i'd like to spend a moment if i need for a about the consistent law enforcement at t.s.a. passenger screening checkpoints such as the one where officer hernz was killed. i know that there are differences of opinion about

this. i'm anxious to hear today thatn the near future is the discussion will continue. bere may be things that can tried, there may be alternatives. but what i do not wish to do is to simply have the issue put to rest. at this time. because i am concerned that there may be a better mouse trap, i'm not sure. following the shooting incident i discussed airport security issues with leaders of the american alliance of airport police officers. our discussion i wrote t.s.a.r to two administrator in which i recommended that law enforcement withins be stationed 300 feet of t.s.a. passenger screening checkpoints. and i have a copy of that letter today and with the committee's consent i will include it in the hearing record. i was pleased to learn that t.s.a. was responsive to the raised in itsi

report. specifically t.s.a. issued standards calling for an increased presence of law highcement officers at traffic locations within the peak travelh as times and checkpoints and ticket counters. however, t.s.a. still does not require that law enforcement officers be consistently present evenese checkpoints, during the aforementioned peak times. the report does not address this implements a flexible approach to security which allows police officers to roll but does notrport specifically require them to be present at the passenger checkpoint. the fixed post approach, by contrast, requires a police stationed at each passenger screening checkpoint. local police departments that support the flexible response approach have

argued that this approach provides better visibility. officers, and less predict aability for those who are intend on doing harm. i realize that a scinl law enforcement presence at t.s.a. checkpoints is a controversial issue. however, i would argue that the responset and flexible methods are not mutually exclusive. lax, canirport, like have police officers at every stilling checkpoint and have additional officers patrolling the airport. at the united states capitol where we work in washington d.c., can have police officers stationed and security well asnts as additional officers patrolling the vicinity. is possible for l.a.x. some airports and local police have also argued of policeoning officers at every screening checkpoint is just too expensive.

that do not accept particular argument. i do not want to compromise order toecurity in save money by paying for fewer police officers. local, state which or federal agency is responsible officers atng t.s.a. screening checkpoints, a consistent law enforcement issence at these checkpoints critical. i therefore look forward to a regardingussion t.s.a. checkpoints security future.d in the however, i firmly believe that atshould not adjourn without least continuing to address this issue. gannonant to thank chief for his perspective on this. insight aboutew predict ability and the fact that if it is known that there checkpointer at the they become easy targets. i appreciate that. i want to thank mr. cox, because another way to look at this. you talked about how this possibly could be done.

think it's so i important to continue the discussion, because i think we and we can try things. i think there's no reason why we several ideas, try them out, see what works best, but i don't want to give up on this discussion. i thank you for allowing me to ofhere today and i thank all you for the wonderful tour that you gave us today. betterainly gave us a insight. this is an important facility. gin ofis the chicken this area -- engine of this area. tremendouse all the responsibility that you have. i want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. thank you very much. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentle lady from california. you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and chairman ranking member thoch son for having this important hearing here today.

as someone who travels every colleague and i both do to and from l.a.x., i have to very safe.very, but as chairman mccall mentioned, we cannot be complacent and i think this incident informs us on changes to make to improve all of our security. i want to thank chief gannon and of the men and women who serve with you to protect us at l.a.x. and to mr. pistol officersf the t.s.a. who work very, very hard every who put their protection our put our protection over theirs every single day tone sure our safety. i have to state that with serving i believe over 200,000 atple every single day here l.a.x., it is like a major

that takes place every single day. to thank all of the witnesses who are here today and answer ourngness to questions, and hopefully the deaths ofry tragic transportation security officer and the wounding of other t.s.a. employees and a at l.a.x. on november 1 will never ever happen again. is incumbent on all of us to work together to identify improvements to safety and security for t.s.a. travelingand our public. however, the shooting also raised another serious issue and one that i believe we must address. you know, current law does not provide t.s.a. officers with benefit like those offered to firefighters, police

agents, or.b.i. state troopers, and i'm just of the laww enforcement personnel who all death benefits. that is why i have introduced the honoring our fallen t.s.a. officers act which seeks to inequity.s my bill would amen federal law to provide for the eligibility a t.s.a. employee to receive officers death benefits. ande have learned today, the two t.s.a. officers who are here with us today, officers rigsby and spear, and all of the t.s.a. employees who demonstrate bravery every single day in hopes of never having another november 1st incident. gotta forbid that an incident ever happens again, as well as the husband of miss

