host: let's hear from russ on our democrat line it. caller: hi. just seeing your appearance, you seem like a pretty serious guy. i'm sorry we are losing you to some other venture. i just think if we had more people like you who were overseeing the banking industry, the mortgage industry, and the other industries that seem to be taking advantage of the american people, the country would be a lot better off. applaud you for your demeanor. you look like a tough guy thank you. you go fore we let before today did you know much about ferc? does?ou followed what it caller: no, not really. in st want to say that i'm

eastern connecticut and my electrical rates, when i asked is, they at the bill are pretty reasonable. cl and p and we constantly get calls from people wanting us to switch but i don't switch because i already know that game. who areif we had people in charge of overlooking these are cular industries who reign to rein in these individuals who are trying americans constantly. if we had people like john with demeanor, the country would be a lot better off. thank you. very kind of you, russ. thank you. there are a lot of dedicated employees and i think it is important that we do have

role.ment in a proper i think markets are great and we need to expand them as much as possible. but that doesn't mean we deregulate them and government goes away. a cop on the ve beat to make sure the markets are fair for consumers. host: we look at news stories like politico reporting that you announced your resignation and plan to step down when in the seat in ferc. ut one story they say you have ankled republican linemen for rebuffing them on whether e.p.a. air regulation might threaten of the power y grid. is that about? guest: we were discussing with regulations that will require a number of coal lants be shut down because it would be more economical to shut them down than to invest the

money to put in the emissions reductions equipment. to entail some retirements across the country. but we believe they can be done and with rly fashion proper planning. he planning we are putting in place in the order 1,000 and in he states with some of the integrated resource planning. we believe that there will not problem.ability we have done the analysis and we have done our analysis and the been is that i think has done at the national electric company which is an entity that we oversee that .ooks at reliability nerc they are called. ultimately we feel very confident that these retirements are not going to cause problems for the country. caller: phoenixville, susan, ania, independent. caller: john, i applaud you

also. commission has done so much in china and middle east for people's lives. do you have any new plan for pgrading energy in the u.s., like helping to reduce the high energy costs in the northeast us?t are just killing and maybe something like electric cars in every garage? well, certainly we are concerned about high energy costs and we think the best to reduce them is eliverability of lower cost resources so that is why the pipelines on of new for natural gas in the northeast. reliability g at issues for the northeast use of g the increased natural gas to generate electricity there. emissions things like requirements and also the lower cost of natural gas. think that, again, opening these markets up and ensuring

have access to them and providing the infrastructure like pipelines can ransmission lines that deliver the products to consumers are going to help you you your costs low and help control those costs. -- : is there a rollover ferc?overseas with guest: we have had dialogue with the chinese and memorandum of with the national energy agency which is the share ent of d.o.e. to and exchange information on high like sphamart grids, voltage transmission lines, one thing they have done well that to look at. and other things where they have technology and policy ideas we them and they can share with us. damascus, pennsylvania, democrat line. caller: i'm concerned about when y you run that pipeline.

running a ou are monksville er the dam in new jersey. you had one heck of a nerve the only water available. you come up with this baloney that natural gas is good. not good. , many professional people have been telling you it ever, ever, be done and you got one heck of a nerve us.ing this crap through the pipelines as well as the well cases. the professor has told you that they have a horrible -- they break apart and the corruption, the absolute of this governor who is raping this state and selling everything out. don't know what the heck to do. the old wells that are drilled regulated. i got breast cancer because of ou, buddy and all of your

baloney friends. host: before we get a response aom the chairman, what do you tribute your cancer to? caller: apparently it was from leaking into it and none of the wells that have been have been the past regulate and will never be regulated. -- i hope host: i'm sorry about your illness. he is talking about methane leaking into water systems. respond to that concern and do pipeline she is talking about in particular? guest: i'm not familiar with the particular pipeline. leaking ect to methane into water. it is not under our jurisdiction at all. federalunder either the e.p.a. or state environmental protection agencies. do again believe that atural gas can be developed responsibly. i would advocate that it should be developed responsibly so

is not leakage and environmental damage to consumers. everything support that needs to be done to ensure that. ost: from the website njspotlight.com looking at nudge shows an angry protest failed to work on a controversial natural goes pipeline. river in the delaware basin area. from g at it from pennsylvania to new jersey and new york. passion.r had a lot of where does that come from and how do you deal with that? passion any time you have this infrastructure sited and sely associated with consumers. one area we look at is t. is ssion lines difficult to site one. it is one thing we don't have siting tion over transmission lines but we know that consumers can be very and rned about those lines it can be about gas liens to

some extent although they are indrive as a transmission - as intrusive as a transmission line. but there are tradeoffs we have to make to have the quality and living we have in this country the infrastructure has to be built. hat doesn't mean it can't be built responsibly and in an way tomentally sensitive minimize damage and mitigate impacts to local communities. do that in every instance where we put in infrastructure. host: michael joins us from indiana, republican line. wondering, i'm buying a chevy volt today and improving king about he infrastructure i'm curious what you think or see as the future of consumer pricing for this country. thank you. guest: well, thank you for that

question. very good t i see a future for consumer pricing because i think consumers will choices. things like the chevy volt, car that ectric ultimately can be used to not nly provide you transportation transport your family but in addition to that the batteries in that car can be things like provide services to the grid which will help you lower your cost. for example, le, at university of delaware, a l -- man named which will who has used n batteries for cars at night to provide grid services back to grid, regulation service, and pay the consumer to do that. essence, you get a free charge. so there are opportunities with the new technologies and the we can make them available through expanding markets and

we can, i think, olonel costs for -- control costs for consumers so i see a bright future for affordable energy.e host: talk about the future potential of a smart grid and be in rc's role would that? guest: we have a large role the structureste for the wholesale markets and we ensure nothings like only that you have access in the holesale markets to non traditional resources like wind access tobut you have demand response which means consumers changing their demand operator hen the grid asks them to do so and in response they get paid to do it. mid-atlantic he area where d.c. is, maryland, ew jersey, there's a grade operator called p.j.m., jersey, maryland, and that grid operator has omething like 15,000 megawatts

of demand response which is 15 large nuclear power plants worth that they can e put in the grid and the effect is to lower rates for consumers real time for wholesale price he is. so, the smart grid is very those types ofse resources, number one, once be available without the rules we place that allow them to bid into the market. number two, they wouldn't be available without the technology we have to communicate from the consumers to the grid to let the are know those consumers providing those resources to the grid. host: what do you personally see grid future of a smart and how to make it strong and ot vulnerable, say, to cyber attack or other major outages and problems? being i see the future as a distributive grid. one of the first callers talked about a distributed solar energy and i think you will see a we expansion of that. that will help consumers control heir insurance at a local

level. but they will be interconnected in a mesh insurance. instead of having this point to point with one large power connecting with a whole host of consumers in the city, ou will have a whole group of consumers with their own power plants locally connecting to in a mesh together and connecting to other centralized wind, solar and natural gas. we will be working together as organized group. it will be two-way communication -- or ration that multiway operation in a network we have never seen before. albany, oregon, independent call, will. organgood morning. i have two questions for mr. wellinghoff. regarding the natural gas industry, i think it is one of hidden stories in the america that we have

energy independence through fracking and other of natural gas production. i'm curious about the market prices. department of e energy has just allowed another natural gas terminal on the gulf to start exporting our abundant natural gas. does the price go down if things the price for consumers right now should be at its lowest and as we start selling the excess, the supply goes down so the price mr. go up. isn't shall -- the price will go up. isn't that the way it works? guest: if classic economics it oes although interestingly enough what i'm seeing is shell ed finds of new goes availability. so i'm not sure how much the sly is going down, number one. really affected pric

prices, any of the proposed exports. fact we haven't put any major export facilities in place yet. export wo, those facilities are going it cost a lot of money to put together and it will take a lot of time. i don't believe that we have or will have the capacity in the to export sufficient amounts of natural gas to have a price as far as making it go up. so i think we will continue to increase with new shale finds. in e is a very large one california that i was not even aware of that i read about the other day. one in georgia apparently. so, we are seeing new availability of gas that we believed was in existence. when i came to ferc almost seven now, no one even knew bout the shales that we have developed today or if they did know about it they were very we have loped and increased the amount of natural goes developed over that short

50%.od of time of more than so, who knows what we will increase the next five to 10 years. is goingdon't think it to have a significant effect on the price. stay verye price will stable for a long time between the three and six dollar range. from new york l city, marta, independent. tpwhrao caller: i have a question for my mother in florida. why can't the individuals use more solar energy to lower their bills? there are so many permits and problems. a fixed lives on income and her energy costs rival her mortgage when she had mortgage. now she can barely keep up with .er soaring energy bills i called florida power and light to do a thing with the for solar, and they 60%, 65%, you pay it off in 14 years, 10 years and

paying florida power and light 35%. costs will go the up enough to be back where they ere and i said that won't save my mother any money. he says you are saving pollution i go e environment and yes, but my mother can't pay her bills. why is it so impossible to be grid?e guest: it is changing very quickly. i really sympathize with your she is nd high bills paying but i think solar will come to her very soon. financing ew structures the solar developers are putting together for that i al consumers think will make it affordable consumers to move to solar within a very short number of years. that doesn't mean you are going off the grid. you will still be connected to

he grid because the interconnections between the distributed systems and our larger central systems are everybody keeplp the rates down. host: ferc chairman john wellinghoff, federal energy regulatory commission. s we mentioned earlier he has announced his resignation. he will step down when somebody is in place. doing know what you are next? and are you under any obligation o the american public to avoid certain jobs or roles as you eave this federal regulatory electricity cop as the "baltimore sun" calls you, position? any current t have plans. i'm looking at what opportunities i may have during he interim period that i will still be at ferc until my successor is until nighted and confirmed. , but i ontinue to vote will also try to avoid any are any and if there firms i'm speaking to that are before ferc i will recuse myself from those cases. beyond that when i leave i have an obligation under the law to

practice before ferc for a year and will certainly honor that. beyond it, i have open ossibilities in the energy field and i'm excited about them. >> john wellinghoff, thank you time.ur guest: thank you, libby. america by theur numbers segment looks at safety, schools. and crime in we will be right back. >> when you first arrived four

ears ago i'm sure you never imagined that at the end of that time there would be a lady talking to you in a funny accent. accent has been the bane of 1980 i ence until in moved to new york and met henry me inger and he said to don't ever worry about your accent. you can an public live never underestimate the totalages of complete and incommenceability. >> this weekend more stories and class for new graduating with commencement speeches from government officials tonight at f.b.i. director, the federal chairman, the governor and florida overnor, attorney general and saturday at 8:30 business leaders.

>> she made the first speech by a sitting first lady. he first president of the daughters of the american revolution. esigns her own china and establishes the white house china collection and first to have a christmas tree in the white house. meet the wife of the 23rd resident benjamin harrison as we continue our series on first ladies with your questions and monday night live at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our america by the takes a look at school crime, violence and

safety. planty oined by missile from the bureau of justice statistics chief of the statistics unit. thank you. and the other guest is staff education week nirvi shah. thank you for coming in. the big y, what is picture of crime in school today? improvements or on the decline? guest: the highlights are we are seeing a large decline in violent crime and theft at other indicators they are relatively flat such as bullying. weapon carrying and threats at school. that tflat. host: what does violence mean? guest: first, measuring school violence is challenging. that?o we mean by does it main we are on school property? from bout going to and school? and during after-school

activities. get that focus then away look at other indicators. violence, theft, bullying. drug use, gang activi activity, and also the measures that ety and prevention schools put in place. host: where do we get the information? ou talked about what we are looking at but where does it come from? uest: the information is a collaboration between the department of justice and education and information from c.d.c. and put together annual annual report. this is the 15th report. on information from students, principals, teachers nd administrative records from schools. it is a compilation of multiple sources to give a very broad of school crime and safety. host: we see from the bureau of 2% ice statistics less than of youth homicides occurred at to 2010.d from 1992

nirvi shah, we are seeing an mprovement in the number of deaths and victimizations. do we know why? guest: i think society at large is getting a little less violent. that is a reflection of sort of gun culture, drug culture. kind of thing. i also think reporting and gone up. have the reporting itself hasn't gone awareness of violence and bullying has i am proved so there is more prevention in than maybe a couple of decades ago. see the total rate of victimizations against students as greater at school than away in the year 2011. you see per 1,000 students the victimizations and in the blue it is at school and red away from school. 50 or under 50 people per 1,000 mark. whether it matter incidents happen at school or

away from school? clustered by the hundreds at school so it is more likely something could happen in tight spaces, exposed to each other, getting irritated maybe unhappy , with a particular class. that form and es school is a place where activity an breed and at home you have little more space. it is interesting that the trend lines are similar regardless of where kids are. just that way these days. we look at serious violence at and away not much of a difference. guest: historically away from has been much higher than at school for serious violence no in recent years there is difference statistically. host: we will show this on the screen. the phone lines for you to call. us.nts can join

teacher you can call also. >> also, students can join the conversation. 202-585-3883. nirvi shah, what factors make students vulnerable when we look the overall school population and subsets? say for vocates would sure anyone that is part of a minority group whether racial whether it is, sexual education, male, female. you could be a minority at one another d not at school. that is a big factor. first bully iing centered ions have a und students who have

esbian, guy, bisexual and transagenda transagendaer status. it depends on the make-up of the school but who you are and where you fit is a big part of it. planty, bullying at school and cyber bullying. bullying s show 28% ns at school in 2011 reported being bullying. we know in is a rather high rate when you think about and is including physical verbal bullying. we found differences by male and female. accounted for by verbal taunt and rumor spread. bullying doesn't really difficult between male muchemale and lower grades higher rate of bullying than higher grades. that could be a couple of things. be older kids don't report being bullied even if

there is otherat types of changes going on in the attribute we can't to bullying. host: you tracked cyber bullying. why? and how does that weigh in? not : overall these are mutually exclusive. this is a form of means or mode bullying and has become important in recent years with he explosion of social media, exting, i.m.ing and use of phones. we find the same relationships hold. 9%.about there is some indication it is a issue.g host: nirvi shah, a story you are ted this month states pressing schools to add intruder drills. they are gaining traction in houses.te

w what are you seeing in terms of evelopments and what has changed since the shooting at sandy hook elementary? uest: we did an analysis looking at state policies that re being driven by newtown and emergency planning while arming and getting police have gotten more attention better planning for emergencies is at the top. there are hundreds of proposals specifically about that. there is more drills. is a new idea of a shooter reacting drill it would students gohers and through an active shooter situation which is a scary the reality but there are states they feel like must-do. host: the bureau of justice looked at the increased ercentage of public cancels using -- schools using safety and security measures. does that mean?

guest: we have different ways to access to the nd school. doors locked, having people greet guests.and there is a rise from 75% to 92% there. differences. primary middle cancels tend to have that more than high schools. below i.d. badges for eachers, for students having increased and security cameras nd other types of physical security measures are in place. drills, many n chools have written plans for shootings, natural disasters and bomb threats. when you ask principals do t the drill students, 84% said they would plan for shooting but 52% drill them. bomb threats. for natural disasters 90% have 80% to 90% drill the students.

that is interesting. varies by grade level. primary, middle and high school. looking at the numbers of school crime, safety.e and our guest is michael planty from the bureau of justice statistics of the victimization stats unit. education week staff writer nirvi shah. we will go to joanne in spring branch, texas, a professor. caller: hi. this question is to michael. i'm curious about this static schools.r city i have taught all over the country, los angeles, chicago, border of texas with mexico, nd i have found in the places where i have taught even higher education as well as secondary there is a vast disparity of violence depending and e school district location. and racial and ethnic background

administration takes care and enforces a lot of the things of that nature. can you comment on that tatistically such as like chicago for instance versus and the anch, texas, statistics in the country? guest: we have looked at call ences by what we icity and many schools reflect the communities nd what happens in the larger community sends to happen in cancels. we see higher rates in urban schools but it is con little bit because they tend of it different come significances. structures in nt terms of academic press and curriculum. of the overall make-up nd whether urban schools are

different in important ways, i think that you have to look at and arger community parental involvement. we have shown is there is a decline in crime but this the decline in crime overall in society. an if you are looking for answer why school crime has declined you have to look at the larger society. there doesn't seem to be an answer within schools. host: nirvi shah. . agree.d schools are a reflection of their community and that is -- example, there are so many school closures in chicago and fear is the community has experienced so much violence and some of that translated into the schools and they are dealing with that violence and safety problems in own way, at least they are trying to. depend like versus a

smaller town where everybody nows everybody and more of a community feeling and if something were to happen you anyone.ll but i think there is some sense concerning newtown which is a relatively small suburban, se n, semirural versus chicago public schools. we go to new york to hear from alice who is a parent. caller: hi. i'm not sure which person i have i have a on for, but movedin high school and i school schenectady district to a rural area with a and my daughter was being bullied in school to using nt where they were social networking on the her and she ully .as being bullied at school

i called the school every day months,months, over two and spoke to the disciplinarian at the school. he kept telling me that it was being investigated. after two months the four daughter in d my she told him to and she e f off of her got suspended for 13 days and bullying,that did the the ones that were cornering her hit her, did not get any kind of punishment whatsoever. to a point where the parents of these children were daughter on the texting her k beiinnetworking, and on the computer.

