on the first row are ralph basham, former director of the united states secret service, former commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection, former director of the federal law enforcement training center, truly an expert in the field of law enforcement and security.

we also have a retired colonel john quattrone, u.s. air force security forces officer, three- time commander, former joint staff operations anti-terrorism homeland defense director at the pentagon. tony lamblia, ceo of phoenix rvt solutions. bruce bellin, former deputy director of the united states secret service, former assistant director of federal law enforcement training center. thomas do not know, former deputy assistant secretary for critical infrastructure protection of the united states department of homeland security. we also want to recognize he has then helpful in the success of this task force is well.