is with us today. but if another t.s.a. officer the line of duty, i believe that these benefits are important to their families. askwith that, i wanted to mr. pistol, having served in the with t.s.a., what whetheropinion on t.s.a.o. or t.s.a. officers should be afforded the same benefit as the federal part hers countryp to secure this every day? >> well, first, congresswoman, let me thank you for initiating to recognize t.s.a. employees as public safety officers to receive that benefit. obviously would it be a to t.s.a. benefit overall, particularly to the hernandez family. this instance, hopefully it would never be needed again, appreciate your

initiation and support of that that could come to fruition, let are actively, and then be pro-active in terms any future law. >> thank you very much. i certainly would appreciate it and the organization could, and i know you have, ifen a look at the bill, but you could take a deeper look at the bill and provide any withack as we move forward it, i would appreciate it very, very much. i see that my time is almost expired, so i will yield back, mr. chair. >> thank you. recognize theo chairman of the full committee for any closing statement you may have, mr. mccalm. >> thank you, let me just say again to anna, our thoughts and prayers are with you. can never undo what's been done.

make you whole again as much as we possibly can. you. determined to help and to mr. pistole, thanks to the fine job you do, and your officers, under very difficult circumstances, particularly in and chief gannon, the response time your officers lessnding to the threat in than five minutes is to be commended. lindsey, i, miss didn't get to ask you a question, but i did want to close by commending you as well for the model that you've created of cooperation in your command center. it's important that the general public know, be aware of you've done even before this incident, but more so after. the relevanther agencies to work together to like thisvent threats from happening. again, very similar to joint whereism task force model you bring all the relevant players interest the same room,

the videoment, with equipment, so that god forbid something lick this happens to respond be able quickly. and protect the traveling public. bywith that i'll close saying thank you for your leadership, mr. chairman, in holding this hearing. to maxine waters, thanks for hosting us in your fine district, and you're a very lucky woman that the weather is very nice here. better thane washington d.c. right now. thanksin, mr. chairman, for your leadership. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank our witnesses for testimony, and the members for your questions today. working committed to together in a bipartisan way to look at lessons learned to make sure that officer hernandez did die in vain, to do what we can as our responsibility as representatives of the people to go forward and make this country flying public, to aassist the law enforcement, t.s.a. airport administrators

and the toughntry job they do every day. so i thank you for making this possible. i would point out that members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses and i'll ask that you respond to these in writing. but without objection the subcommittee stand adjourned. call. chairman, before you for that, i beg unanimous con to take care of something i cannot take care of. mr. rigsbyized that and mr. spear, the officers who were shot, are here. youi just wanted to thank so very much. and i'm so pleased that you're back towell and you're work. thank you so much. >> yes, ma'am. without objection. adjourned.

>> on the next "washington journal," foreign policy thoburn on tensions and ukraine.a the earth join us. plus the day's news and your and facebook comments, live starting at c-span.. eastern on >> student cam is c-span's annual competition that en currents middle and high school to think krit chicago about issues. the question students were

importantt's the most issue the u.s. congress should 2014?er in demeter is. warned the f.d.a. at the time and this is now 20 years ago, that if they didn't label genetically modified foods, there would be a consumer because against them, consumers would wonder what they were trying to hide. >> have you ever heard of a genetically modified organism? >> no. but i'mnk i've heard, not really sure exactly what it is. >> it's been a long time since for been in college science. >> it's like where they add chemicals to the food or veggies. >> i know they modify the genes to increase the yield or the taste or something else about plant. >> there's been a switch in the d.n.a. structure.

lose your't want to seat. >> we require fast food restaurant to post calorie counts. >> so what happens in 10, 20 years down the road? >> to obtain a better of these g.m.o.'s, i set out to interview experts in the field of and those affected by genetic engineering. my first question, scientifically, how does an organize name become genetically modified? >> a genetically modified organize name is when a gene is organism and put into a different species, typically a bacteria or virus. >> for example, suppliesing the regulatingsible for a winter flounder's body temperature into a tomato would a frost tolerant crop. although humans have selectively forever,ts agribusinesses like monsanto doing it in the 1980's to