i want to know does anybody have i can do about it. so sorry about what happened to your daughter. the federal government. department, has directed schools that they do need to investigate and protect who have been the victims of bullying as part of civil rights law. they have done numerous kecases that in sound relatively similar to your daughters. if you are not getting any traction at this school i would consider returning to the if not there the state department of education and federal civil rights office can file a complaint with them. that doesn't mean that they will necessarily investigate but it least give you some peace of mind that you are not letting go.ngs just and i'm sorry that you had that xperience but that is an example that i have seen in the

at the f civil rights department of education. we know follow up, children respond to types of fear and different types of crying by avoiding places, avoiding school outright. or even activities after school. you have the t consequences of retaliation, other things that can escalate get confusing to the situation when these things are handled by administrators properly. host: the bureau of justice in istics shows the change percentage of students 12 to 18 bully at skl.eing ere are the 2005 numbers about 2011.nd we hear from a student in waldorf, maryland. go ahead. host: the reason i called is

i'm currently a college a dent and i used to go to suburb high school in maryland. .ut there is a problem in inner city chool districts like d.c. and altimore and so forth, why are there so -- why is there, like, security than in suburb rural school districts around the accountacountry. host: let's look at some of the numbers you have, michael planty, about what school means.y guest: i have a slide here. security t the use .uards in school about 40% four of 10 schools use security

staff. 28% of schools -- schools have an armed guard. high schools have more than primary schools. in terms of where armed guards or security guards are cities e find them in and large schools. but not armed guards. larger schools. part of what you are seeing is probably some differences in and who is using security guards around who needs to rely on them. host: nirvi shah. guest: civil rights advocates have complained in recent years something might happen in a more rural or suburban in unity and effect is felt los angeles or chicago or philadelphia, metal detectors didn't ere the violence actually happen. point of rt of a consternation. i don't know what prompts someone who is in a place where happen or a didn't big media incident to trigger

measures that some people might view as extreme in a totally different part of the country. is a question mark for sure. host: the bureau of justice looked at those in high school who reported being threatened or injured with a property.school it shows that no change in that to entage of ninth gradeers 12 graders. nine about 7% of kids in through 12 reported being a eatened or injured by weapon. there are differences by male and female. male, 10% to 5%. lower grades versus higher grids experience threats or injury with weapons and hispanic and report more than white students. >> nirvi shah, as we look at numbers, no change in the percentage of these high school this.nts who report is this being borne out through

the public perception? programs. on ink that it also depends what is a weapon. is an opinion sill a weapon -- pencil a weapon? it.ends on how you wield is in knife left in the backpack hunt being trip, it is a weapon but did anybody do it.thing with they have to make that call every day. ost: the next caller is in quantico, maryland. a parent. dawn. a grandparent. >> i have two grandchildren who are twins who go to school in the city and it is not a very they pick on d them and bully them and i just grandchildren to ignore they are there to get their education and go it

college. grand is sad when my daughter has a 3.85 average and her a superstar eatshe has to sit there and youh by left because of the will have -- vulgar language. host: how old are they caller: they will be 12 june 11. responds to they ignore it.ent to caller: they do well. they punched them and they went the teacher and i said don't they have a deputy. walking around talking about crack and my grandchildren it.w nothing about they are not exposed to that life style. mild-mannered. i don't understand why parents their children.

sorry to hear about the experience. each rious if they have other to rely on and support, have any classes together. couldn't go if you r the girls' parents -- assuming they are girls -- if you could go to the school administration and perhaps there in terms of there forming some kind of group, upport group or club this the girls have an interest in that they could form friendships with even if no one can be but ds at everyone specially age 11 but perhaps here is some way to make a initi niche. another s is david, grand parent from alabama. first, i want to say i'm 72 years old and i went to high 1950's.n the

all the country boys were pretty hunters all year round. locker cher built a gun out of the lockers down by the people put their firearms when they came it cancel. other were handled by bo boys. somebody that picked on all the team got the crap beat out of them. it made sense. stopped it. hen a killed is bullied, why doesn't that child's parents go to the parents of the bully? what we have here is a total and of lete loss of discipline kids. the supreme court hasn't helped. to abuse ying is dren, but as the twig bent so grows the tree.

harvesting that -- children lowing civil rights. of course they should have rights. abused. should ever be this does not mean that they we ot be disciplined and have advocated discipline of our to the point i ave one of my granddaughters comes in with a family get-together and gives me a hug one arm while talking on the cell phone. i took it away from her. when you are in my house with family you will not be timbuktu. somebody in but, but, but -- no buts about it. the phone off or there is the door. what is happening to us? he is sharing his perspective as a grandparent in

alabama. ichael, observations about change in terms of discipline. things about whether schools are using security.safety and guest: when you look at the formal measures of discipline over time that is one aspect of t. i think the aller-day, from alabama, is talking about the euin formal measures. parental involvement. community effort. responsibility that there's a disconnect. where there is not formal control through neighborhoods or other types of organization organizations, religious organizations or community are izations where people maybe put back in lane. ou talk about bullying but people don't have resources to might a bully and that not be a great solution

of sonal i given the types things we've now where any kind of retaliation can be seen as behavior and the victim, the initial victim could penalized. guest: i think there are parents, did once parents may again to another parent and said your child is harassing my concerned about your child's behavior. i don't know that all parents thatfeel comfortable doing now. communities have gotten more anonymous. media has kind of put us ut there but behind a computer or phone. we are a little less confrontati onfrontational so i'm not sure that is an easy solution. as you said, that could be confrontation in its own way. guest: there is a lot of parents are confrontational and i a volunteer at school and my wife is the president of

feedback on get things. i think that it is -- we get and concentrations of schools where there is not parent.ment from the i think one of these things that has been highlighted in private parental they demand involvement. so if parents know what their it dren are doing maybe hampers some of the behavior. school are looking at crime violence by the numbers. are michael planty chief of the victimization tatistics unit at the department of justice. it involves working in the design and analysis of national scale household and school based surveys relating to in criminal justice. staff also joined by writer of education week nirvi

shah. sha her work is including time at palm iami herald" and beach post. michael is a caller in seattle and is a parent. good morning. i would like to share my story. 17 fp. s he is a student and i'm appalled academic el of education that he is getting. that he is not familiar with physics and other i.d. and he is taking like and that i.d. class extra class, theory of knowledge. and just two days ago i went to school to try to talk to about this.nselor bulled by them and they

asked me to leave the building explain my worries. so it was kind of bully to parents. do.n't know about to and i know the school had 2011 and efore in principal was fired. rehired again was with expectations to develop like high stars or whatever it is to involve kids. education just is appalling. class kids have in the students from other classes like from europe with exchange talking to i was kids and they are much more in ared academically than america. host: thank you, michael. a lot of things to think about in terms of parental bullying and foreigners are getting a better education back home. guest: i don't know if

distraction with behavior issues part of that package. i don't know what school michael's child attends. but we hear stories of schools parent e want involvement and they are rebuffed when they try to get involved. think that is one of those local issues that is unfortunate and hopefully michael will find son. resolution for his host: we have some tweets. irish boy says when my kid was middle school the boys avoided the bathrooms because there were assaults in them. host: michael planty. guest: we know that the crime with bullying rates haven't changed. but why not? is it because people are more

they are reporting it more. they understand it better. there is more outreach. flattening of a line is a recognition by students that they are being bullied. i think that one of the things that you have to look at in bullying is what schools are doing to maintain it. guest: i would agree with that. there is more prevention laws ms and so many state that have developed to deal with and prevent bullying. not strong enough. some say they don't go far enough. is more awareness. bullying has even been an issue hat the white house has dressed. barack obama has talked about being bullied as a child. there is definitely this huge awareness and maybe still work addressing n behavior. the caller or writer from florida about voiding spaces, this is

something we see all the time in the information we collect. spaces where there are not teachers and others involved. is lower and so think that strategies for maintaining that space have been explored. host: let's hear from ann a san antonio, r in texas. welcome. caller: thank you. teacher we young used to sit with our students during lunch. had hall patrol, et cetera, et cetera, and we ground activity where were present to monitor what the children were doing. of course, over the years i hate to say it i'm one of them, to do that any more so we went to the union and then there was only one person in the dining that person was an aid and

didn't have the clout we did as teachers. all of our clout and the students started becoming worse and worse. four -- letter language was -letter language was horrifying and when there was a problem in the classroom we principal or the the disciplinarian take care of and they wouldn't. there were fears that the school sued and this be and that. so, over the years this is what i see now. believe that it was us giving up our authority. to turn t would you do around what you are observing? what can be done now? be done now?can i think we need to turn back the lock and start again to have teachers that do have .esponsibility and authority i believe it will take a full police force in many of the

to stop the problems years of ver all these leniency have given up our rights to. a full e it will take ideal force, which is not by any stretch. but there is no other way. run ve let our society recommend -- rampant and we blame but to ourselves. guest: she touches on an to school orollary climate. when students report higher rules of rules and enforcement and a sense of ommunity between students knowing what is right and wrong we find lower levels of violence. is -- when we talk about school uniforms will make is usually a it s cultural change and we won't accept this any more. so, it is that whole organizational refocusing of the

to certain standards and rules and rules enforcement. a n students know there's rule and it is not enforced, the behavior doesn't stop. so you can have written laws and ules but if you don't have enforcement and implementation, you are not going to get anywhere. add, i think there is a new movement to work on changing student behavior. a rule and they suffer a consequence because you broke the rule and suspend them or they are send to study ncipal's office or hall will they come back any different? think there is a movement to address student behavior and not just make it go away for a but try to prevent them from doing it again. that, you wantter rules but then we have this situation now with zero tolerance. i think it creates other issues n schools and so you have no

enforcement to complete enforcement and no discretion. seen cases like that. ost: bureau of justice statistics look at teenagers eported carrying weapons on school property back in 2011. what did you learn? both the carrying of a weapon can be an offender's a victim's behavior n terms of self-protection out of fear. we though there's been a decline on school 17% 6% orty about 12% down to 7%. we know there's a difference. likely than e females and there is not much ifference by race and ethnicity. host: steve in burton, michigan, a parent. hi.er: i want to say to the teacher

hit the nail on the head. i think the biggest problem is do their y wants to job any more. i have a son who is in school and i will admit he is a bully and i try to deal with it every day. to deal with him and like the one grand parent i said one going it meet a kid bigger than you. a parent i'm trying to deal with it. tied.y hands are sort of i will bring him home and discipline him. i don't beat him. let him know there are consequences for your action. he will go it school and you say dad gave med and my five swats. is teacher calls me and said i don't hit my dog. hy do you call me my kid is acting up and i try to correct it and you call me and make me bad person m the because i hit him. too farderstand some go

when they discipline their kids. that america has created a problem where they are taking the power out of the hands to actually raise their kids and make them esponsible and respectable citizens to now we have television telling our kids some kids and he up 25 gets all of this publicity. look at that, kids. some kid just murdered his parents. look at this, that is what we your brains.in in we are not trying to don't drive home wholesome ideas. we have violent video games and rap music and hard core rock why kids are r angry and act the way they do. what we ecause that is are impressing on our kids. host: lets get a response. guest: there is a lot there in terms of the caller's issues in discipline and cooperation with the school. kids are in skl seven or eight

school,seven or eight hours a day and trying to rely on administrators who control the behavior. i think talking more about the i think talking more about the prevalence of these other influences, for instance, the association with bullying and school shooting. just look at the numbers -- 27% of kids are bullied. we have a few, think fully, cases of school shootings. you would think there would be a lot more, same with video games. the prevalence is so high. so many kids are exposed to it. in terms of escalation in violence. it is kind of a weak association. host: nirvi shah. guest: i would agree with that, and i think the jury is out on how big the influences. prevention is so key. where there is a shooting or a child that ask out, maybe somebody missed something.

and kids do talk. there is its encouragement of having kids other -- having kids report something when there is a potential bombing that was going to happen in oregon. tipped offdent either school authorities or police authorities and prevented something from happening. so there are ways to do take things before a kid get so frustrated that they don't know what to do with themselves anymore and act out. host: nirvi shah, staff writer at "education week," thank you for your time. ,nd michael planty, unit chief thank you as well for sharing your numbers. guest: thank you. host: that is all for "washington journal" this morning. thank you for joining us. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern time. see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> coming up live in an hour from now, the social security and medicare trustees report will be released year it is the annual report that details the program's fiscal health. treasury secretary jack mont helping secretary kathleen sebelius. that is live at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. look at the white house this morning. in about 20 minutes, president obama will be speaking in the rose garden about student loans. interest rates on government- ns are set toe load double on july 1 and less congress decide on a fix. the president threatens to veto a house passed bill that would let the cost of student loans go up and down would be market appeared that bill was passed last week in the house. we will show you some of that

debate while we wait for the president of the remarks, which will be live here at about 10:20. >> we are here today to address a crisis of washington's own making. several years ago, congress decided politicians, not the free market, were better equipped to assess the student loan interest rates. politicians set a fixed rate of 6.8% for all loans, and then decided to advance legislation based on a campaign promise that would temporary lay -- temporarily put this rate down to 3.4%. last summer, with the expiration of the lower rate scheduled for july 1, 2012, the debate about student loans reached a fever pitch. the president began touring college campuses, calling on congress to prevent this increase that his own party set in motion back in 2007. as i said at the time, no one wanted to see interest rates double, particularly at a time when one at of every two

college graduates was struggling to find a full-time job. we need to move a way from a system that allows washington politicians to use student loan interest rates as bargaining chips. when congress approved legislation to temporarily stave off the stafford loan interest rate increase, my colleagues and i lead our support with the promise that we would use this time to work thatd a long-term solution better align the interest rates with the free market. the smarter solutions for student backed up on blitzes -- a competent this goal to a market-based interest rates is impaired responsible legislation builds upon a proposal that was actually put forth by the president earlier this year. the smarter solutions for student back is a narrow piece of legislation. mr. speaker,, some critics would rather kick the can down the road and simply extend the current

arbitrary rates that a taxpayer pays roughly a billion dollars. they want to leave politicians in charge of setting rates. earlier this week, the " washington post" called it a "weird fact" that student loan rates are not "pegged to anything real." students deserve better. they should not have to watch as washington holds their interest rates hostage each election year. they should not have to deal waitthe uncertainty to for congress to cobble together another fix to keep interest rates aligned with the market. we have an opportunity today to get all editions out of the interest of interest rates. we have an opportunity to provide students more stability in the long-term. we have an opportunity to build upon common ground with the administration, advance a bipartisan solution that is a

win for student and cap taxpayers. i urge my colleagues to approve the smarter solutions for students act. >> chair recognizes the general men of california for five minutes. of californiaan for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, and a little more than month, the interest rates on loans to millions of the neediest students would double from 3.4% to 6.8%. with that doubling, those who can afford it least will be burdened with more debt. with total student loan debt already surpassing the trillion dollars, this conversation stop that interest-rate hike, that doubling of the interest rate. rather than make it more affordable for students and families to pay for college, this congress this day in this chamber has debated a bill -- i

know people will believe this -- but we're debating a bill to make it more expensive for families and students to achieve a college education. at a time when college costs are rising and historic low interest rates, the majority is asking us to accept a bill that would increase interest rates. and even though the student interest rate is scheduled on july 1 to double from 3.4% to 6.8%, the bill for the note on the floor today is worse than that. for students and their families. it increases the drag on the debtmy that the student is to families and young people trying to seek a job. that itl is so bad means more than the doubling of the interest rates.

how do you think that that has anything to do with the market rate? according to the congressional research service, when they look at this bill, you can see that under current law, they under doubling two 620%, they pay $8,800 and interest rates. and under the republican bill, they would manage to pay more than $10,000 in interest rates. how can i possibly be in the interest of these families? how can that possibly be happening in this economy when people are struggling with this interest-rate? it cannot be allowed. you can see here that the parents who may have to contribute something and they would take out a loan to help their child complete a college education, they're going to pay more than $35,000 over the life of those loans than under the current law. at we have got to stop from happening. what you see is what it is all said and done, this bill asks

students over the next few years --pay more than 3.4 -- 3.0 $3.7 billion in increased interest rates. no wonder these students have headaches. no wonder parents are thinking -- what am i going to do with this? they say we have a market rate here. many in america, certainly middle-class and lower income families come over member the last time we had this kind of market rate because what they have is a teaser rate for your first year. they will have a lower interest rate. they have a teaser rate. they know that next year that teaser rate is out. you don't get that rate because next year you get a new rate. when you are a sophomore in college and you take out another loan, you get another, higher rate. when you are a junior, you take out a higher rate. when you graduate, they give you a higher rate. does that sound familiar to

people? that is the marketplace. that is the marketplace when you choose to crush the people who are quarreling the money. the president has a market rate. the chairman has said many times the president is looking to using the markets to set a realistic rate. .nyways -- he sets the rate it is deficit neutral. offer was we try to deficit neutral. the -- the amendment we tried to offer was deficit neutral. you get the difference? of the pick the worst market, or you can pick the best of the market. they have chosen to pick the worst of the market for these students. they had options. publicans last night had options. -- republican + had options. one offered an amendment to keep the rate at 3.4%, they rejected it. i offered be president of the report -- the president's

approach, they rejected it. students continue to pay on time, as they should, because you want good behavior because you get more of it very -- it. they rejected that. mr. rice went before them, very concerned about the interest rate. very concerned about what is going to happen to these families feared he thought he could lower the interest rate within the market rate, stick with the market principle. they said no. so all you got today is whether or not you want a solution that is worse than the doubling of the interest rate on july 1. that is not an answer for america's families. that is not an answer for america's students. i you about the balance of my time. >> the german o -- the gentleman from minnesota is recognized or >> i yield to the vice-chairman of the committee on education and the workforce. from wisconsinn is recognized for two minutes.