maximize farmers' crop yields and scwebtly the global food supply. >> monsanto is a giant. >> they're trying to make products that sell, and people going toucts that are to -- >> roundup is an herb i side farmers spray on crops so the plants will grow, but the weeds will die. easier for these guys, they don't have to be as accurate, roundup takes care of it, for now. >> which using pesticides and convincetechnologist, al farmers have spend less and produce more. cost? what >> the only problem i don't like about monsanto is they come farmers. >> they have these patented seeds, they say farmers can't our seeds for a second round of crops. so you can buy it, harvest it, and then you have to start new every

year. farmers' fields and check, even though they're not supposed to. yeah, we know. >> monsanto has filed suit against farmers who save and or patented seeds, to protect its multimillion dollar in genetic research and development. a group of organic farmers in even prelively sued the biotech giant in fear they would fromed if patented seeds neighboring falser contaminated their fields via wind current. this information affect the average consumer? are most ont modified are tomatoes, corn and.beans, but corn and soy the most common. >> according to the usda, approximately 90% of all corn cotton and 93% of all soybean crops planted in the geneticallys are modified. and despite suggestions of noble intent? >> they are jimly modifying rice

vitamin a deficiency throughout the world. >> there are people starving in we can get them the food they need, i say why not. >> both the safety and of gmo's isvalue inconclusive and highly disputed. >> there's no difference between if you ate all organic or regular food. going to improve your life or health or nothing different, as long as you eat fresh. >> gmo salmon and farmed salmon also produce only one-third of the healthy omega 3's that wild salmon have. nutrient value is down by almost 70%. medical professionals have proposed that the increased positively of gmo's correlates with the 21st rise in allergies, autism, infertility and even some forms of cancer. >> so is it possible that some seeing is related to what we're eating?

the answer is yes, absolutely. claim that the intimacy between agro industry the federal government has created a resolving door of interests at the consumers' expense. private corporations send someone to work in government who is an expert in a certain area, that expert then allows for certain advantages, the advantage of and then moves back and forth between the private sector and the public sector. michael taylor, former vice president for public policy at monsanto, is the current food safety czar at the f.d.a. arethe ultimate question is these genetically modified organisms safe for human consumption? >> you watches in commercials for some drug on tv and then the last 15 to 0 second of the spot is this long list of disclaimers sideng you of all the effects of these drugs. well, if you had to do that with tomato, chances are people wouldn't buy it.

>> there are scientists who will ina study with an end goal mind and they will set up the research to show whatever their outset and i the think there are probably people on both sides doing those kinds of things. think that there needs to be more research done right now. not have conclusive evidence to show that these products are in fact safe for consumption. >> this global uncertainty has prompted more than 60 countries, those in the european union to either restrict or outright ban the sale of gmo's. >> countries around the world have set we don't want this genetically modified food. >> because neither congress nor to mandatehas yet the labeling of g.m. foods, protests, some food companies have pro-actively theired a nongmo seal to products. >> we're going to force on everyonebeling except in the case of gmo foods,

that's a problem because it where government has now decided this case this particular area doesn't have to comply. ourithout transparency from federal government, we are left in the dark. responsible for determining whether or not g.m. bannedhould be labeled, or simply ignored? you decide. >> to watch all the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. and tell us what you think about the issue this student wants congress to consider. post your comment on student cam's facebook page or tweet us. >> the export import bank held a conference in washington d.c. this week. was among the speakers, he's also served as treasury secretary under the administration. this is 40 minutes.

>> in the two or three years since he left the administration he's given his brain to the a public intellectual and whether you free with larry or not, nobody finds him uninteresting, nobody finds what he has to say ungermane. be any think today will exception. askinglet me kick off by a big scene setting kind of globalization. asre 100 years anniversary, many people have remarked, including yourself, of the grit war, then as now a perfect of great global integration and a growth.

we've been seeing though in the last few years something very trade growing at a slower rate than economic growth. we see nationalism, as fred rearing up, in all corners of the world. haven't had a tariff protectionist backlash yet, but we've got people nibbling at the ends of the globalization agenda. my question to you is, is safe?ization >> globalization is going to happening. look, there are going to be more adults with smart phones, there mo smar phones than there are adults on planet earth of this decade. no matter where you are, you're to have essentially all the information that's in the at yourof congress

disposal. you're going to have more ability to communicate with people than a president of the united states with the comows system did 40 years ago. in a world like that, globalization is going to keep happening. true that the manufactured goods this are a trade keep going down in price relative to services which are harder to so that makes the trade share of g.d.p. go down. there's more integration. the storms that exist in some countries because of carbon other countries. risks to the entire financial system and look at the markets hinge on what's happening on the russia-ukraine

border. there's plenty of integration. the question is whether it's going to be successful integration. there were three wars that ended century.th world war i ended, and theres with an attempt to establish a system.al and it failed dismally. people sometimes, some of the most sophisticated andorians treat world war i world war ii as one big conflict truce.long world war ii ended, and with leadership we had the most successful 60 years that has ever known, and we won the cold war. and the threat we thought of communism, that kind of totalitarianism, was seen off. the cold war ended and it

was the third war. would have said a few years clear that the world had met that post war way that was much met thee the way it challenge after the second world war than the way it met the challenge after the first world war. and i still think that's right. question.n much more expansionismt the lookg from russia, if you piece inry chilling northeast asia, if you look at cauldron that is the middle you look at what failed to be at

guarantor of the global system ofnot joining the league vie -- after verdict >> versai will les, by allowing kreup reparations against germany, the country that succeeded in being the guarantor of the global system after the war, underwriting the world bank, the integration.obal if you look at its distressing fatigue with the world, most demonstrate bid a to support aternational organizations, disstressing difficulty in consensus political for trade agreements that integration, a failure

indo what's self evidently the interest of american workers support the xm banks, see, to,there for you, a failure a concern and a desire to ramp back military spending in a our potential adversaries military spending is rapidly. a reluctance to become embroiled in foreign challenges because they are too hard. ultimately, whether we will judged by history to have won the piece after the cold war, as we did after the second world war is in more today than would have

seemed likely five or 10 years ago. the conventional security challenges, the conventional economic integration challenges that i've talked about. it's also the challenge of and globalic goods public bads. moving.d is not on global climate change. it is, i don't know how to it isbe it, but profoundly wrong that at a science becomes year,ore clear, year by the climate change is a critical ofblem, that the fraction american people who believe that climate change is a critical problem has gone down over the last five years. look at what was

agreed inwhat was 1994 with regards to knew here proliferation and ukraine's giving up its nuclear weapons. happening nows and think that the world's nuclear proliferation regime is threatened to a substantial extent. so i think we are at an slowlt critical -- critical juncture, not so to whether globalization there's noue, question about that. what matters in one country will matter for other countries more before before. but before that global successfullyill be managed and whether it is going to be successfully managed by country that can leadershipspire to on a global scale, the only country that maintains a serious

presence with respect to europe, with respect to latin america, with respect to the middle east, asia, and that is the united states. what is very much at the next several years. think theight say, i reaction and the behavior of business the community, like the people in this room, is going to have a weat deal to do with where come down as a country. recognize that, and push and insist that the united states has a great stake in and you as businesses have a great in our success in maintaining leadership of the global system, that is one thing. if you abdicate that responsibility and focus only on the issues that are of narrow immediateic and

concern to your commercial interests, that is a different thing. the united states investment in hundreds. has paid off to one in financial stability crises averted. we are going to spend hundreds millions of dollars as we support it, as we measure it, in guarantee one billion rain.s of loans to you'd -- ukraine. get we cannot at this point the u.s. house of representatives to approve legislation that would enable a measured outlay to support hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly of other people's money, leveraged to financial stability around the world. there's plenty of

insip yenlt volatility. yes, globalization and global integration will continue. whether it will continue successfully depends on the theed states and depends on united states broad commitment to international leadership. and my most important wish is of economicd distress and a certain fatigue, dangerous possibility is that that will cause the turn inward ato a moment when the world has states to beited engaged more than ever before. >> this is a crisis of as well?p >> it a crisis, it's a potential leadership.erican if this were a different kind of

anversation and i were different kind person, we could discuss how much should an tributed to this part of the house and this part of the congress. and so forth. there. going to go but this has its roots in a much attitudes. of this has its roots in what polls say about the united states international engagement. its roots in what issues bring c.e.o.s to much is it their company's parochial issue and it national issues of broader international concern. has its roots in our to begness as a country ultimately strategic about where our national interests are. we surely cannot do everything, surely cannot respond to every outrage, we cannot respond