>> i rise today to support hr 1911 because it would put in turn passed put in place a long- term market based solution to federal student loan interest rates. some on the other side wish to engage on endless debates on the level of student loan interest rates. this is the wrong debate to be having, however, and distracts us from real reform. by taking this issue out of the hands of politicians, hr 1911 move the discussion forward. i believe there are better ways to help students manage the repayment of their loans than ever higher interest rate subsidies. ideae-based repayment, an that originated with milton friedman and was advocated by presidents reagan, clinton, and obama, is better for students and taxpayers. --have an income balanced income based repayment option now. it is upperdeck student or taxpayers. i and another have introduced legislation to make needed reforms. with today's bill, we can break

free from this debate over interest rates and focus on real reform to help students struggling with student loan debt during -- deb.t -- student loan debt. i urge the passing of hr 1911. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to the general men from texas -- the gentleman from texas. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to hr 1911. a republican bill to make college more incentive. in america, we often speak of the importance of expanding educational opportunity and supporting students in achieving the american dream. unfortunately, our student loan debt crisis is crushing the dreams and aspirations of students and college graduates. as progress men miller said earlier, today, student loan debt exceeds $1.1 trillion according to the consumer

financial protection bureau. student loan debt surpassed total outstanding credit card debt for the first time in 2010. these staggering figures are truly unacceptable and must serve as a wake-up call for developing a long-term solution that helps, not arms, -- not harms, current and future borrowers. it is shocking that the majority party would bring a bait and switch scheme to the house floor. a bill that would force students into loans with skyrocketing interest rates. 1911d it shameful that hr would reduce the federal deficit on the backs of students and parents. almost $4g them with billion in additional loan interest charges, and lisa students were scarf -- worse off

than if congress allowed interest rates to double on july 1. it can affect the kinds of careers that students can follow. createvels of debt can obstacles for young people who hope to start a family, to purchase a home, and save for retirement. to be clear, students and families deserve more from u.s. congress, not less. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- i need 10 seconds. >> gentleman is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. pricing for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to oppose hr 1911. i suggest you do two things. one is work to prevent interest rates from doubling on july 1. second, work to make college more affordable and accessible through the real invasion of

higher education act. >> the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to yield two minutes now to the chairman of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, doctorow. >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. >> to why. i rise in support of the smarter solutions for students act. that i a student loan agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- it is a huge issue. how did we get to the current rate of 6.8%. in 2006, the congress decided that interest rates were too high, so they wanted to lower the interest rates but found that they cannot afford the cost. so gradually it went down last year from one year we had a 3.4% student loan rate tied to nothing other than the whims of congress. it created a fiscal cliff for long) so we voted to extend it

for one year to give us time to have a permanent solution. the permanent solution we are offering is to simply treat a student loan like any other loan and tie it to a treasury 2.5% for a stafford loan. what does that mean? certainly, mr. speaker, very at -- very aqua -- very eloquently, mr. miller spoke about renewable rates. that means they can change feared that is true. but rates can also go down. it does not mean that rates will go up. and 8.5%ledging this, cap was put on those loans. i check the loans if you went to your local baneks to see what the rate would be, it is about 7%. i agree that we should work together for ways to make college more affordable. i cannot not agree more. the secretary of education said he agreed and supported a permanent solution.

the president said he supported market-based approach. this will give certainty to its third certainly i would urge my colleagues to support this needed piece of legislation. >> the general men from california is recognized. to recognize mr. andrews from new jersey. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank my friend for yielding. the question before the house this morning is whether we should make college more affordable or less affordable. which is better for the country? by july 1,thing interest rates double on student loan rates from 3.4% to say 20%. this bill exit worse. -- this bill makes it worse. it will increase the cost by five or $6,000, $3.7 billion

across the country over a 10 year period. there is a better way. why don't we borrow the money at 1%, factor in the cost of administering the loan and setting aside a reserve reserve for default, and discharge that amount to the students -- and charge that amount to the students? and others have taken the lead on this. mr. courtney has appeared that is the bill that i think it the appropriate long-term solution. i do know this -- if you listen to any corporate leader, any business leader in america, they tell you this -- we will only grow and prosper with a skilled workforce. and we will only have a skilled workforce if higher education is affordable. the simple question before the house is if you think higher education should be less affordable, vote yes. if you think it should be more affordable him a vote no.

no is the right vote. there is a better way we should put that on the floor and pursue that way. i yield back. .> gentleman yield back the general men from minnesota is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to a member of the committee, the general men from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. ofthe gentleman from its enya is recognized for two minutes. t congressional action, interest rates will double from 3.4% to save 20% on july 1 heard not that far away. -- on july 1. not that far away. need both chambers working on a solution now. we cannot afford deals against this relationship. smarter solutions for students act thesmarter solutions for smarter ac -- the solutions for students act is the right approach. this bill puts in place a rate that is more predictable and affordable.

it builds on a proposal put obama and president his fiscal year 2014 budget request. the proposal moves to a market- based interest rate, not one set by politicians in washington. we have a responsibly to -- >> we will leave this house debate from last week to go live to the white house in the rose garden. students gathering, awaiting the president to come up and speak about student loans. this is live coverage on c-span. >> ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

>> as you just heard, a two- minute warning awaiting the president. a live look at the was -- at the rose garden here in washington, d.c. last week, the house passed a student loan bill that the president is threatening to vito. he will speak about student loan rates, and we are waiting that momentarily. later on, the social security medical trustees report. we will have that live.

>> live look at the white house and the rose garden this morning. awaiting the president to speak on student loans, interest

rates on student back to government loans are set to double on july 1 unless congress comes up with something before them. .ere is the president >> good morning, everybody. have a seat. welcome to the white house. i know it is a little warm. about my favorite things this job is that i get suspense and -- i get to spend some time with remarkable young people from across the country. it inspires me, it makes me feel good. those of you who have had to put on suits and ties and show up at the white house first thing on a friday morning may not feel the same way i do, but i appreciate all of you being here. you clean up very well. these students and graduates are here to talk about something that matters to millions of young people and their families, and that is the cost of a college education. because this is not as critical for their futures, but it is

also critical for america's future. over the past 4.5 years, we have been fighting our way back from a financial crisis and an incredibly punishing recession, the worst since the great depression, and it cost millions of americans their jobs, their homes, the sense of security they have built -- they have spent their lives building up. the good news is, today our businesses have created nearly 7 million jobs over the past 30 a month, 500,000 of those jobs are manufacturing. we are consuming less injury -- less energy, we are importing less from other countries. the housing market is coming back, the stock market has rebounded. our deficits are shrinking at the fastest pace in 50 years. people's's retirement savings are growing again. the rise of health care costs are slowing. the american auto association is back. so we are seeing progress.

and the economy is starting to pick up steam, the gears are starting to turn again, and we're getting some traction. but the thing is, the way we measure our progress as a country is not just where the stock market is. it is not just how well the folks at the top are doing. it is not just about the aggregate economic numbers. is about how much progress ordinary families are making. are we creating ladders of opportunity for everybody who is willing to work hard? not only ating growing economy but also an engine that is critical to long- lasting, sustained economic growth, and that is a, thriving middle class? that is our focus. that is what we have to be concerned every single day. that is our north star. that means there at the -- three questions with ask ourselves. number one, how do we make america a magnet for good jobs?

in this competitive 21st century economy. number two, how to make sure that our workers are in the skills and education they need to do those jobs? number three, how do we make sure those jobs actually pay a decent wage or salary so that people can save for retirement, send their kids to college? those are the questions we have got to be asking ourselves every single day. so we are here today to talk about that second question. how do we make sure our workers are in the skills and education s thateed to do the job companies are hiring for right now gecko -- right now? we know that the surest path to the middle class is some form of higher education. a four-year degree, a community college degree, an advanced degree -- you are going to need more than just a high school education.

to succeed in this economy. the young people here today -- they get that. they are working through ,ollege, maybe just graduated and earning their degree is not just the best investment that they can make for their future, it is the best investment that they can make in america's future. but like a lot of young people all across the country, these students have had to take on more and more debt to pay for this investment. today's college students were born, tuition and fees at public universities have more than doubled. these days, the average student who takes on loans to pay for four years of college graduates owing more than $26,000. how many people are on track here for $26,000?

that is not just hold back our young graduates, it holds back our entire middle class because americans now owe more on our student loans than we do on our credit cards. those payments can last for years, even decades, which means that young people are putting off buying their first car or their first house. the things that grow our economy and create new jobs. i have said this before -- i know this firsthand. michelle and i -- we did not finish paying off our student loans until about nine years ago. our student loans cost more than our mortgage. to startn we wanted saving for sasha and malia's college education, we are still paying off our own college education. .e were lucky we had more resources than many. but we cannot price the middle class or folks who are working hard to get out of the middle

class out of a college education. we cannot keep saddling young people with more debt just as they are starting out in life. , over the pasts four years, my administration has done a lot to address this. working with members of congress, we have expanded student aid, we have performed he stood alone system, we have saved tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, and we're just going to big banks and make sure that the money went to helping more young people afford college. we made it easier to pay back those loans by passing a law that says you only have to pay 10% of your monthly income toward your student -- your federal student loans once you graduate. this is important because a lot of your peers do not know this. under existing law that we passed, you never have to pay more than 10% of your income and paying back your federal student loans. which means if you want to be a seizure, you want to go into a profession that does not pay a lot of money him a -- if you

want to be a teacher, you want to go into a profession that does not pay a lot of money, you are capable of doing that and support yourself. we unveiled a new college scorecard that gives parents and students a clear, concise information that you need to shop around for school to find the best value for you. i made it clear that those colleges that do not do enough to keep college costs down should get less taxpayer support. so we're doing what we can. here is the thing -- if congress does not act by july 1, federal student loan rates are set to double. that means that the average student with these loans will rack up an additional $1000 in debt during -- in debt. that is like a 1000 dollar tax hike. i assume most of you cannot afford that. can anybody here afford that? no. the sound like déjà vu all over again. that is because it is. we went through this last summer. some of you were here. it was not as hot.

i don't think we did this event outside. [laughter] but we went through this, and eventually, congress listens to all of the parents and young people who said -- don't double my rate. because folks made their voices heard, congress acted to keep interest rates low. they only did it for a year, and that your is almost up. because here is simple -- we have to make sure that federal student loan rates do not double on july 1. the house of representatives has already passed a student loan bill, and i'm glad that they took action, but unfortunately their bill does not meet that test. it fails to lock in low rates for students next year. that is not smart. forliminates safeguards lower income families. that is not fair. it actually cost a freshman starting school this fall more over the next four years than if we did nothing at all and let the interest rates double on july 1. so the house bill is not smart,

and it is not fair. i'm glad the house is paying attention to it, but they did not do it in the right way. so i'm asking young people to get involved and make your voices heard once again. last year, you convince 186 for public is in the house and 24 and 24c that -- republicans in the senate to keep student loan rates low. you made a bipartisan event happen and in this town. that is powerful thing. you guys were able to get democrats and republicans to vote for something that was important. likeyear, if it looks your representative's have changed their minds, you're going to have to call them up again or e-mail them again or tweet themagain -- again and ask them what happened, what changed. you are still taking out these loans, you are still facing challenges. remind them that we are a people that help one another earn an education because it benefits all of us. during the civil war, lincoln had the foresight to set up a

system of land grant colleges. at the end of world war ii, we set up the g.i. bill. so that people like my grandfather could come back from a war and get an education. all these things created the greatest middle class on earth. my mom, a single mom, was able sheet the support that needed through loans and grants even while she was also working and raising two kids to get her degrees. is onlyy here, michelle right over here on the east wing, because we got rate educations. we did not come from privilege. we want to make sure that the next generation has those same opportunities. because that has been good for the country as a whole. it is up to us now to carry forward that tradition. higher education cannot be for a privileged few. economic necessity that every family should be able to

afford. everybody with dreams and ambitions should be able to access. now is not the time to turn back on young people. slash not the time to the investments that help us grow. now is the time to affirm our commitment to you and the generation that is coming behind you. if we work together to generate more jobs and educate more kids and open up more opportunities for everybody willing to work and willing to push through those doors of opportunity, america can't be stopped. i am putting my faith in you. let's work together. let's get this done by july 1. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. thank you. [applause] ♪

se garden athe roa the white house. president obama taking remarks on student loans. if you'd like to see that again, you can see at any time as well as the house debate onto north on our website at c-span.org. some economic news out this morning. the associated press writing that "americans cut back on spending in april after income failed to grow wit." the commerce department said consumer spending dropped a 0.2% inly adjusted april. that is the most since last may. it follows a 0.1% increase in 0.8% ind a

february. the retrenchment in spending suggests consumers may be starting to feel the impact of higher taxes. the decrease comes after consumers boosted their spending from january through march at the fastest pace in two years. that from the associated press. coming up in a less than half an hour now, the social security and medicare trustees report will be released. annual report that details the program's's fiscal health. treasury secretary jack lew and health and human services secretary kathleen civilian is are among the officials who -- kathleen civilian -- kathleen sebelius. aul executiveolicy

director. what is manufacturing in the united states? are we seeing a comeback? it is fair to say we are in a much better position than we were a year ago. over the last couple of years am a we have added manufacturing jobs here in the have added a little over half a million manufacturing jobs. that is the first extended period of manufacturing job growth really since the early 1990's. that is positive, though i must say for the last year or so job growth has slowed down quite a bit. a pretty stagnant job market out there in manufacturing. it is important to keep that in context because over the last decade, we saw a significant shift downward in terms of manufacturing jobs, loss of factory capacity, loss of global share of trade, and other key

measurements feared we are not back to the point that we were before the great recession started, but we are making progress instead of digging the hole deeper. that is the first time we have been able to say that for a very long time. guest: let's look at numbers from the bureau of labour statistics. job added sense -- and manufacturers in 2010, over half a million. we see that bigger job loss -- 6 million jobs lost between the year 2000 and 2009. put that in context for us. where are we seeing those losses and gains, and who fielded? -- and who feels it? there've been a lot of statistics that say when you lose a manufacturing job, you lead lose a factory, it affects the entire community. it is a little different than saying if a mcdonald's closes or a walmart closes where you lose convenience, but the ripple effect of job losses in

manufacturing put the downward pressure on rages -- on wages because if you lose a manufacturing job, more than likely you're going to do nation going into a -- occupation that has less money and less benefits. you see this ripple effect in manufacturing communities across the country. what types of manufacturing have been affected yet go that is a very good question because up until the great recession and during the great recession, you massive job loss in virtually every type of manufacturing whether it was aerospace and high-tech or things we have been doing for a long time like steel and automobiles. .ou thought across the board i would also add that since the end of the great recession, you have seen nice gains, particularly in the auto sector. detroit is doing very well. they're putting people back to work. that has driven a lot of manufacturing job growth in other sectors of manufacturing. think of the glass that goes

into the automobile, the tires ago oneok mobile, all of the parts. that go on the automobile. the end of the great recession has been an upswing in the business cycle. manufacturingul, added zero jobs in april. what are your thoughts for this month? crystal don't get my ball out too often because i am usually completely wrong, but i will say this -- i do not expect a huge upswing in manufacturing based on other recent data point that we have seen. we need to do better. a millionent laid out new manufacturing job goal last year during the campaign. we have been keeping track of every month because you have to have a certain number two sam point -- to stay on pace for that. we are already way behind that. part of that is weakness in

europe and china, but it is clear that the equation has to change if we are going to make much progress on adding manufacturing jobs. is about re- shoring manufacturing that is done abroad but it is being brought back. do we see this happening, and what do we expect to see more of its? guest: it has clearly happened. the latest example being motorola and who will announcing they will make the first ,merican-made smartphone putting 2000 people to work in dallas, texas, for a product called the moto-s. if you had asked me five years ago whether i thought that was possible, i would say that is highly unlikely. but today with the announcement of motorola and google, apple building mac computers in austin, texas, a company named element electronics building flatscreen tvs in detroit, you have actually seen some of this

re-shoring of consumer electronics and high-tech jobs. i think those were some of the hardest jobs to get back from overseas. you are seeing other big companies announced that they are producing more in the united states. general electric, whirlpool, maytag, and others. they all have a mixed record on this. they still do offshore as well. but instead of adjusting a one- way outflow of jobs, we are now seeing it headed both ways. which i think is progress. i think it is too early to say re-shoring has had an impact on the data that we see on manufacturing jobs, but i also think there are more positive things to come in the out years, say 2015 to 2020 because of lower energy costs, because of rising wages potentially in china, because of manufacturers wanted to mitigate supply chain risks. all of that will factor in. more decisions to invest capital in the united states. host: we are talking with scott

paul, executive director for the alliance for american manufacturing. here are the numbers -- democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. s, (202) 585-aller 3882. the president has set a goal of one million manufacturing jobs. is that possible? guest: i think it is. it would buck the trend that we've seen certainly over the last decade. , there arentioned reasons to think that manufacturing can be more competitive in the united states. and you now see a lot of literature coming from management consultants on why it makes sense to resort, to be -- to reshore, to be closer to the consumers you are serving. you can control your inventory, you may not lose your intellectual property, like a lot of companies are fighting what is happening in china, or

having to force technology transfers. the labor cost differential is going down a little bit. we're never going to have wages like they are in china. china is never going to have wages like they are in the united states. but we also make up for that in terms of productivity and proximity to market. it is a good old. i'm glad the president laid it out. but one thing with that we are going to be doing is holding him accountable for that. we do think it will take public policy as well to get us there. it is not going to happen on its own. we need to build an architecture to support manufacturing in this country, which has really been absent for the last couple of decades. we need a manufacturing policy in this country to make that happen. host: let's get to the phones. joe is up first in chapel hill, north carolina. independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think in the big picture here, what we're looking at is, of course we want jobs, we want manufacturing to pick up, and

we want to know that what we are hearing from our government is true during -- is true. when it comes to trusting our government, a lot of that have come to light recently, and question whether we can trust if they say wages are going to be better, if they say there will be jobs produced, well, can we trust that? one of the problems is that for many years we have been told that there is no such thing as truth. what this does is it lets people have the ability to lie without consequences. if you look at the president and you say he is a nice guy. sure, people like him. but is he telling the truth? the point is, when he says one thing, and the opposite comes about, you have to ask yourself -- is a trustworthy? will bemanufacturing

oureased related to treasury and related to improving our economy, yes, what government does will have an effect. but again, there is such a thing as truth. and there is such a thing as lies. host: let's get a response from scott paul. aest: i manufacturing, it is good question because the president has done a lot of things which have received support from the this is community as well as from the labor community on manufacturing, which is very rare. and you see a program of innovation institutes that are designed to get new technology into factories, which i think will be very helpful. you see a program training 2 million new workers to go into skilled professions like manufacturing. was tornions is and apart as we thought manufacturing's downside. i think those are positive things. i want to talk a bit about

honesty in data. i think this is missing a bit from the discussion in washington, d.c. you hear politicians talk about how great exports are. x words are fabulous. but anybody knows when you are balancing a checkbook, you have to look at deposits as well as debits. we do not look enough at imports and the impact they are having on communities in this country. i do think we have a way to go to have a little more honesty about the trade debate and the impact that had on our country. we can find free trade agreements, but unless are guaranteeing reciprocity, and less we have balanced trade with entries like china and japan, we will not make the progress that we need to see and manufacturing. i do hope there is a little bit more honesty coming from both parties on that issue. host: president obama spoke about manufacturing in america earlier this month in austin, texas. before we hear from him, tell us about these manufacturing hubs.