to everything that is morally problematic. the ability to draw lines in support of a system on which our and our security depends, nothing is more important to our ultimate national interest or if you take a 10 oro-year view but 20-year view, our economic success. possible suggest one explanation for why there is leadership,of world call it what you want. pinkerton has cop out with a bock that looks at growing inequality that talks to the presecond where the, where -- capitalism is

first of all, do you agree with thomas' diagnosis of where we are? you do agree,if what are the impacts of growing america's economic growth prospect as as well ohs climate?ical >> ed pickerrity wrote a great a hugely important piece ofs a monumental scholarship. i can't think of an economic book that has been as galvanizing of the debate in a long time, and certainly not one that's full of tables, and mathematical models. that theproposition share of income and wealth that going to a very small fraction of the population has then precipitously over

those trendion, and continue to be continuing is, i think, complete compelling. i'm not sure i buy his whole hypothesis about patrimonial capitalism and an iron law of market system. capital is that because earns a return greater than the growth rate, the capitalists all ultimately take it over. , to oversimplify. a much more dynamic process. forbes went back and looked, and of those on the forkers 400 in 1982, only 36 were still on the forbes 400 in 2012. much more dynamic tocess and that the way understand increased inequality is to think about how much to be a mark

zuckerberg than it was to make quickly inf fortune the economy of 30 years ago. ishink the way to understand to ask yourself about the greater opportunities to are for good or for ill. in the growing financialization of the economy. on theity's focus is process of capital accumulation. but if you like at what happened to the top 1%, it's much more labor incomes than about their capital incomes. so i think it doesn't have the primary mechanism driving u.s. therefore i am less fatalistic than he is. he basically argues that unless we have some kind of global doomed to thisre kind of inexorable change. rebuild laborcan

if wening arrangement, can find ways of giving workers their firmsare in success, if we can strength strengthen the systems of education and human capital that people for the kinds of going to exist, if system thata tax less hole inse and the swiss cheese, that we can do great deal to address inequality. much more a view that aree are problems that right kindswith the of actions.

think he has quite thoughht theory, even the data he has presented and has given newt he huge, huge and positive accomplishment. you know, i bring, to go to the second part of your question, by the change in the tone of our politics. first political speech i ever listened to and remembered when i was 6 years asked americans not what they could do for -- do what their country could for them, but what they could do for their country. today, we compete to talk about different kinds of middle class that are allts, about what our country can do for people. change? some of it undoubtedly goes to

forces that economists like me can't understand. but some of it goes to the fact john kennedy said that, we had delivered for the over the previous way.ars in a spectacular better schools for their kids, theort for homeowner-for first time in their lives. universalization of employer based health insurance. rapidly rising real wages in median family incomes, and so we could ask them what they were their country. when that's not being delivered harder toit's much theirat they can do for country. bill, all, the g.i. of that was part and parcel of

the marshall plan and bretton woods possible. agenda of international leadership and the agenda of support for the middle class are not opposing political priorities. they're necessary complements to come in tandem with each other. why, as i've said i think the fixation deficit as the central economic issue facing the the last four years has been so dangerous and misguided. i'm worried about deficits. i'm worried that we are bequeathing our children a deferred maintenance deficit massively underinvest in our infrastructure. educationd about an

deficit when the paint is chipping off the walls in 25,000 american schools and kid are getting the signal about how much we do or do not care about their education from that. about the deficit in aientific leadership when at time of unprecedented promise in at a time when the 21st century is going to be sciences,of the life just like the 20th century was a century of the physical sciences, the atomming bomb, semiconductor, the internet, sciences. physical life sciences are going to be like that in the 21st have cut thee country for basic research in the life sciences by 25%. watson when he discovered 26.structure of d.n.a. was

the first, the average age at firstpeople get their grants as scientists now in the life sciences are 42. deficitthat's leaving a behind, too. if we increase the growth rate this economy by one-quarter of one percent, that will fiscal gaphe whole as the c.b.o. estimates it. that be our objective? priorityt where our should be, if we want to make work?ystem are we really going to rebuild confidence in the security for the future that lets people take looking and broad minded view of international problems by having more debates cutting social security benefit, which never, never no you do, get past

$36,000. benefit 20 years from now, should that really be the focus of our national political debate? don't think so. i think the focus of our national political debate should the, by putting people back to work and growing the standards of the middle and that kind of debate ultimately address the deficit down the road, but it build the secure foundation for american leadership in the world at a time when that has never, never been more necessary. line from monty python and try to look on the life. side of there's an energy revolution going on in the united states and there are many people representing companies here that see a big manufacturing coming from the they'll gas revolution and so

forth. what's the potential for general?growth in and manufacturing in particular. from this energy revolution, in your view. >> when you don't achieve because you can't achieve, it's sad. when you don't achieve because you won't achieve, it's tragic. and that's the way to think this. possibility ofhe exporting natural gas, if we open up more fully, if we open exportingsibility of crude oil, if we regulate strongly and soundly but also decisively and quickly, we have to change the

american economy and to change the world. the potential, there is no question, within the next decade, for america to have the the worldfluence in because of its ability to export that saudi arabia has had for the last several decades. means fort what that our influence in the world, think about what that means for our capacity for prosperity. reach. within the geology is there, the fuels have been found. finding ther of will to take the necessary steps. can it conceivably make sense, environmental grounds, in the 21st century

for the mode of transportation and trucks? trains above ground. sense?t possibly make no. but if we're going to move past to be able to build an appropriate kind of flexible pipeline infrastructure, and that means to get past the has been too con city it aing of the economy in our society for too long. has the potential to create jobs in the millions, this has change the geoo political formulation. in yourou noted question, it's not only the energy sector.

we fully export natural gas to our potential, this is going to mean is stillstic energy going to be far cheaper than asia at aeurope or time when, because of what robot doing, the relative importance of energy costs and costs are changing profoundly in manufacturing. is a huge opportunity wills, and the question is we take advantage of it. in u.s.ne who believes competitiveness has to believe that when you've got a massive advantage and the new opportunity, you need to be able to export it. what we've told every other country in the world for the last 50 years, and we need to tell it to ourselves, and that means more permitting for the export of natural fast and

it means moving to permit the of crude oil. >> i don't know whether there time for questions for on the because i haven't got my iphone up here, but a quick from me before we questions.nce years of four or five 2% growth, way lower than you expect coming out of a recession. we've had no median income growth. chronicill got a long-term unemployment problem, an interest rates remain zero. what does it suggest to you, all the good things happening in energy not with standing, what does it suggest to you about america's growth rate? new normal? or are we going to hit, escape the nextsometime in year or two? >> all the good things in energy

could happen, but it depends upon the posture of public policy. do abouts upon what we regulation, it depends on export of allow the oil and natural gas on a full basis, so that is potential. that is not all firmly established. i guess i think to a substantial it's like that more broadly. know, usually basically in all the macro-economics classes taught until i went to washington to work with in 2008, thema idea always was that macro tradeoff.olicy had a you wanted less unemployment, less inflation, so you kneed to hit the accelerator if you wanted to do something about unemployment and needed to hit the brake if you wanted to do something about inflation, so it was a

balancing act. now we have inflation that's below our target, and unemployment that's above our target. so whatever you look at, you the accelerator. i don't think we know what the isential of this economy until we have enough demand for all that we can produce. be, as pessimists fear, declinere has been some in the growth of the economy's potential. but we will not put that proposition to a test as long as we allow there to be substantial unused capacity. substantial unemployment above normal, and enough slack in the economy that we have such low inflation.ing so we may have supply problems, sayi would be the last to confidently that we don't. is demandnow it

rather than supply that is this economy back. and that's why it has been a be slashinge to lastc investments, these years. that's why i'm relieved that the going tois not continue on current projections at the same rate over the next years. but we still don't have an program of renewal in place, and if we want to maximize our potential for the middle class on which and ournges depend, potential for leadership in the we need, a's what serious commitment to renewing this economy. >> just to pick up on the monetary implications of that, we have a third meeting next week. if you assault weapon there's any great newe inion on the political side

the next year oh or two, the onus will continue to be on policy. you talked about the fact that negative interest rates might be ib bring up of the for.economy going what can the central bank do? treasury secretaries have us die hard, so if you understand the rest of the to give, if you think you understood the answer i'm about to give, that will misunderstood what i have said. this is thate of inflation is too low and unemployment is too high. that means the policy bias be towards expansion. the core interest here. it is in my judgment much more

healthy that that come from the side of support for private investments, come from the side exports, support for come from the side of public tryingent, rather than to blow up asset prices, which can do.monetary policy growth inl to support this economy would be to allow people to remain without work and experience suggests that when people have without work for a substantial time they lose their back into work runso it's not just a short cost, but a long-run blight. oni think the emphasis policy needs to be on the side of expansion. >> right. athink we've got time for couple of questions. we've got a lot of hands. sure where the mic