the president is calling for an investment in it. what would it do you go -- it do? guest: these are innovation institutes. the president would like to see 15 of them that would specialize in areas types of manufacturing. the first is already up and running in youngstown, ohio. it has 3-d printing. , you might be a will to have this in your own home. you something and, like i want to make a yoda out of rubber. yodall create a little toy for you. it is a fascinating technology. the reason for these is very important. basic research like that is very hard for small and midsized manufacturers to support within their own capital budgets because they are literally living paycheck to paycheck. they have a slim margins. so public investment with academia, with the private

sector, and with department like the department of defense, department of energy, department of commerce -- makes a lot of sense to help do that basic research and find the applications that are going to work on the shop floor. that will give the united states a technological advantage. program.ery important our competitors like germany have well-developed hubs like this. it is a perfect example of why you need a public policy because it is impossible for small and midsize manufacturers to do on their own in this type of a market. host: let's take a listen to president obama in austin, texas earlier this month. ♪ [video clip] , we launched our first manufacturing innovation institute in youngstown, ohio to equip workers with these style -- with the skills to master 3-d printing segment. in my state of the union address, i called on congress to set up 15 more of these

manufacturing hubs across america. i sent my imagination, we're going to move forward with three new hubs of our own, even without congressional action. today, we are launching a competition for those hubs. we are for businesses and universities that are willing to partner together to help their region, help turn their region into global centers of high-tech jobs. because we want the next revolution in manufacturing to be made in america. [applause] we're going to do that. host: president obama speaking in texas. we see the story from local texas newspaper, you had texasned, scott paul -- plant -- cell phone pioneer motorola announced it is opening american factories. guest: there are manufacturing jobs being created all over the country. advanced data research and michigan. the auto industry is coming

back to the midwest. he see this all over the place. you see texas attracting a lot of capital for high-tech. austin has been a pioneer in high and computers for a very long time. 's glasses beinguzzl made in the bay area, in center cisco. dashed thee sky has stock has skyrocketed. there are benefits for every region of the country. we just moved into a new office. we made a point to find american-made materials all over the country to put into the office. we have textiles from north carolina, chairs from michigan. i look forward to getting that high equipment into our office because that has not yet been available. he see these benefits all over the place. they are just limited to the south. i think that is something special that manufacturing is you seek concentrations of manufacturing all over the united states of america. host: scott paul, executive director for the alliance for american manufacturing.

let's go to michigan and hear from a democrat. hi. welcome. you are on the air, go ahead. caller: i wanted to ask a couple of questions. how many companies have offshore jobs to china in the last 10 years? and what do you think about the united states turned around and borrows money from china? it just seems ridiculous. thank you for c-span. good: those are very questions. first of all, in terms of the number of companies that get off shirt, it would be -- get offshored, it would be easier to come up with the number of company that did not offshore. the only question was where, whether it was mexico or a country like china. if you look at the data, we lost about 5.5 million

manufacturing jobs. that is one third of all manufacturing jobs, between 2000 and 2009. there are estimates that anywhere from about 1.5 million to 3 million of those jobs were lost due to off shoring. .e also downsize our capacity we lost about 55,000 factories. some of them were quite small, some of them were larger, employing 1000 or 2000 people. but we lost 55,000 factories over that period as well. so there was a huge shift off shoring. there is no question about it. now there is at least a polarity in terms of the idea of where to source. companies are taking a second look at the united states, especially sourcing for selling in the north american market. that does not mean that off shoring is going to stop. i also believe that we need

better public policies on taxes, on trade, on workforce, and things like these innovation hubs like the president has proposed, to encourage in sourcing, re-shoring, whatever you want to call it, to keep the jobs here and attract more to the united states as well. host: jane is a republican. hi. caller: good morning, greta. thank you for taking my call. i have two questions. and one question. mr. scott -- or, scott. i would like to know, what kind of manufacturing jobs are building here in the united states, and why do people need a college education for u.s. manufacturing jobs? i understand that there are high-tech jobs out there. as i remember, and i am pretty old, even though i found maybe young. there used to be when you had a factory, you would do when on

on bottom -- would go in the bottom of the totem pole. you would be trained on the job, and if you wanted to get higher pay, you would learn on the job how to get that higher paid. in other words, you became a high-tech employee. you either go into management or you would be producing the best products. i.e., the automobile industry, nobody went to college for that. clothing manufacturing, nobody went to college for that. now the president is saying we need to go to college. that means our younger people are going to have to put , and this is debt very unfair to us united states citizens. host: let's get a response from scott paul. guest: that is a very good

point. first of all, what jobs are out there for people looking at manufacturing? a lot of reports of come out about what the type of work that is going to be available in the united states. it boils down to this -- abrogated -- fabricated metals, ,hemicals, computer factories furniture run x, and even things likery mary metals -- primary metals, steel, things like that. one thing they do have in common is most of them require more than a high school education. that is not mean a college degree, however, and i think that is an important thing. it'd be anywhere from six months of training to to two years of community college. we strongly support a program that would provide either employer-provided training, and a worker could try to achieve a

skill credential and get a job in the factory. it would be a portable skill could rental -- skill credential and you'd be a is in another factory. but a lot of that should be publicly financed or financed by the private sector. i completely agree that it could be a barrier for a lot of young people who are 18 or 19 to try to go into manufacturing who have to worry about than pirate --then piling on student led student debt. i do not like to point to germany only time, but this is another example where germany is doing for a well in efforts with government and the private sector for a very high-tech, high wage workforce where workers are paid an average of $48 on our in manufacturing. host: american hero joe why shouldnd says -- i hope that my child grows up and works in a factory -- is

that better than doing some other type of job? guest: i think the image of manufacturing for the last decade was not a good one. the jobs were moving offshore. there were not a lot of opportunity in factory. now there are. we see some of this work coming back. we also see the demographics changing in manufacturing. the average age of a manufacturing worker is upwards of 55 years. which means there is only a few more years they have left until retirement. that means there could be a lot of positions available. i think the editions available. i think the image of manufacturing is now very positive. detroit is building good cars. people have a renewed focus on "made in america." they know they are contributing to the economy. manufacturing jobs tend to pay better and have benefits like health care, rather than the service sector, for example. you will have a family- supporting income, buy a house,

and have some money into savings. if you have a manufacturing profession, there are few other jobs like that, where you can obtain that kind of lifestyle without a college education. manufacturing is one of the only paths to do that. >> our guest is scott hall, executive director of the alliance for american manufacturing. up next, in pittsburgh, massachusetts, brian. understand why they pass the free trade. that destroyed this country. we have a lot of people who are not college material. millions of jobs left this country. we have a huge trade deficit with china. china is buying up all the real estate, buying our manufacturing, buying everything. they have got all the money, because of the stupid trade deals. what is wrong with this country?

i do not understand it. why would we do that? if you want to sell something in china, you have to make it there. they care more about their people than this country does. what is wrong with this country? >> you raised when of the points i talk about a lot, which is our imbalanced trade policy in this country. i think we focus too much on philosophy. we want to do free-trade. we do not look at the results, and we do not look at the details. that is one of the challenges. i think we would be much better off if we had trade agreements and a trade policy based on reciprocity, achieving balanced trade, so exports equaled imports. we would have a lot more jobs here. an interesting thing about the china bill is, that was signed i bill clinton, passed by a republican congress, in 2000. thatf the anecdotes president obama has shared is

that he really heckled the clintonites who were in his administration, like rahm emanuel and larry summers, about the free trade with china, where it is a permanent, normal trade relations with china, and how bad that had been for the united states. he stepped up trade enforcement against china on things like solar panels, auto parts, tires, and other types of products where we have seen this massive infusion of dumping from china. but here is the problem. the trade deficit has continued to go up under the obama administration. it is now at a record 300 $15 billion last year with china. it is a tremendous imbalance. the president is meeting with the president of china next week in california, and i hope they take these economic issues a

little more seriously than they have been, and develop a program to reduce the trade deficit down to a more sustainable level. it has crossed -- cost america a lot of jobs, a lot of know-how that is not easy to rebuild. >> what is on the line for manufacturing? what could come out of the meeting? >> it is a good question. there is a lot on the line for manufacturing. we have the currency issue. china has an undervalued currency that gives it a trade advantage. i hope that is one that gets raised. you have intellectual property theft, which a lot of companies complain about if they are located in china. you have the issue of hacking, which obviously has an impact on american security, as well as on privacy and development of enterprise. and the acquisition of business secrets.

you see a surge of chinese steeltion in items like and solar panels, that do not reflect market forces. i think that is something the president has to address as well. otherwise, we will see all of this on our shores. it will end up closing factories in the united states. the question is, how do you advance that with all the other security issues you have with the chinese? i strongly believe the chinese have more respect for you if you are willing to be firm with them than if you dance around the issues. if we make our intentions clear, likely have to reduce the trade deficit, china will know the consequences, and they will respond. >> looking at imports and exports, our relationship with china, the top imports we received from china -- we look at mobile phones and broadcasting equipment. to the tune of $50 billion. , gaming equipment

equipment, and toys also coming in there. we get this information from the heritage foundation, and they took the numbers from the census. what do we send to china? soybeans. also, waste and scraps. planes, automobiles, semiconductors. why are the types of goods and items that we send over and received from china significant? you think of the value added of those types of exports. waste and scrap -- what is the value added for the american economy of sending china waste and scrap? there are very few jobs supported from waste and scraps export. semiconductors and planes, there is more of a supply chain. that means there are more jobs. if you look on balance at the exports and imports, you see china exporting to the united alsos some toys, that

very high-value pieces of equipment, like the mobile phones and computer equipment. the capacity to do that in the united states, you see what that would do for our economy. one factory making one phone will put 2000 people to work in dallas, texas. that will support four or five other jobs in the community. the type of exports and imports really do matter. this is a myth about trade with china, but we are getting low and stuff and sending over advanced stuff. it is a very mixed picture. we do lots of both. but many of our exports are low value on process types of things, but support very little job creation in the united states. caller: it is not all about china. it is bangladesh.

the whole world relies on the united states as a market for goods. germany could not last if they could not export all over europe into the united states. i regard free traders as the worst enemy that the american people have ever faced. there is a small sliver of american society, mostly corporate managers and big shareholders, that are making a killing by using cheap labor in the third world. in bangladesh, everywhere. they are able to sell the products at third world prices, making them at third world prices. if we do not stop this, you can kiss this country goodbye. there are 25 million americans that are unemployed. it is not just about the sliver of high-tech jobs building iphones. it is about the vast mass of people that are required to produce all the products the american people needs. >> we see in the front page of the new york times today this

story about the bangladesh .actory collapse you see an image of a 10-year- old boy who has had to provide blood samples to help identify the remains of his father, who worked in that factory. labor advocates are pushing washington to revoke bangladesh 's special trade status. guest: you are right it is not just china. other, less developed countries. trade can be good if it is balanced. it is ok to have some imports, as long as we are doing a lot of exporting as well. when workers are faced with conditions like they are in bangladesh, many of them brought about by international companies with headquarters in the united states, that raises a serious question. there are things that can be done, ike revoking trade status

for bangladesh, to make a point. i do agree with you that i ,hink our economic policy international economic policy, is way too tilted toward the companies that have outsourcing strategy. we need to bring that back into balance. our allegiance should be to job creation in the united states. it does not mean we should not trade. that does not mean that all imports are bad things. but it does mean we need balance. that is what has been missing from these policies. i am also very sorry to say that it takes a tragedy like we have seen in bangladesh to make the front pages here, because this happens every day in the developing world, where workers are toiling in horrible .onditions to make our garments and they are not getting a lot of the money. the companies are, for their branding and for their marketing, and for the profit margin. we need to raise wages in

developing countries overseas. that will have a beneficial effect in the united states. and frankly, it would not add a lot to the cost of things we buy today. host: mark in baltimore, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call, and for covering such an important topic. i think manufacturing loss is what has crippled us economically over the last three decades. fori think the root cause our loss in manufacturing jobs was the passage of nafta. 1991, i believe it was ross perot, said that when nafta was passed, we would hear a giant sucking sound as jobs went south. i think he was partly right. not only did they go south, but they went all around the world, to places like india, china,

and even vietnam, i am noticing now. what can be done? gat?an we change nafta and how can we adjust it to return american jobs to america, and also, one last comment that i -- for allportant of us to do everything we can to buy american products, whenever we go shopping, whatever we go into a store. that once american companies get the idea that made in america sells, it will toan easy business decision return american manufacturing jobs. your point about "made in america" is very good. we see that in survey and behavioral research now. consumers are interested in made

in america. they are willing to pay a small premium for it. they are doing it for all sorts of reasons, whether it is quality, patriotism, supporting their own economy. there are a lot of reasons to support made in america. you see companies advertising more things as made in america. companies like chrysler and ford, that have been making things here for a long time, but also surprising companies like havei and kia, who factories in the south. made in america is a big selling point to them. gallup has done research on this. marketing firms on madison avenue have done research on this. we covered the trade topic. what to do about it is a big question. what is the solution? it is not to not trade. that would be a disaster. trade can be beneficial, if it is done in balance. no less a capitalist them more

buffett once proposed that if you want to import over and above what our balance would be, considering the amount we export, you should have to buy a certificate to do that. that would inject money back into the economy. that is warren buffett proposing that, not a socialist or anything like that. it shows there are some solutions out there. ofhink the overall goal trade policy should not be signing more free trade agreements. it should be reciprocity and balance, and making sure you are paying as much attention to ,abor rights, process standards and fair trade practices overseas as you are to the rights of investors, the free flow of capital, and all of that, so there is a lot more balance to the equation then there is right now. you can see manufacturing since world war ii. the numbers peaked in 1979.

our guest is scott paul, executive director at the alliance for american manufacturing. tell us more about your organization. portionll leave this of "washington journal" to go to the treasury department now for the release of the annual social security and medicare trustees report. this is live coverage, right here on c-span. me begin by welcoming my fellow trustees here in the treasury department. i would like to thank the chief actuaries and their staffs for all their hard work on this year's final reports. andsocial security medicare boards of trustees met this morning so we could complete the annual financial review of the programs and transmit the reports to congress. social security and medicare represent a fundamental obligation to provide income and health care security for

our fellow citizens. this obligation has stood the test of recession, war, and time. social security and medicare are meeting the commitments today, and will continue to meet their commitments in the years ahead. yet trustee reports have been indicating these programs face long-term challenges. this yeartions in for social security are essentially unchanged from last year. those from medicare improved modestly. as reported last year, considered on a combined basis, the programs have dedicated funds sufficient to cover benefits until 2030 three. after that time, it is expected that ongoing flows of tax income will be sufficient to finance about 3/4 of benefits. strengthen medicare's finances by raining in healthcare costs. the health care has helped extend the life of the hospital insurance trust fund.

there will be resources sufficient to cover full benefits until 2026, two years longer than projected last year. what more must be done. the president recognizes how essential reform is, and is socialned to work to put security and medicare on a stronger footing. he has put forward a set of principles for reform. these principles underscore the need to find common ground to extend the life of the program, and while making it clear that changes that involve the benefit cuts or privatization will be unacceptable. the president has a specific plan to further strengthen medicare. he wants to shrink the cost of spending, reduce subsidies to prescription drug companies, and ask wealthy seniors to contribute a little more. this will help lower future budget deficits. the four i close, let me say that when issuing reports like this, it is easy to get caught up in the numbers, but these reports are not only about

numbers. they are about the millions of americans who rely on social security and medicare now, and the millions who will rely on them in the future. protecting social security and medicare is one of the most significant challenges we face today as a nation. it is a challenge we can and must meet. turn to myd now to colleague and fellow trustee, secretary kathleen sibelius. >> thank you, secretary lew. the affordable care act is continuing to strengthen medicare, and ensure its solvency for future generations. for nearly half a century, americans have looked to medicare as a sacred trust, a guarantee that no one will have to sell their house or go bankrupt in old age because of hospital bills. it is our duty to keep medicare

strong and sustainable, so that our children can look forward to the same security when it comes time for them to retire. back in 2009, that very important mission was in doubt. medicare spending was rising rapidly. the hospital insurance trust fund was projected to be insolvent in just eight years. with the healthcare law, our goal was to put medicare on more stable footing, not by cutting benefits, but by putting reforms in place to ensure that medicare dollars were spent more wisely. the past few years have borne out that promise. reportar, the trustees projected the life of the trust fund had been extended to 2024. today, we are pleased to announce we have extended the life of the trust fund two more .ears, to 2026 just as important is the way in which we are doing it.

the affordable care act has helped put medicare on more stable ground, without eliminating a single guaranteed and if it. instead, it has -- their anti-and if it. in a fit.e guaranteed -- benefit. it will eliminate excess payments and crack down on fraud and abuse. thanks in part to those reforms, medicare spending per beneficiary has grown at a historical rate of 1.7% a year between 2010 and 2012. it is projected to remain lower than the rate of economic growth over the next decade. this is not only putting medicare on a stronger footing for the future. it is benefiting seniors right now. limoneira estimates in today's trustees report project that -- preliminary estimates in today's trustees report project

that estimates will not increase from 2014 levels. this report is encouraging because we know that many medicare beneficiaries are on a asked income. medic -- on a fixed income. medicare costs are less likely than private insurance costs to be affected by fluctuations in the economy. when medicare spending slows, it is a good sign that real progress is being made. still, we recognize that more work remains to be done. medicare continues to face considerable challenges, including an aging population. we must continue to build on the progress we have made in the last few years. that is why the president's 2014 budget lays out an additional $317 billion in savings over the next decade. if those proposals are enacted, they will put medicare on an

even sounder footing for our children. today's report is the latest demonstration that with smart reforms, we can secure medicare for the future without slashing benefits. going forward, we must continue working to keep strengthening medicare for beneficiaries today, and for future generations. i would like to turn the podium over to acting secretary of labor seth harris. >> good morning. trustees report clearly demonstrates that the social security and medicare programs remain the sturdiest pillars of our retirement, security, and social security systems, and can remain so for the foreseeable future. the challenges faced are real. , 58 million people, nearly one in five americans, will receive social security benefits. 2/3 of beneficiaries

65 and older, their benefits will account for more than half their income. older women, because they live longer on average and earn less on average during their working lives, are particularly reliant on social security. 50th approach the anniversary of the signing of the equal pay act next month, it is important to acknowledge that this gender wage gap still exists. as women continue to earn less over their lifetime than their male counterparts, it also means they have less to save for retirement, and receive smaller social security payments once they have stopped working altogether. with 10,000 baby boomers turning 60 five every day, social security is more important than ever for women and men alike. shifts in benefits and the retirement savings landscape also pay an import -- play an important role. this is not your grandfather's retirement. there was a time when most

workers walked out of the plant on their last day of work with a reliable, defined benefit pension. they knew how much they would receive each month of their retirement, and they knew the benefits would last for the remainder of their lives. who have anworkers employer-provided retirement plan find themselves in the defined contribution system, 401k, that is vulnerable to market volatility. millions of workers on the edge of retirement suffer the consequences of this riskier system during the great recession. many workers face the even greater risk of no employer- provided retirement plan at all. in this environment of rising risk for workers, social security and medicare remain reliable pillars of retirement and health security for america's working families. one of the most important steps that could be taken to shore up

social security and medicare trust funds would be for congress to enact president obama's agenda to create jobs and raise worker wages. social security and medicare financing does not operate in a policy vacuum. we cannot look at them in isolation from the performance of the national economy and the status of american workers. creating more jobs, putting more americans to work with the skills they need to succeed in those jobs, and raising the wages of american workers means increased revenues for all of the social security and medicare trust funds. the good news is that our economy is doing better. after the worst economic downturn in more than seven decades, the economy is turning the corner, and the labor market is improving. we have seen 38 consecutive months of private sector job growth that added 6.8 million new jobs to our economy, with nearly 2.2 million americans employed today than a year ago.

the april unemployment rate was 7.5%, its lowest level since december 2008. we need to accelerate job creation and economic growth, to put more people in work that enables them to support their families, paying for the system that sustains our safety net. we have to do more to complete this recovery. president obama has proposed a plan that will grow the economy from the middle class out, and create half ways into the middle class for millions of american workers. we need to make america a magnet for jobs, with investments in physical info structure, skills infrastructure, and manufacturing innovation. workers must be able to succeed with the right education, skills, and training, beginning with early childhood education, continuing through affordable bachelor's degrees. money inst put more

the pockets of american workers. that is why the president has proposed an increase in the federal minimum wage to nine dollars an hour, indexing that wage to inflation. this will also mean expanding america's labor force. we need to do more to bring people with disabilities into the workforce and sustainable employment. this will bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the system, where they are contributing payroll taxes to the trust funds. all these steps will mean workers are better off when they are working, and more economically secure when they retire. a robust economy means strong social security and medicare systems. it will make our country stronger both today and in the decades to come. i would like to turn the podium over to the active commissioner of the social security administration. >> thank you. good morning.

the social security and medicare programs are crucially important for the millions of americans who receive benefits, and for the roughly 95% of our population that is receiving or can expect to receive benefits from the program in the future. as trustees, we are responsible for overseeing and annually reporting on the status of two programs. the defined social security trust fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2033 if no legislative changes are made between now and then. at that time, continuing income would be -- would be sufficient to support 77% of program costs. this is unchanged from last year's report. lawmakers should act soon to address this imbalance. in necessary changes gradually, and give workers and

beneficiaries time to adjust to them. actuarial status shown in this report, represented by the actuarial deficit, is slightly less favorable than that shown in the 2012 report. the estimated long-range actuarial deficit for the combined social security trust fund over the next 75 years increased from 2.67% of payroll taxabler to 2.72% of payroll in this year's report. this change in the deficit can be attributed to the change in the starting year from 2012 to adding the new projection year of 2087. the updates of data for this report had offsetting effects, producing no additional change in the actuarial deficit.

considered alone, the trust fund reserves are in danger of becoming depleted much sooner than the combined social security fund. thatreport again projects reserve depletion will occur in 2016, in the absence of legislative changes. at that point, continuing income to the trust fund will be -- sufficient to support expenditures at 80% of closing costs. d.i. is important to americans receiving benefits. people who are not able to work depend on these benefits. in addition, all working americans who are currently insured depend on this program to replace the income they will lose if they become disabled in the future.

the social security and medicare programs, as i have indicated, are critical for the millions of americans who receive these benefits. our hope that congress will make the necessary legislative changes before we reach the critical point of 2016. thank you very much. at this time bring to the podium our public trustee. thank you. i would like to begin by thanking secretary lew, secretary sibelius, acting secretary harris, and acting commissioner called in for leadership in putting together this report. -- commissioner colvin for putting together this report. our actuaries offices are indispensable in both the social security administration and the

office of the medicare actuary. the third report in which i and my co-public participated. this is a process that is serving while. pressed by thee professionalism and quality -- impressed by the professionalism and quality of work you see behind me. the process of putting together reports is complex. there will be disagreements along the way, but it is striking how these disagreements are matters of analysis. they are not driven by policy views, at least not that i have been able to tell. obviously, only time will tell how accurate or inaccurate our projections turn out to be. but i believe they have been put together in the highest traditions of public service. i think all the departments up here deserve in norma's credit for all they have done to safeguard the objectivity and

integrity of the projection process. thank you to all the secretaries behind me. bob toleave it to discuss the more complicated medicare program. of the various trust funds that we report on, social security he faces the largest actuarial shortfall and the most immediate financial challenge. rejectedlenge is the insolvency of the disability insurance trust fund. current projections, it will be depleted in 2016, three years away. there is a tendency -- and all of us do this, trustees as well, to talk about the combined finances. but each trust funds separately has to maintain solvency in order to avoid an interruption of benefit payments. under current projections, we will only have enough resources in 2016 to pay 80% of schedule

disability payments. entiretyback to the of the social security program as a whole, the long-term imbalance we now project in the combined trust funds equals 2.72% of the tax base in worker taxable wages. that may seem like a pretty small number, but bear in mind it is nearly three percent of all the worker wages -- nearly 3% of all worker wages over the next 75 years, a very large sum of money. it is also the largest shortfall the program has faced since the 1980 three reforms. it is longer than the shortfall corrected by those reforms. if we were to enact a social security reform today, we would have to make legislative changes that surpass those that occurred in 1983. by any objective measure, it is getting very late in the game to deal with social security

finances in a realistic way. the fact that the combined trust funds are not scheduled for depletion until 2000 33, or the old age and survivor's trust fund is not scheduled for --letion into -- and tell until 2035, should not suggest we have that long. taxhat time, incoming revenue and outgoing expenditures will be so far apart it will be pretty implausible that lawmakers will be able to close those gaps in a short time. just to give you a sense of the magnitude of the cost of delay, if we were to enact a social security financing solution today for the combined trust do it byd wanted to increasing the social security payroll tax rate, we would have to raise it immediately to 15 point six percent. if we delayed action until 2013, it would have to rise to

1/3 of thencrease to payroll tax burdens. if we were to enact a set of benefit reductions today, they would have to be 16.5% across the board, and they would have ,o apply to all beneficiaries including those now receiving benefits. if we want to confine changes to future beneficiaries, the changes would have to be nearly 20%, 19.8% of the benefits of those newly coming onto the rolls. by 2013, we would have to cut benefits 23% across-the-board. if we were willing to cut benefits cut benefits for people already in retirement, which is unlikely. towe were to try to confine those newly eligible, even wiping out 100% of their

benefits would be insufficient to close the shortfall. it is clear that the window of opportunity closes well before the early 2030's. it is in the process of closing around us as we speak. what has changed? on balance, not much. we basically have another year of inaction. we have had adjustments on the negative and positive side of the ledger. we had to account for the tax law passed earlier this year. that is somewhat lower than our projection of revenues that would come from income taxation and social security benefits. we have also had to factor in increases in longevity, as the up dated data has come in. obviously, increase longevity is good, but it means more costs for social security. we have been able to make methodological refinements. inare doing a better job

projecting the insurance status of various people who contribute, distinguishing between those who are and are not legal residents. these and other changes ,asically net out to a net wash in terms of the overall qualitative outlook. simply the story is cost of another year's delay. the right way to deal with this is bipartisan action to repair social security finances as soon as possible. only a liked it officials can tell us how soon that is. we have the projected depletion of the disability insurance trust fund. that is going to require legislation of one form or another before 2016 if we want to avoid an interruption of benefits. one option for dealing with

this is to reallocate some of the tax is going to the retirement side, the survivors trust fund, to the disability insurance trust fund. that is an option that legislators can consider. of course, that option has downsides. it basically means taking revenue away from the retirement portion of social security and putting it into the disability portion. that would make all the sense in the world if the old-age and survivors trust fund was in a better long-term position, but that is not what our numbers show. the show a larger long-term deficit in the old-age and survivors trust fund then we show in the disability trust fund. the reason the disability trust fund is projected to be depleted earlier is because people go on to disability benefits at younger ages, so that wave is hitting the disability system first. if we were to reallocate the taxes, we would take taxes away

from the retirement program at the moment people are moving from disability to retirement, and taking it away from the weaker long-term condition. the optimal way of dealing with all this, and the best way, would be for legislators to address the entire social security shortfall, but the disability and old age portions of the program, to do it together, and to do it well before either trust fund faces imminent depletion. i will now turn it over to my co-public press -- trustee. >> thank you and good morning. being the last trustee to speak, i will be brief. the primary responsibility, as you all know, of the public trustees, is to ensure the american public that the analyses in the annual reports are objective, are using the best available data and and employ the most

appropriate methodologies. we canbeen said, provide, without hesitation or caveat, such assurances to the american public. we feel we have participated in an open, robust, and vibrant discussion of numerous issues that have to be resolved each year while these reports are being crafted. we have been impressed with the expertise of the staffs of the departments of the ex officio skill of thethe actuaries and their staffs, and by all those involved. this year, we continue to evaluate and incorporate, where appropriate, analysis and recommendations of the technical panel conceived -- convened by the social security advisory board, and the 2010-2011 panel

convened by the department of health and human services. as is true every year, these reports also have benefited from methodological refinements and updated information produced by the offices of the chief actuaries. let me just say a few observations that relate to the content of these reports. i add my voice to the chorus we have already heard -- both of these vitally important programs are on an unsustainable paths. the sooner we address the problems, the less disruptive the adjustments for individuals and our economy. similarly, the sooner decisions are made, the greater the opportunity to craft solutions that are balanced and equitable. the bottom line messages of the 2013 reports differ little from the most recent reports.

some might interpret as a significant development the fact that the 2013 medicare report estimates that the projected depletion of the hospital insurance trust fund will occur two years later than estimated last year. i think such an interpretation would be a mistake to read -- a mistake. i am cautiously optimistic that the recent slowdown in the growth of per capita health care spending will continue. not to say the affordable care act has not had significant impact. but that impact will only grow over time. as you all know, medicare projections involve a lot of uncertainty. first, there is legislative uncertainty. medicare projections are based on current law. under the sustainable growth rate mechanism, it has called for a 21% reduction in the

physician fee schedule at the start of 2014. if the past is any guide, lawmakers will almost certainly override this reduction, and medicare expenditures will therefore be higher. uncertainties associated with new medical technologies, new drugs, new devices, and new procedures, which have tended to push up costs, there is uncertainty with respect to the nongovernmental half of healthcare spending. medicare cannot pursue policies without regard to what is happening in the employer- sponsored and exchange-related markets. over the longer run, the challenge facing medicare depends critically on our ability to adhere to the discipline contained in the affordable care act, which will require significant transformation of the existing payment and delivery systems.

providers will have to improve their productivity markedly. and there has to be a willingness among employers, unions, insurers, and private sector players to join forces with medicare and demand systematic change. the big question for the future is whether initiatives in the private sector will complement, reinforce, or undermine the fiscal constraints medicare is in -- is attempting to impose on health care costs. even with a unified effort, legislative initiatives above and beyond the affordable care act will be required. secretary sibelius has pointed that out in the administration proposals. this will be required if we are to put medicare on a sustainable long-run path. let me close by saying, as who hason the platform been up close and personal with medicare for 10 months, and with

social security for a bit longer -- i can attest to the critical importance of these programs. we need to ensure that they are made sustainable for current as well as future generations of beneficiaries and taxpayers. thank you. >> [indiscernible] the recent role of healthcare costs, and what that has played in the projections, and whether it is a permanent benefit for medicare? >> i think there are some recent reports of economists who have

looked at what is the third of significant slowdown in healthcare costs, not only in medicare, but in medicaid and the private health sector are. the most common interpretation is that while some of the early slowdown was thought to be contributing -- contributed to only by the recession -- that as these cost reductions are astained, and particularly you look at the public sector, which is less influenced by recession, that the feeling is that the framework around the affordable care act actually is having a significant shift in costs. medicare spending over the last couple of years since the affordable care act was passed is now at about 1.7% growth per

beneficiary. medicaid spending over the last year is down almost two percent -- 2%, which is almost unheard of. in both of those sectors, we are seeing sustained cost reduction. the president has put forward additional suggestions about cost reduction. i think more exciting in the future is that there is significant transformation going on in the delivery system. you heard reference to the fact that we wait to see if the private sector mirrors the public soft it -- public sector. we are finding a significant formation -- we formation of the private sector and public sector in terms of accountable of hospitalements

readmission, medical home model stash all are significant -- modeling.me all are significant in reducing underlying health care costs. >> just to reaffirm what the secretary said, there is a growing literature on this question. it shows that somewhere between 1/3 and 75% of the slowdown is attributable to the economic difficulties of the last few years. i thing the most careful think the most careful analyses get a smaller halfr, between 1/3 and of the slowdown. the issue for us should not be

looking in the rearview mirror and looking to blame the past. but what does the future look like? the restraints included in the affordable care act, which will build over time, and the structural reforms that that act is encouraging, there are reasons to be quite optimistic. the question was, how much is now built into forecasts and projections that we have produced in these reports? theink the answer is that less than expected amount of spending in 2012 and 2011 clearly is a reflection of what has happened in the affordable the small effect the economic downturn had on demand by individuals who are

disabled or elderly. is hopeful that, going forward, this is going to build. the important thing, from my perspective, and i am a relative optimist on this, is what is going on in the private sector. there is not a hospital or physician group, or an insurance company, that does not have a lot of initiatives going on. what isit is applying basically low hanging fruit, such as was reported in the article in "the new york times" about hospital acquired infections and what we can do to reduce them. there is a lot of interventions that are being experimented with, many of whom will fail,

but some of whom will be successful. and i think they will have significant impact. i think it would be inappropriate for us to build andprojections on hopes expectations in a very uncertain world. inative to what was built when the affordable care act was passed, my judgment is we have been very cautious and modest with respect to the changes that seem to be going on. >> thank you. lew, can you tell us about the disability program? does the administration have a way to sure that program, possibly by combining it with an older survivor for graham?

>> the reports are consistent with what we have seen in the past. we have a proposal that would put in place program integrity provisions. we hope those are adopted. 's,ould go back to the 1990 when we have a similar experience. hollis he choices were made in time. there will need to be a bipartisan approach -- policy choices were made in time. there will need to be a bipartisan approach, going forward. >> i have a question for secretary lew and secretary sibelius. how do you think the slowdown in health spending will affect the budget debate we are having now? >> i think that the slowdown in healthcare spending is important in terms of our health care system, our public health care systems and the overall health economy. in terms of budget debates, whatever happens that reduces

the rate of spending makes the goals we have set more achievable. i would say in the past it has made it easier to reach budget goals. i hope that continues to be true in the future. there is aadd that certain irony in the continued votes to, on the one hand, repeal the affordable care act, and on the other hand capture the savings that are part of the structure of the affordable care act. it isoping that as demonstrated that some of that structure is not only benefiting the public health programs, but actually working in concert to complement on the private side, there will be a more significant embrace of the framework to transform the underlying delivery system, and use the payment levers as part of that transformation. shift dramatically and more

quickly from the fee for service ,odel to a more quality outcome which has been embraced by the private sector significant way before the -- significantly before the public sector. in terms of impact on the overall budget, health is around 17% of the gdp. lowering overall health costs and improving health outcomes is important for the economy, but it is also important for the prosperity of americans. >> my question is for secretary lew. how optimistic are you that something can be done to fix these programs this year? is it the top priority for the president? >> the president has made clear for years it is important to deal with social security and

medicare. he has put forward a framework and set of principles in place. he has put specific proposals in his budget that would address medicare. our challenge is going to be to find the path to have this conversation in a bipartisan way. i remain hopeful that we will do that. i think the comments made earlier about doing it sooner rather than later gives us more choices -- is a very important one. we have maximum options the sooner we address it. i have time, but it is not good to wait. getting on with the discussion in as bipartisan away as possible would be very important. you missed any of this program, the annual release of the medicare and social security trustees report, you

can see it any time at our video library at c-span.org. the report will be posted at noon. you can also find that on our website at c-span.org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] coming up, commencement speeches at 8:00 p.m. on c-span two, author melanie phillips on her book "the world urned upside down." on c-span 3, vietnam pow's gather for the reunion of a dinner at the white house to welcome them home. it was hosted at the nexon library in california. that is all tonight, beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

>> what would the world be like if the southern confederacy was on the southern border of the united states of america? think for a minute of the united states from baltimore all the ,ay down through the gulf coast into texas, that would be foreign territory. , the united states would have no real access to either the atlantic or the caribbean, except for a narrow path from as far north as boston. the great sudden, atlantic coast of the united states is narrowed to the point where it can be easily blockaded. it does not mean the united states would collapse of its own weight. it means the united states would no longer have anywhere near the presence in the western hemisphere in terms of dealing with french intervention.

, book more, this weekend tv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of palm springs, california. ont is sunday at 5:00 american history tv. >> we will hear from the founder of the life sciences school. there are a couple of ways for you to participate. we can take some of your tweets if you are on twitter. there are also facebook questions for you this evening. they will be on the deficit, the economy, and scientific research. you can join us on c-span.com as

well. -- on facebook.com/c-span. a post says -- next up from earlier this month, juan enriquez spoke at the peterson fiscal summit and looked at the impact the growing deficit and debt. we will show you his comments ♪nd then hear from you. ♪ >> good morning. let's go up to the first slide,

all of you know the story of paul revere. the british are coming and people paid attention and that was a good thing. a modern paul revere looks like this. [laughter] he has been wandering around and saying, hey, folks. the dutch are coming, the dutch are coming. he has been doing that for decades. of course, even though he has been warning about this stuff, nothing happened. usually, in polite capitalist societies -- one of them came out and then there are weeks where decades happen. you can accumulate that until the european union begins to figure out when you promise to much and your debts get too big and you end up with taxes that look like 75%.

if you think about what the life of a minister in the european union looks like and what it looks like every month, over the past several years, this is what they spend their weekends doing. [no audio]

by 2040, you are talking about almost two times the gdp of the states. you have got to ask yourself, is that sustainable or does it again to look like a fun european weekend? as you go through this stuff, it is really important you start reading documents like this, which are not the usual language of the federal reserve subsidiary board. they are normally very boring documents and do not have headlines like, deficits, debt, and looming disaster. what i want you to note on this

document is that this is an old document from 2009 and was talking about the crisis when the debt was $10 trillion, not when it was $17 trillion four years later. as the system goes forward, let me remind you again, it does not seem like anything happens or interest rates go up, it does not he liked the debt matters, because we have got a lot of disciples of the fictional french economist. the disciples advocate and say, you can have two major wars, and not pay. at the same time, you can give yourselves a major tax cut. at the same time, you can increase benefits for all, and you will have no consequences. when the disciples go through the new tsa machines at

airports, the ones that do full image body scans, you can always tell the disciples because they look a little bit like this. [laughter] as you are thinking about this stuff and see signs looking like this, one of the things michael has just said, there is not much difference in the short term projections between the government and think tanks on the left and right. in terms of what happens over the next few years. all of them, left and right, see a way going forward. it is painful. it would have been far less painful five or 10 years ago. this is not pleasant trade-offs. but it is doable. it is doable without the types of crises you have seen in europe, and what is not sustainable is the current policy, which takes us in this

direction. it is better to act now. as you are thinking about what acting might look like, it is a series of compromises and trade- offs. it is not either or. either or is too darn expensive. only as cuts, you cut 28% of gdp. only as revenue, you have to increase revenue 38% of gdp. by the way, there is a third thing you have got to do. as mandatory spending starts crowding out everything else in the economy, you cannot fund growth because there is no money left to fund education, r&d, and infrastructure. the combination of fun stuff, some increase in revenue, some cuts. it is a moderate compromise in those three things. i hope it takes these two new

paul reveres in a new direction. what i would love to do is take this fiscal summit and a year in two years, three years, in this direction. please get on with it. let's put ourselves out of the business of discussing the fiscal deficit and talk about important things like long-term trends. right now, the fiscal debate is taking all the oxygen out of the room. you are either on this or this side. you have all kinds of fights about stuff, which is reasonable compromises that have not happened. when you do that, what happens is you do not understand the truly important transition taking place because you are focused all day, all the time, just on the deficit. you might be missing the big picture. here is what it looks like. humans are the only species on earth that transmit data consistently to their kids across time. maybe a dog learns commands and

a parrot learns words, but there is not an animal on earth that rights on cave walls except a human being. why is it so important to write on cave walls? this is how you have a baby. this is how we cook the fish we eat. this is how we dress. this is how many of us there are. these are our musical instruments. you learned a whole lot about what is happening in argentina 2000 years ago. as you think about how we transmit knowledge, that is enough for a tribe but not an empire. why? here you have to go to a cave to learn what is going on. in empire, on the other hand, looks like this. two things have happened. you have standardized the language and put it on paper, so you can transmit data across time and you can learn the lessons of why egypt fell. all of you clearly know you can read that, right? it basically says, cut the deficit.

then you standardize language and you put it in 26 letters and it looks like this. you have huge libraries. in this, you can write sentences that say, cut the deficit. what has happened over the last and 30 years is you have collapsed all language in ones and zeros. it is the countries that understood the transition because they were not worried about the current problems but look at the future. you understand the rise of silicon valley, taiwan, boston, singapore, india, if that transition right there. the first line of code says, i love you. the second says i hate you. the difference between love or hate, green or purple. what have you done? you have collapsed every word

written or spoken in england and condensed it into two letters, and chinese, and japanese, every language in the world. and every bit of music, and every photograph, and every video, and every film. that transition in code is what generated most of the big companies you look at. it allows us to write sentences like this. guess what this one says -- cut the deficit. as you are looking at this transition, you can take the world's first trillion operations per second per computer and put this into an intel chip in your computer, which gives a street salesmen in mumbai as much information as the president of the united states had 20 years ago. take all the satellite images and maps and bios and send them to your smart phone. as you begin to think of those

transitions, what is really important to understand is the transition took place really quickly. the world was basically 98% analog in 1986. it is about 96% digital today. you blow up xerox and all these enormous businesses. you have built enormous businesses, if you were paying attention to the transition. here are the top 10 fastest- growing u.s. industries for the last decade. you want to understand where jobs are? where growth is? it is countries that spent money on education and infrastructure as codes transition. every single one of those has to deal with the transition of ones and zeros. you are all a very competitive group. let's try the following experiment. see if you can get more answers than your neighbors on this question. for the next 15 seconds, come up

\with more than five large u.s. companies that did not exist 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 30 years ago? just think them through. all right. now tell your neighbor how many you came up with and see if they have more or less. all right. for the winners. here is a bonus question. do exactly the same thing with five major european companies that did not exist a decade ago, two decades ago, or three decades ago, and see how many names you come up with. that one is a little harder.

you want to understand why there is 40% unemployment in spain? you want to understand why there is huge debt crises? partly it was because there was no growth, not because there are no smart people. there were no startups. partly because they spent a whole series of mandatory spending items and did not invest in the future. as you think about this stuff, job growth only comes from startups. it is not the fortune 500. it is not the fortune 50 that generate net new jobs. it is the startup economy. people are investing in the future. they got dreams and they invest in this stuff. it is important for education, infrastructure, r&d. let me tell you about the current transition. again, we are transitioning in code. we move from hieroglyphs to

abc's, to ones and zeros, and we are transitioning in dna now. 60 years ago, they began to argue that all life is coded in what they call a double helix. this double helix of dna has four little rungs in it. all life is coded in four levels. every human being, every orange, every politician, they are all made of the same stuff. as you are thinking about this stuff, you can write incredibly boring books. you can write trillions of letters of this stuff. why is this important? it means this orange executes code. how does it work? it is simple. it begins to execute code and make a little root. make some leaves. make some oranges.

remember those ones and zeros? i love you, i hate you. it really matters which string you send. same thing with life. orange. this becomes a grapefruit. this becomes a lemon. maybe it becomes a watermelon. you change one out of the letters, you become the person you are sitting next to today. be more careful where you sit next time. as you are thinking of the consequences of this stuff, it turns out life is code. if life is code, we can read it, we can copy it, we can edit it, just as we do with ones and zeros, or words or hieroglyphs. you can go to argentina, they will introduce you to your

friend, the cow. as you are petting the cow, these two show up and you say to yourself, those two look really similar. they do. if you take the cow genome, you can take the genome of every cow and give birth to two clones. this is what cloning looks like. placing a bunch of clone embryos. there are a lot of cows that look really similar. i did not expect to find this in argentina. why are you taking so many pictures?

don't you understand? they are all the same. [laughter] stage one, we read the genome. stage two, we photocopy it. stage three, we edit it. this is important because we edited the genome. they did not copy it in such a way this animal produces medicine used to cure cancer in its milk. 20 of these animals substitute for this factory right here. how we make things and where we make things will fundamentally change. those countries did not just focus on things. they invest in the future and r&d and had startups and became the powerful countries on earth. the same thing is happening now if life code makes its way across the economy. how and where we make things

will change in a fundamental way. of course, no red-blooded american would ever want to be treated with a medicine used or created in argentine cloned cows. that is why americans are using goats. these are goats in western massachusetts worth about a million dollars apiece. as the stuff moves forward, this is beginning to move through college campuses. college kids are beginning to ask the question, can these simple biological systems be built and operate within living cells? the answer is yes. what these kids have been doing is building everything you can build in electronics but they have been building it themselves. all the switches, mathematical compilers, etc., that you have in a computer chip, you can

build in a cell and you can build it in a robust system. you can copy. you can make this standard. you can build all the things that make a logic circuit in a computer. what are the consequences of being able to do that? five years ago, in a bar across the river, after three scotches, these two guys sat down and said, would it be cool if we could program cells as you program computer chips? we decide to found a company, and it helps when you're partner sequenced the genome. it also helps when the guy sitting down won a nobel for enzymes. a mere four years and $32 million later, we are able to take this picture. why is this picture important? it is the first time you transform one creature into a completely different creature. one species into a different

species. some people thought was the world's first synthetic life form. the cover of 4800 papers and magazines and the science discovery of the year. this is interesting because there are two big differences between what happened over the last 30 years with digital code and what is about to happen. you can make anything you program the cell to make. to make gasoline, vaccines, information storage, foods, and we are doing all of that. but the second big difference is the software makes its own hardware. it does not matter how i program a computer. computers in the morning. if i program cells, they go from one of the test tubes and we go back to our greenhouse in san diego and they look like this.

what we are doing is buying a tiny piece of imperial valley, and here is what our factory will look like. some of those will make energy and some will make textiles and some will store information and some will store other stuff. we will make a transition on how and where we make things. let me tell you about the second big difference. the speed with which this is happening. the cost of sequencing a full human genome dropped in four years. it is a decline factor of 800 times compared to when computing dropped by about four times. this is happening a lot faster. the cost per genome has dropped off a cliff. we cannot build computers fast enough to transmit it. that is one of the reasons

amazon is 17% of the cloud. everybody is uploading this stuff. companies like ibm, not just the startups, but cambridge, is interested in the stuff. you hear general electric talking about this. life sciences and healthcare 4% of the revenue. that is why you see genomes and proteins and cell discovery. and why dupont is beginning to make all of the stuff not out of petrochemicals but out of cells. they are programmable. they make plastic. by the way, life sciences is 42% of dupont's total earnings. these are big transitions in the economy that are taking place very quickly, not just here but also elsewhere. here is the bottom line. you do not have to invest a lot of money. these startups that start small and become the big companies in the united states, it is .2% of

gdp invested through venture capital. these are 21% of u.s. economic output. you want to address the deficit? start investing in this kind of stuff. understand these transitions. do not cut research budgets for r&d. here is my specific plea. can we please get on with it already? can we quit talking about deficits and start talking about the future? you want to keep this country as the greatest power on earth? it is about investing in the future and understanding these transitions. it is about letting kids dream. changing the conversation. at this point, it is a painful operation, but it is doable. it will take decades to get it done. in europe, it has become critical and the survival of some countries and their sovereignty is at stake. let's just not reached that point.

there are too many other things to talk about. thank you all very much. [applause] >> next on c-span, joining us live from newton, massachusetts, is juan enriquez, the ceo of biotech. here to your comments and calls about what you just heard, the investments in research and the mounting debt in the u.s. there are a couple of ways you can participate by phone -- make sure you turn down your television. we will read some of your postings, as well. if you are on twitter, if you

just use juan enriquez. thank you for taking your time out this evening to talk about some of your ideas. to start off, how do you get lawmakers to be the visionaries you need to get to where you want to go with scientific research? >> you have to go back to the origins. there are a lot of people talking about what the founding fathers talked about. one of the real magic of the u.s. is a lot of the founding fathers fathers were interested in science and science research and entrepreneurship and building new things. if you think of the stuff that jefferson did and his great library and architecture and you think about franklin and his inventions and research, and the other founding fathers, you go back to original principles and follow those. >> you mentioned in other talks i have seen online that the

whole talk about the fiscal debate is taking all of the air out of the room. how do you get lawmakers to listen to these ideas? >> part of the tragedy, what is happening, they are taking your and my credit card and charging everything on it. they are saying, we are having a great quarter or a great year. they are basically charging all of that to our kids. what is important to understand is when you spend today but your kids have to pay later, that is not a tax cut. that is a long-term loan, which may have a very high rate of interest that our kids will have to pay. what you have to think about now is do you invest in science, innovation, infrastructure, or do you invest in paying the current account deficit, which

doing?>> your primary field is genomics. where do you see it growing in the next 20 or 50 years? >> i think the transitioning happening today in science -- during the korean war, when people worried about a possible nuclear war between the soviet union and the united states, when people worried about transitioning all the soldiers out of world war ii, very few people were paying attention to transitions like these of obscure little nerds inside bell labs inventing the transitor. they ended up being one of the biggest single drivers of the global economy because it led to the internet.

the biggest transition is not only in reading and writing in digital code, but the biggest transition in the world today is the transition into reading and writing life code. that will change every business on this planet. imagine if i were sitting here in the late 1970's and early 1980's, and i told you the single biggest change in the world and in your kids' lives, the single against change in the position of relative countries, who is rich and who is poor, is the ability to write in ones and zeros. that would seem like a nerdly and obscure argument. it turns out to be true. 99% of the information we transmit today is in digital code. that is why we do not use vinyl records. that is why we do not use manual

typewriters. that is the reason why we can use the internet. that is the reason why you have wonderful posters out on the internet. your parents never had access to google and wikipedia in school. we are beginning to understand how the code of a virus is written, how the code of a bacteria is written, how the code of the plant is written, how the code of an animal is written, how the code of a human being is written, even how the code of a politician is written. as you begin to think about that stuff, what is interesting and important is very small changes could lead to very big differences. the difference between a chihuahua and a great dane is a single gene out of 20,000 genes. the difference between a tree that grows at this size and one that grows at a larger size is a few genes. if you think about life at those terms, how long a human being

lives, what the quality of our life is, what diseases we die of, how we feed ourselves, what medicines we take, how we clothe ourselves and create energy, all of that will change in a fundamental way as we begin to understand, read, and write life code. >> we have a lot of callers and comments waiting. joining us from newton massachusetts. caller is in new york city. caller: thank you for taking my call. you paint a grand picture of science and its future and its place in humanity. i really appreciate that. i can resonate with a lot of it because i am an engineering student. you mentioned the importance that spending has, as well. mandatory spending, for example. social security, entitlements, education, etc., and connecting

that with science. you mentioned that investments in science and engineering and innovation, they take small amounts of spending. but as to how people, in general, view that sort of spending, the culture of science, and the way people currently see science, how can you bridge the divide that currently exists from what most people think about science, which is not much, and it shows in a lot of international exams and the digital divide that exists between first world and third world countries. it is extremely large. you may talk about the importance of reading in this new way to speak, speaking in

the language of the life of code, but a lot of people do not have that sort of opportunity in the world. >> i will let you go there and hear the response. thank you for your call. >> so, you know, computers used to be incredibly expensive. having access to a computer used to be a big deal. people stayed up until 2:00 in the morning to be able to program a few lines of code into the computer. today, everyone has access to a massive supercomputer called cell phones. the amount of data you have access to on your iphone or on your cell phone or on your android phone is equivalent to what the president of the united states had a couple decades ago. if you look at all the maps and biographies and information. if the president said, i want all the data on this, you now have that as a fruit salesman in

mumbai for a few cents. it has shut down the whole discussion of the digital divide. 10 years ago, we were worried about those who would have access to information and those who did not. basically, the information has become so cheap and ubiquitous and so large, wikipedia, google, and this that the other, that there is no longer a talk of a digital divide. what has happened is countries like india and taiwan and singapore, korea basically now have a standard of living equivalent to that of the united states because they educated their children in the new language, they took education seriously, they took the digital education seriously, and all of a sudden you have all these countries growing at 9% every single year on a compounded basis. and you get this massive growth. something similar will happen in

life sciences. the rich countries today may be caught by countries that just educate their kids in the stuff. that is why the stuff is so important. that is why the deficit stuff is so important. we are spending a lot of money today on a whole series of mandatory programs. a lot of other countries are spending money on the next generation. they are spending money on education. it is not a lot of money. it is enough to have a growth rate that is different between this country and this country and when you have a growth rate that is three times as large in one country versus another, year after year after year, those countries catch up very quickly. >> for a quick snapshot of where things stand with the deficit and debt, $642 billion, 4% of gdp. the national debt is $6.8

trillion. >> i sold the program microsoft word to bill gates in 1980. software is one of the reasons jobs have gone overseas. i wonder if the wonderful technology you are talking about, that everyone in america should see that talk, i am just wondering if it will bring jobs back from the united states or will further move american jobs offshore. >> the united states is still the most innovative place on the planet. when you look at the entrepreneurship, when you look at the men and women wanting to start new companies, when you look at the research going on in the universities, particularly life sciences, the united states is so far ahead of the rest of

the world, it's the u.s.'s race to lose. this is one of the key instruments. what the united states can do that very few other countries can is they can take the energy out of research come out of the universities, out of people like you, and turned it into these enormous companies. the richest state in the union, just to take your particular story, should be new mexico. because that is where microsoft was started. because microsoft moved from albuquerque to seattle, all the sudden, washington state became a huge hub of growth and it has got red hat and amazon and all these companies. it is because it is where people like you choose to live that generates enormous growth, just to repeat one statistic. .2% of the u.s. economy is invested in venture backed startups. 11% of u.s. economic output, and 11% of u.s. jobs and 21% of u.s. economic output.

it is having 10,000 brains like yours, and what we have to do is not just discuss the deficit and whether it is democrat versus republican, but discuss how we take the 100 smartest people in each high school, the hundred smartest people in each college, and give them an opportunity to build companies that are 10 times or 100 times the size of microsoft or amazon or intel and make the u.s. remain the economic power it is. by the way, it would be good for the u.s. to have this happen overseas as well. the more the world gets smarter and the more the world gets richer, we take more care of the environment, we consume less resources, we do better as a world, and it does not help us to have more poor countries and more isolated countries. it does not help us to have more divided democrats or

republicans. we have to start talking about how we deal with a very big issue in the world, as to how we restructure the european economy, how we solve crises in medicine so we double human lifespan. those are the challenges our kids and congress should be talking about. >> we go to chicago next on our independent line. >> good evening. there is quite obviously a huge backlash against a biotechnology and me personally, looking into this more, more transparency is needed, more of a public dialogue. because obviously some of the concepts of biotechnology is controversial, from the human genome project, and even agriculture. there was a large demonstration

this past weekend against one of the large biotech companies and people are adamantly against the kinds of genetically modified organisms, and the supreme court is hearing a case on whether you can patent genes. we could foresee a future where you could have surgeries targeted on specific gene patents. the big question is whether or not this seems like we could be giving god-like powers to scientists. what are your thoughts on that and how safe could this be? with the concept of biotechnology in agriculture, a lot people are worried about gentically modified organisms and how that creates huge health problems. >> thank you. we appreciate your call. >> so, look, first, no technology is perfectly safe. the problem with countries starts when countries start to

make a reasonable-sounding legislation that turns out to be completely unreasonable. parts of europe have adopted the precautionary principle. the precautionary principle says you prove to me this is completely safe and i will approve it. think about that for one second. intellectually, it sounds interesting and attractive because you want what is approved to be safe. but you would not be allowed to build a staircase, an automobile, an electric light socket, if that was the principle applied to technology. unless the biotechnology is the first technology humans have ever invented that is completely 100% guaranteed safe, then you and i know we will make mistakes. the question is not whether we will make mistakes. the question is what is the alternative and how expensive is it to not apply this?

let's talk about agriculture for one second. if you do not have increased productivity in crops, if you do not use less pesticides, if you do not use less fertilizers, if you make it all organic, part of what will happen is you will take an area the size of the amazon and put it under cultivation to feed the next 2 billion people. either we wipe out all of the rain forest in the world to feed the next 2 billion people, or, we begin to increase the productivity per acre that we farm. what we have been doing is increasing the productivity of corn, wheat, reducing the use of pesticides. so far, at least, there has yet to be a case i am aware of where somebody has a serious reaction to a genetically modified organism.

which you cannot say for peanut butter, which you cannot say for a whole series of foods. you do not ask people if they are allergic to genetically modified foods. you ask them if they are allergic to stuff which many of us live with every day. so far, and this is not a guarantee of what will happen in the future, genetically modified foods, about 70% of the grains we consume today are genetically modified, have been very safe. we still have to be careful. we still have to test the stuff. but it makes a huge difference if you can generate four times as much food per acre as used to generate per acre. it makes a huge difference if you use less less pesticides. sometime soon, what will happen is you will start getting food to fight specific diseases.

you will have cancer-fighting corn. at that point, there will be interesting trade-offs. >> we are talking about the federal debt and how we fund scientific research. 15 more minutes of your calls. on twitter, you can use juan enriquez in your tweet. here is a tweet. >> there is a whole series of ways of building companies. the tax structure is one of the pieces. but the main piece of the whole thing is really important the government understands what it does and does not do well. the government funds basic research very well. if there is basic research at nih, basic research at nasa,

basic research at the national academy of science, basic research at a whole series of organizations, that is fantastic. once the research starts becoming how do you apply this to business, governments do that very poorly. that is the point where you get investors, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and part of the magic of the u.s. is in the places where that bridge works, you get a lot of economic growth. let me give you an example of this. if you walk around m.i.t., the difference between that area of cambridge 30 years ago and that area today is night and day in terms of buildings, restaurants, art, museums, economic output. the same thing is true in silicon valley. simply because stanford and

m.i.t. were very good at taking basic science research and translating it into google companies that look like google. chicago.university of you do not want to walk 10 blocks in the university of chicago. there are huge ghettos university has not been able to create jobs and it has not been able to create startups. it has not been able to create a local economy. as a result, you have poor people sitting around a rich university. that is what happens in a lot of europe. it is hard for some of the european universities to make the bridge between a lot of government funding and the university and the start up business. the magic of the u.s., the power of the u.s., is a continuous ability to reinvent itself, to generate new jobs, to generate new technologies, to take stuff which did not exist and make it true. a whole lot of the rest of the

world follows and also makes itself rich. that is the thing the u.s. will do not just in life sciences at it is doing it right now in robotics, nanotech, the data research. there are so many interesting areas where our kids can work. but it is really important to get our schools right. it is really important to invest not just in the elderly, which is where we are spending most of the money, but to invest in the next generation and the schools and the basic research and infrastructure. >> back to our phone calls. robert, good evening. >> yes. i appreciate c-span. i tuned into your program a little late. i have been able to figure out biotechnology. my question would be the religious aspect. i recently became a christian.

how do you feel that people realize you are messing with dna, genome projects, and building animals, and it sounds great, cancer-fighting milk and everything, but what is your opinion on the religious aspect and how people are afraid we are doing what god does? >> one of the interesting things about religion is religions appear and disappear. most of the religions that humans have generated, most of the gods humans have worshiped across time have ended up in parts of history museums or art museums or part of archaeological sites. and that is the reason why you go to a series of places and people used to worship the god of thunder or the god of rain or the god of this and that.

religions that tend to survive across time just as species are the religions that adopt and adapt as things change. because there are two visions of how to think about religion. one is we know, if we are believers, everything that god taught us and intended and we know it from the beginning. and those religions tend to disappear. other religions tend to say, you know, as we get smarter, we adopt and adapt to what is happening. the religions that tend to last across time are those that understand we are taking a small green poisonous berry and cultivating it to the point where it becomes a big, beautiful heirloom tomato or many different versions of tomatoes. there are religions that understand we have taken a small grain the size of your thumbnail

and turn that into corn. we have taken moles and turned them into dogs. we have been doing this for a long time. as we breed vegetables, animals, as we begin to understand how to modify gene code so we live longer, because we double the lifespan of human beings over the last hundred years, those religions tend to do very well. it is the religions that back knowledge, learning, education, and the religions that are humble enough to say, i am still learning, that tend to generate both successful worshipers, successful congregations, successful countries across time. that is something the u.s. has allowed. the u.s. has allowed tolerance.

the u.s. has allowed learning. the u.s. has allowed for many different believes to coexist. >> on the extended lifespan of human beings, i heard the talk you did, not the one we showed this evening, but you talked about the human lifespan going up to 120, 130 years. do you think that is possible? how many years down the road do you see that happening? >> again, when our grandparents were around, they were around my age, those who were 65 looked pretty old. when social security was established, the average additional lifespan was a couple of years. part of the problem would be deficit, retirement deficits, and all this, is we have increased it to the point where someone dies at 75, they are dying young. it is not unusual to see 80- year-olds. it is not unusual to see 90- year-olds running a marathon. which would have been really hard to conceive of for our grandparents.

what we are doing today is adding about one year of life for every 10 years. every decade, we add about a year. as you do that, it is not inconceivable that our grandchildren will live pretty comfortably and the new 60 will be 100. there will be a point where we are going to reach some really interesting and complicated ethical dilemmas. because we can now ready much know that we can clone our bodies out of any one of ourselves. we have not done that. we should not do that. it is a risky technology. it is highly experimental. until we make it safe, that is not a choice we should face or discuss. but once you make it safe, then there is an interesting question. would you like to have an identical twin that happens to

be 30 years younger or 50 years younger? what would you teach it? would you want it? how would you do that? how would you deal in the world where that became commonplace? if you could have an identical twin that was frozen because you can freeze cells and it was born in 500 years, would you want that to happen? there is a whole big complicated ethical, moral structure that changes with this technology and there will be a healthy, interesting, open debate on this stuff. we are doing some very transformative stuff. between now and 2020, we should be able to tell whether planets that look like earth have life in other places. >> let's get back to our call here.

sorry to interrupt you there. a number of folks standing by want to ask you questions. alabama, next up. alex, go ahead. caller: good afternoon. i really enjoyed the conversation. i would like to make two questions. one thing that is very clear, the democrats, republicans, fight each other. that is the sad part. secondly, most of us know the system does not work and does not align us to use the technology of biotech and computer marriages that could detour of the future of the country. the country four years ago,

because i thought the best place was united states. today, i am considered by my grandchildren, i am afraid for them to learn chinese. i am disappointed. i do not know what to do to wake up republicans to tell them we have to not fight each other. we gain nothing but lies and fights. we all know. i know. you know. everyone hearing knows that these guys forget about the country, forgot about my taxes for the salary. we don't count -- it don't matter what i do. >> we will let you go there. going back to the original point, how do you get lawmakers to listen to your ideas and work on the deficit issue and scientific research? >> that is part of the problem we have with deficits. what is happening in europe is they never faced a series of this debate in a series of countries. all of the sudden, the credit ran out. what ends up happening is nothing happens and nothing happens and nothing happens and then over the course of a

weekend, you get the explosion in the bond markets. then you wake up and you have no banks, no credit, you have a system where all of a sudden, people realize you are broke because you spend more money than you had, not for a month, not for a year, not for a decade, but for several decades. part of what the u.s. is doing right now, which is very healthy, is just recognizing how big the problem can be before we reach a situation like that faced by iceland or ireland or greece or spain or portugal or perhaps italy and france. if we can solve this, if we can get democrats and republicans to say, ok, look, we do not like the increase in revenues, we do not like the cuts in the programs, but we will have to blend these two alongside economic growth. if we can do the three things together, it is manageable, with some pain, but we get on with

the debate. if the u.s. were able to do that, if it could just show the sign where it is bending that deficit curve, this becomes the world's reserve currency again and we can get on with funding our schools, funding our infrastructure, funding economic growth. the other thing we have to do is, frankly we are spending so much money in the last three years of life, the last five years of life, the last 10 years of life, versus what we are spending at the beginning. we are not spending the money on basic nutrition, basic vaccines, basic preschool, basic education, and it is the difference between investing on compound interest in 50 years versus in months. >> i want to get your reaction from a comment on laura on

facebook who said the adaptation is to invest in carefully credentialed science investments >> your quick thoughts on that? >> i could not agree more. we have to discover new things, as opposed to, many scientists are very conservative. they move in these incremental steps because they do not want to be wrong. there are a few who are just great radical entrepreneurs. they are the steve jobs, the benjamin franklins, the creators who take these wild bets and sometimes the bets pay off. i completely agree with laura. we should be funding a whole

series of things that are carefully researched science but are mavericks. there are institutions, like some of the stuff the pew foundation does, that do exactly that. they have some of the highest payoffs. >> let's get some quick comments from our viewers. >> i agree with the things you said about organic and the same people that want to promote organic also want to preserve the amazon. but if you have a 6000 cow dairy, 2,000 gallons of pure protein. that is a benefit, and if it is usable, the bottom line is, the mothers of america buy the milk, the consumers drive profits. how we educate them?

how do we combat emotion in perception with science and education? >> what is happening in iowa, which is really interesting, it used to be your choice as to what you create per acre. it was pretty limited. you were a corn farmer or a soy farmer. there is so much more opportunity to create food, feed, fiber, medicine. we are able to transform life. i think some of the richest areas of the country are going to be those that can produce the highest value added per acre. but the options are tenfold or hundredfold. that is why education is so important. the choices for every kid in

iowa or in north dakota, for every kid in south dakota, are so much more varied, so much more interesting and productive per acre that we are going to see some very large transformations to come. i suspect these will be some of the richer areas in the country, if they apply the science and technology. >> let's go to one more call from kentucky on the republican line. >> the deficit and all spending by the government must be appropriated within the house of representatives. within that body of 435 men and women, there is only one real scientist, one from mit. most of them are lawyers. this seems to be part of the problem. if only we could get more scientists like yourself and others in positions of power within the house to appropriate

or not appropriate and reduce that deficit, i believe that we would find a broader pass in the future. your comments, please. >> i think you are absolutely right. i think science literacy is becoming more and more important, in the same way as somebody needs to know basic geography or basic history or basic music. the ability to understand why life code, big data, robotics is important. it is the difference between a region having a rich, robust market and not having it. absolutely congress should have more people who are science literate. people in congress work hard and work long hours. they are faced with very hard decisions. but i get really upset when 90%

of the debate that comes about, either cut it all or raise the taxes on everything. all the oxygen goes out of the room and you stop debating all the stuff that is really important. let's just get on with it. we have had two major wars and have been promising people a lot of stuff. we do have to cut some programs, but whose programs? we promise people too much. but we have to get on with this and start growing in taking the opportunity of all these incredible young brains in the united states or that want to come to the united states to continue to build the world's greatest economy. >> juan enriquez, joining us this evening from newton, massachusetts. thanks for spending time with us. >> thank you so much. >> the conversation continues on line with our facebook question about the deficit and the growth

of scientific research. you can go to facebook.com/cspan to post your comments and questions. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] is coming upwhat on c-span. next, the 2013 american religious freedom program -- national religious freedom conference. it is followed by a panel discussion on the internet and new technology on the human brain and child development. later, remarks from president obama earlier today on student loans. here is a bit of what he had to say. >> if congress is not asked by july 1, federal student loan rates are set to double. that means that the average student with these loan will rack up an additional one -- $1000 in debt. that is like a $1000 tax hike. i assume most of you cannot afford that. anybody here can afford that? no.

this sounds like déjà vu all over again, that is because it is. we went through this last summer. some of you were here. it was not as hot. i don't think we did this event outside. this, andt through eventually congress listened to all of the errands and young people who said on double my rates. because folks made their voices heard, congress acted to keep interest rates low. but they only did it for a year, that your is almost up. the test here is simple -- we have got to make that federal student loan rates do not double on july 1. now, the house of representatives has already passed a student loan ill, and i'm glad that they took action, but unfortunately their bill does not meet that test. it fails to lock in low rates for students next year. that is not smart. forliminates safeguards lower income families.

that is not fair. it could actually cost a freshman starting school this fall more over the next four years than if we did nothing at all and let interest rates double on july 1. so the house bill is not smart, and it is not safe. i'm glad the house is paying attention to it, but they did not do it in the right way. so i am asking young people to get involved and make your voices heard once again. 180 sixr, you convinced rulebook and in the house and 24 public is in the senate to work democrats to keep students -- student loan rates low. you made something bipartisan happen in this town that is a powerful thing. commerce has been out all week with members in their home visits for a weeklong memorial day break. when the senate returns, lawmakers are set to return -- to resume work on foreign- policy. senators are also crafting proposals aimed at making changes to the conference of

overhaul of immigration laws. senate majority leader harry reid says he is hoping to begin floor consideration of the immigration bill the wake of gene -- of june 10. is a $73.3 billion spending bill designed to house and equip the nation's military troop and families. the second spending bill up for debate next week it's funding for the homeland security department. both chambers return for legislative work monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch the house life here on c-span and the senate on c-span2. arrived fourirst years ago, i am sure you never imagined that at the end of that, there will be a lady behind a podium talking to you in a funny accent. this accent has been the bane of 1980istence until in

moved to norah cut england and i met henry kissinger, and he said to me -- don't ever worry about your accent. in american public life, you can never underestimate the advantages of complete and total income sprint ability. -- and copperheads ability. >> this week and, more commencement stories from government officials tonight at 8:00 eastern. , fedirector robert mueller chairman denver nagy, maryland governor martin o'malley, florida governor rick scott, attorney general eric holder, spokespersonn patricia llodra. dick on saturday, bi costolo, nate silver, steve ,ozniak, a rihanna huffington

wesley bush, and former president bill clinton. >> u.s. faith leaders and extras in constitutional law gathered in washington thursday to discuss issues around the topic of religious freedom. it hosts rabbi -- the 2013 national religious freedom conference. >> ladies intimate, if you take your seats. -- ladies and gentlemen, if you could take your seats.

>> that is how i like it, nice and quiet. ladies and gentlemen, we are delighted to welcome you to this next panel, which is appropriate. as i thought about this, i will be monitoring this panel. there are tensions between the federal government and religions of various stripes. this freedom of religion as not only our first freedom, it is certainly our most righteous. it defines who we are. it defines our approach and outreach to our fellow man. it also creates the condors of the culture that we leave to our children and to their children. in recent days, we immerse all of us in this focus on the hhs ondate and its impact various states, particularly -- various faiths, particularly catholic. there are other struggles that

perhaps we have not considered with enough depth. so this panel excludes catholics entirely. except for me. but it is important that we bring in people from across the faith spectrum who will give us their views and opinions on how religious liberties or the lack there of is infringing upon their communities. which means a series of non- determination lot, universities ,enying religious organizations recognition on campus, small businesses penalized for x rest interface, and the war over religious iconography and symbolism. and thegious viewpoints religious beliefs of individuals are also often derided in the public discourse. so today we seek to correct that a bit. and entertain the question --

why does religious liberty matter? what is the matter across the spectrum, and what threats are we all facing in various forms? we have on august counter. -- august panel. i will make brief introductions, and each of them will offer introductory remarks. would then they're going to entertain a few questions and open it up to all of you. there are cards on your table. if you would fill out questions tj will beve, making the rounds and collecting those in the last part of this panel. we will read your questions and entertain a wider dialogue. like some in the federal government, i will attempt to limit all of your speech in various ways. [laughter] and arbitrarily restrict your comments in the name of tolerance. i lay that out ahead of time.

i would like to introduce our first panelist. .mardeep singh i hope i am pronounced that right. he is the director of the program at the sikh coalition feared -- coalition. i would like to welcome your remarks. >> good morning, everyone. how is everybody? i am feeling optimistic after the last panel. i really appreciated my colleague's remarks about the importance -- even if we disagree doctrinally -- it is important that we respect everyone's right to believe what we believe and practice and support each other. i really appreciate that. i also really appreciated representative hamilton's remarks about the importance making sure the issue of freedom, and our case religious

freedom, is truly nonpartisan. i am optimistic. i really enjoyed the last handle. i am truly -- the last panel. i am truly honored to be here today to address this gathering. what i'm going to do in my remarks is hopefully demonstrate through the prism of -he experience of the sikh american community, some of the challenges we face as a country and maintaining our fidelity, percival's of religious freedom, as we have all discussed many times this morning, and i am sure we will throughout the day, as to who weional are as a society and what this country means to itself and to the rest of the world. i also want to talk about a second part, the interplay between government discrimination. i will put forth that word. and private dissemination --

private discrimination. there is some evidence to back this up here in -- this up. there is a real meaningful and unfortunate interplay between the two. let me do the first part, the prism of looking at the sikh- american community and where we are with religious freedom. fivet to talk about specific issues, hate crimes, school bullying, workplaces commission, and any issues that are generally applicable neutral on their face laws. the first with regard to the issue of workplace determination. , as per federal law, in cases brought by s wholy religious sikh wear turbans, muslim women wear ajabs, employers have the

ability to, under federal law, theatified by federal court ability to segregate, visibly religious employees and customer facing positions if there are uniform rules i do not allow for religious garb. so for example, a sikh want to work for american airlines and be a ticket agent. a muslim woman wants to work for alamo rent a car. these are all row cases. an agenty wants to be for the company. under federal law, as it has been interpreted by at least one it is lawful to put that person segregated in the back out of public view as long as they receive the same pay and the same benefits. -- theask the honest audience. doesis that some itu --

that sound like to you? i heard it -- separate but equal. it sure is. you can imagine what it is like trying to receive a promotion, move up in the workplace if you are being segregated from the rest of your fellow employees and from the public. this is a gap that has not been adequatelyr covered by federal law. as alan had mentioned any previous panel, california has taken a leadership and vision on the issue and made very clear last year to the workplace that workplace segregation would be ing the state's civil rights laws. on the issue of school bullying, this is a prison for the sikh community. in californias and new york city, over 60% of the kids in our community report

that they are the subject of school bullying on the basis of their faith. over 20% say they are the victims of violent, violent, violent harassment on the basis of their faith in school. they are hit or touched in unwelcome ways by other students. sadly for students of faith who are attacked in school, this often applies for muslim students as well, federal law, the federal civil rights act of 1964, does not include religion as a protected class when it comes to the issue of school leaving -- school bullying. , when we at least go to the department of education, their hands are tied. the department of justice, the new administration has interpreted their authority to act in those cases. but it is not the agency that has as many resources, the

department of education to address school bullying. religion is left out. there is just a gap. these kids and their advocates are pushing for our immunity to be counted. with the issue of hate crimes, next week, the policy board of the fbi is going to be taking up the issue. of six a tragic murder numbers of our faith and oak throughisconsin in 2012 hate violence. house ofcame to a sikh worship and literally shot dead six sikh worshipers. the advisor policy board is going to finally consider the issue next week of whether to hate crimeanti-sikh

tracking category to the fbi for him that just tracks hate crimes that he appeared you can imagine it is an important diagnostic tool for the law enforcement to determine whether resources need to be deployed because certain communities are being targeted. you can imagine the sikh coalition has documented hundreds of hate crimes against our community. over 11% of our community members report that they have been the victim of a hate crime or their property have been defaced in some way. it is way above the national average when it comes to hate crime reporting. yet these people are suffering hate crimes in our community, and i would add also in the hindu immunity. -- community. they do not even have the ability to be counted. they just don't even count. at least as far as the federal

forms are concerned. and the pursuant federal law- enforcement act. finally, i want to touch on generally applicable but neutral laws. we have this issue where laws that are neutral on their face, that government agencies, for example, the nypd has uniform rules for lease officers, obviously our united states military has uniform rules for its soldiers during they don't allow for any more. soldiersot allow for hijabs orrbans or beards if they are muslim or jewish. tomorrow, one of the sikh anlition clients received

exception. he wears a helmet over his turban. he wears a gas mask. he is going to testify tomorrow about his experiment in the military. the policy of exclusion in our community from military service not theo that he is only one in the military along with two other people who have received a vengeance. but other people are willing to serve can and the most prominent government employment there is. finally, i want to address with s andd to the tsa, sikh muslims, but particularly sikhs have been reporting high rates of secondary screening at u.s. airports. if the government is specifically searching them more than other passengers, specifically targeting one object that people don't scared of ind are

some cases, the turban, you can imagine the messages sent to the rest of society. this goes to my last point about the interplay between government determination -- government therimination whether at nypd, the military, or the airport. and private the germination. there was a study done by the pew forum called the rising religion.stricting on he came out in 2012. the pew study found a direct correlation between restrictive government laws or discriminatory government laws applieseplies -- as it to religion and private is commission. i would argue that the sikh community experience -- over 60% of our kids saying they are bullied, 11% saying that they are suffering hate crimes, over 12% on employment description,

well above the normal. i think this private discretion -- there is an interplay between the government discretion and private termination. government discrimination and private discrimination. these are very much american issues. exempted tot is serve in our military, he received a run star service for its afghanistan work two years accommodated a jewish rabbi and a muslim soldier who wanted to keep his beard, when one of our voices right, they all rise together. with that, i would thank everyone for their time, and i want to reaffirm how excited and grateful i am to be here today. thank you. [applause] >> now i would like to

eugene rivers.r he is a senior policy advisor to the presiding bishop of the church of god in christ. reverend rivers? thank thei want to center for convening this meeting. brian, where are you? i just want to thank him. this is extremely important. what i want to do for the next couple of minutes is talk about the context of religious liberty from the perspective, not simply as an african american, but as a whose framework for understanding like people is global. the church of god and christ is the oldest pentecostal

denomination in the world. azusaigins are the street revival of 1906. we went from a black man with one eye who prayed down the holy ghost in april of 1906 to 600 million intercostal charismatics around the world who are now just recently claimed by the evangelicals. i have been a pentecostal for 40 years. 40 years ago, the evangelicals did not claim us because we were too noisy. most folk at not done their homework to find out what our numbers were like and what they discovered this, that pentecostals were the dogs that hunted, the high-octane in the church, we mysteriously became evangelical. summary say praise the lord. i will take both. issue the context of the of religious liberty, there are a couple of issues i want to

flag. with the understanding that for the black church and the black pentecostal church in particular, our concerns are global. so when i frame the issue, it is not simply talking about a set of supreme court decisions or some fights with the white house. it has to do with the being religious minorities in tontries that do not accord our folks the same liberties that they insist they must have when they come here in terms of countries of origin. there are a couple of conversations we need to have. conversations about freedom of liberty in the united states, the nannies to be a conversation about when i am a pentecostal and i start a church with two people in the ukraine, and 30

years later we have the artist kiev, in the key of -- in and we are told we have to shut it down, sassy when they find out that the person who started the church was a nigerian, there is a conversation we want to have because there is a persecution by religious institutions of minority expression. then there are the issues that service here. so there are a couple of conversations i am interested in having. i would like to talk to my brothers and sisters about how we talk to religious liberty cairo orwhen i am in somewhere in north africa and i'm a pentecostal there, i want to talk about jesus, or if i don't talk about jesus, they think, no, not only can you not talk about jesus, you cannot feed starving people. because that is a form of evangelism.

first, we were going to preach, then we said we were not going to preach, then we will serve the poor. they say no, you cannot do that either. we do not want to preaching or feeding anybody. let them starve. in the interest of guard -- of god. that is one issue. for me, a couple of things feared the obama administration -- i am a servant of immigrant. i am a right wing democrat. amen. that said, the obama administration on the issue of religious liberty, it's relationship to the faith immunity in general, is pretty much -- it has treated the faith community like useful idiots. those of us who support him because we thought it was hope and change and we believed all the airbrushing and we were happy and expired -- and inspired, but at the end of the day, the black church got thrown under the bus. i worked very closely with the clinton administration and the bush administration, and i

worked to bishop blake in the obama ministration. the back story is that religious liberty was not a priority. while there might have been some talk about human rights, there was no concern or commitment. it was not a robbery. so that is an issue. as administrations come and go. me ons striking now to the issue of religious liberty is the the the people who think that either party will now throw you under the bus. so he needs to say amen. either party will throw you on the -- under the bus. on the issue of gay marriage, which is important to us because in the black church, for us, there are folks who are threatening our tax-exempt status because they say that when we preach the bible, that is hates talk. there is going to be a war in this country. i do not know about you, but if you come into a black church and say you're going to mess

with the bible, it will be on and popping. we will go to jail on that issue because that is the issue of religious conception. i was actually talking with my secular liberal friends. i am claustrophobic. i do not like to be tied up in no place real tight. but if you mess with the bible, i'm going to jail. what is interesting about the cultural shift now -- and we in the religious community have to get on our a game because we do not know what is going on. they're coming after the book. issue of homosexual marriage, the back story is all truly at the end of the day, you have got to de-legitimate the authority of the pope to make your case. that is coming. and some of us have stuck our heads in the sand, we hope it will go away, or we don't want to fight. for us, on religious liberty, there is the issue of tax- exempt status, freedom of congress, the issue of gay

marriage ultimately is going to come down for us to the authority of the book for us. as the word of god. at which point, there is no negotiation and it is on and we draw the line. there are some real issues for us there. religious freedom is a human right. look, i've talked to a number of folks before i came here today. we want to work with all of the religious communities because we understand that there are some lines that have to be drawn and there must be a commitment and a conviction that says we are going to stand up and not compromise. there has been a lot of customizing -- of compromising. what happens to religious people is we want to be invited to the fancy party. so we don't want to offend in polite company, so we the hope that the people who patronize us will invite us to be the comic relief

at the party. thatst make a decision we're going to stand our ground and on the issue of religious freedom, we will be not compromising, we will not be negotiated, i don't need to be invited to the palace because if you play the role of the prophet, you don't get invited to the party at the palace. you have got to decide which one you are going to be. [applause] , orou want to be invited are you going to stand for the conviction that whatever you believe, you are going to believe and not compromise that in the interest of opportunism and convenience? so i am here this morning, and i will wrap this thing up, right, because the black churches want to work with those who are serious about what is going to be a fight. you are not going to negotiate this thing. obama has thrown the faith community under the bus.

it was a bait and switch. reverend al sharpton is to handle all of the religious people. i left point is that strategically, and there is a question of strategy, on the marriage issue, on abortion, we talk about religious liberty, my son -- my son was trying to swing to me the difference in the millennial first of the men in antiquity. he says dad, strategically you cannot use an eight track tape in an ipad world. he said your generation does not know they don't know. the marketing, branding, merchandising have an issue with eight track tape. which is why the 20-40 demographic does not get our concern. one of the things i want to talk about at some point is how do we develop smarter strategies?

we are fighting harder, not smarter. we are using an eight track tape in an ipad world. we are losing the debate. ofwant to expand the range the struggle on the issue of .eligious liberty we have a global support for many of the things we believe, but our framework and view is not there. we have not reached out to other communities. we must develop a more conference of strategy. we must focus on whether or not we are coming to fight. this is going to be a fight. ,e can have a pleasant talk enjoy a good lunch or dinner, and go home. but for those of us who are serious and really believe that there are issues that must be act like we must

jesus did and figure out if we are going to engage in what must be a long-term struggle. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would now like to ,ntroduce shaykha reima yosif the president of the al-rawiya foundation. welcome. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. i would like to thank the american religious freedom program, especially brian walsh, who put together this conference for our call. it is wonderful to see religious leaders, lawmakers, and activists come together to uphold the principle and promise of religious freedom. especially in times such as this. looking around the room, it reminds me of a song by country

singer that are used to listen to as i was growing up among travis tritt, and it's on "it is a great day to be alive," he says "there are some hard times in the neighborhood, but why can't every day be just as good ?" we all know from the pages of history that one of the motivating factors of the early pick worms -- the early pilgrims for risking their life and crossing the atlantic with their desire to preserve the religious identity and way of life. they regarded that preparation of their understanding of their religious way of life so important that they were willing to risk their lives and in some cases, such as the quaker woman mary dyer, die for it. often times in interfaith gatherings, faith leaders go the distance to emphasize how we are all the same. but instead, i feel we should take inspiration from the early

pilgrims who insisted on preserving their unique way of understanding their religious life. therefore, we do not have to be the same. if there is one place that you don't have to be the same and can be different and part of the social fabric of the society is the united states of america. [applause] >> amen. >> i've always felt that the ultimate purchase of any theological system is to bring about an eternal transformation in a human being. when a religious person is truly transformed, i believe that oftentimes the label and the tags that we assign people disappear. and we start looking at others as fellow human beings. aere was an instance when man was sitting with his

companions, and he said to them -- none of you truly believes until he has mutual mercy. and one said, are we all merciful? and he says no, it is not the mercy a man shows his friends, it is a universal mercy that he extends to everybody. it is easy being nice and mirthful to people that are like us -- and merciful to people that are like us. so it is in this transform state of being that it becomes easier for us to celebrate and defend intrinsic human values against the bully out there. when i say the bully out there, i am afraid to individuals, institutions, or groups who are undermining religious freedom person.american or i just want to share with all of that personal experience

appears to be a recurring theme in my life and in the lives of many american muslims that are born and raised in the united states of america. whenever a tragedy happens involving muslims, i've lost count of how money times people would come up to my face and say to me -- go back to where you came from. because of the fact that i am easily identifiable, i become an easy target for harassment. and i guarantee you that it is not a priest or a rabbi or a pastor that will say such a thing. it is the layman. our work as makes faith leaders and educators that much more important. these ideals that we have gathered here today for we have to ensure that it ultimately trickles down to the average, everyday american.

to go back to what i was saying about being different, and being ok with others being different, or as our dear rabbi meir said in the morning, maintaining that strange -- maintaining that strangeness. once we get to a state of consciousness that except how people choose that state of consciousness and eight not judgmental state of consciousness, that people choose to preserve the religious identity or except how people choose to practice their , only then will we speak out against the bully out there. sut if we try to find reason why a people's religious freedom should be curtailed because they are different, we are only giving ourselves excuses of why we should not be speaking out against the bully out there.

and we know as with bullies, they equally discriminate. and they take turns. it would service well to -- the wordswoods of pastor martin mean what you came for the they socialists, and i do not speak out because i was not a socialist. then they came for the trade unionists, and i do not speak out because i was not a trade unionist. then they came for the jews, and i do not speak out because i was not a jew. then they came for me, and then there was no one left to speak for me. standn we as americans up when the bully attacks any religious group am a we are working towards a society when every day will be just this

good. thank you for listening. [applause] >> now we would like to bring rabbi abba cohen forward. would you welcome the rabbi? >> thank you very much. thank you to the center into the program for inviting me. i am, as ray said, a rabbi. don't always admit it, i am also a lawyer. towife says i became a rabbi atone for being a lawyer. [laughter] and to make matters worse, she says it won't worsk.

duale this point about my rabbi-lawyer role for a reason. when brian walsh asked me how as a rabbi to view religious liberty for all, is it a matter of natural law or does it come under the rubric of everyone has the right to be wrong? frankly, i had no idea what to answer. i cannot answer because looking ofk, i had never thought religious liberty for all in any conceptual or theological framework. and perhaps that is because i am also a lawyer. there might be a theological explanation. but to the advocate in me, the answer lies within the social and religious atmosphere and attitudes. they are matters of the most practical nature. jewish thinking is informed in

large part by our history. withistory that is replete unspeakable horrors and destruction based upon fears and hysterical anti-semitism. there was very little philosophy involved. those who are secured to the jews were not occupying their minds natural law or theories of religious equality. as for the jews, they did what they had to do to stay alive and live in peace. it was a relationship of power, subjugation, and animosity. a very unnatural law. in these times, we enjoy a different reality. here, in our united states, where religious minorities are guaranteed liberty, we have the opportunity to grow and strengthen our religious life and institutions, and where we work together for the common

good, and this is extraordinary. but to me, even -- or especially -- in this new world, with religious rights guaranteed under law, religious liberty remains a practical question. should we work for religious liberty for all? absolutely. should we set aside differences? of course. we have to. first, we know there is strength in numbers, so when religious rights are threatened and action is required, our experience has shown that the larger and more diverse it is, the greater chances for success and when we lobbied, we knew that the large left it right coalition of religious and civil rights groups, one of its biggest selling point and its key passage. that whensurprise

the supreme court told congress that had to rewrite the law, causing our coalition to -- new, the new resin revelation was you but a shadow aer dweeb also come to -- but shadow. we have also come to realize that it is one for all and all for one. there was a time when a religious group that did not face might opt out of its defense. now we have a better understanding that almost any case have the -- has the potential of affecting all religions. with all this in the infamous decision which caused devastating harm to religious freedom in america. at the time, it was thought to be just another free exercise case. was there compelling state interest here or whether not? for that reason, many groups

decided not to weigh in. the dispute did not involve their religious practice. and perhaps, some were so uncomfortable. but the peyote case went into kate -- went into court on the assumption that it would affect a specific practice of the native americans, that it came out of court if this rating the free exercise clause in a way that affected us all. we see this playing out today. the hhs mandate. for many religious amenities, the issue of contraception does not present the same challenge as it does other religious communities. yet many of the unaffected groups are weighing in on the issue because of what they see 's largerndate potential advocates for religious freedom in general. no faith group can abide the weakening of religious freedom.

, and that isnt that we are sadly engaged in a greater battle about religious liberty, yes, but even more so about religion's place in society. we often think of threats to religious liberty coming from legislation, policy, or judiciary early. -- or judiciary lely. but are the real threats coming from government? perhaps it is coming from madison avenue anti-fashion avenue. perhaps it is coming from the social and electronic media. or perhaps it is coming from groups or individuals that in the name of unenlightened society advocate for -- name of an in-line society advocate for social mores. were was a time we heard -- are not trying to change your religious police, we just think

that all people and all views should be respected and treated equally. we're just refunding the times. everyone should live -- we are just reflecting the times. everyone should live and let live. but there is no such pretense anymore. we see now that religion is often treated with derision and ridicule, treated mockingly and disparagingly. seek toze that many change our religious believes and change the role of religion in society. indeed, to create a more secular society. we know what all this means. a poisoned atmosphere where the potential for laws and policies that respect religion and protect religious liberty will be severely weakened. this is happening already. laws have their own power to even more negatively influence society.

-- and say, the law is a the result of the cycle is ultimately greater hostility. this is not an easy rolled -- an easy road. overall, americans have a favorable view of religion. in my opinion, they like religion when it is passive. when religion asserts itself, for example with regard to religious hiring rights, attitudes change. religious accommodation legislation is harder to pass today. when it does, it is not always with a full measure of protection. isly, religious freedom fundamental freedom is becoming a matter of negotiation and compromise. in these rough waters, it is all hands on deck. caveat with a serious

-- there are many good reasons for us to put aside differences, join forces, and fight for religious freedom for all, but we also must remember who and what we are, and what make this different from each other and from secular society. faith groups have specific release, -- specific beliefs, specific missions, specific messages that define us and our response to these -- our responsibility. sometimes it is not possible to join together without in some ways infringing upon the religious character and integrity in each of our faith. indeed, a joint effort in congress or the courts, sometimes expressed with coalition testimony, legal briefs, statement, or letters, even on issues where we agree on the bottom line, have the potential of causing our distinct teaching is to be

blurred, confuse, or misunderstood. there might be foundational speciales, circumstances or hairline nuances that contribute to the uniqueness of our message. i will be diluted or lost in the joint effort. ,n those cases, we might sometimes we must, pursue a different path to have our voices clearly heard. faith groups have to draw lines. and make tough choices to remain true. there is great opportunity, great power in unity. there is also great power in the uniqueness and individuality that lies within our diversity. how and when to balance them is our greatest challenge. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to now invite theer chad hatfield,

professor at the orthodox -- to offer his opening remarks. >> thank you. i have a friend who was newly ordained in the church of england. he was given the duty of his first funeral at a crematorium. he was incredibly nervous about how he was going to do, so a gentleman took them through the steps. at the pulpit where he conducted the funeral service, there were he was told if it was to be an in dash ground barrier -- burial, they would escort the body out. it was to be at cremation, he would push the bottom button and that would sit will that they would take the casketwa