system is, but the lady in the table,second from front and is there a microphone there? charitable soul tell me what the time is? all right, this we and one more relatively brief answer. much.nk you very i pick up from where you just, the statement you just made, the expansion. expansion of growth, expansion expansion of our standards of the free market, i hope. so now the president is asia in the trip looking to secure the t.p.p. and october beijing will be the --, hosting what doyour vision and

you think need to happen for the t.p.p. to be successful so we the expansion of jobs, of markets, and we can level the playing field with the biggest which market in the world is china? i haven't heard you discuss about china, including the currency situation, the inflation, the jobs market, everything that we touched on now. thank you. >> okay. look, i think we've obviously got to watch very carefully what happens in china, we've got to happensrefully what going forward with respect to the currency, we've got to watch happens to barriers to u.s. products. to negotiate a t.p.p. is about fundamental u.s.

economic interests in job in the united states, the specificame of commercial concerns of a variety businesses that have particular commercial issues they are pushing on the agenda, it's got to be anchored in middle class jobs. u.s. jobs, not about it shouldn't be a major u.s. negotiating priority. that's how we should think about negotiating the t.p.p. most important negotiation for the t.p.p. is not going to be the negotiation asia, it'splace in going to be the negotiation that takes place along pennsylvania avenue. hope that we can find the t.p.p. agreement. that's going to be critical for asia.ited states role in

>> a final very quick question. the front table. please. it short, >> that i can do. i was just >> i was interested in what you think the changes in the education system here in the united states needs to take place, in order to achieve this economic growth, are taken only for the middle class, and i am interested in the role of alternative higher education and your opinion on that topic. apprenticeships, vocational education. >> education, i would say a few things. one, the essence of the market system is that providers try to make customers happy and tried to give customers what they need. the emphasis of the communist system is the opposite. for too long, in too much of education, it has been run for

the convenience of the teachers and professors and the schools rather than for the benefit of the students, and we need a fundamental change in attitude on that question. two, we need to make a core decision, very fundamental decision and decision for kindergartens and it is a decision for colleges. do you believe that self-esteem comes from achievement, or do you believe that achievement comes from self-esteem? and i believe that into much of the united states we have embraced the latter philosophy to our great peril. if you look at tests around the world, americans rank terribly in their capacity to do mathematics. if you look at comparisons on the question, are you good at

math, we think we are number one. [laughter] you laugh, but it is a serious deal, and we need to change in that philosophy. and, third, we need to focus on the whole of the population. where we do worst in this country is with those who are not headed towards our leading colleges, which are the best in the world, but those who need a practical, useful kind of vocational training, and we need to renew and revamp our systems in that regard. but we need to do it in a way that recognizes that it is a

very different economy that we are headed into, and that is not about preparing people for the jobs we wished existed, like the ones that existed in the 1980's, but it is about preparing people for the kinds of jobs that are going to exist going forward. and there are jobs like that. i mean, just to say one last thing, i talked about the potential for energy, and i think what i talked about in terms of the various regulatory questions and the ability to export is the most important barrier towards are fulfilling that vision. the shortage of people who can weld on the gulf coast is also an important barrier as well, and we are not investing in preparing and training those people, and if we were, we would have a lower unemployment rate,

we would have a stronger middle class, and we have more exports and a stronger economy. john kennedy said -- and it is this thought -- he said that man's problems were made by man. that is true of every problem we have discussed here this morning. he said also, it follows that they can be solved by man. and that is true, too. and it is also true and i'm sorry we did not get a chance to talk more about it, that for all the concerns and challenges that i have talked about, if you think about the capacity to produce the elon musks of this world, if you think about the energy resources, if you think about that kind of concern with the future of public policy that

the thousand people in this room represent, for all our challenges, having spent the last three years since i left government traveling around our -- around the world, i would rather have the challenges and the opportunities that the united states faces than those of any other country in this world. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> getting the microphones on the right place. good morning, everyone. i heard you had very good sessions already. i got to hear a little bit about what john stump said. i am going to get right to the panel. but i want to set the stage by talking about the role trade has played in the obama administration pots economic policy so far and what we anticipate happening with the trade agenda during the rest of the term. our economic growth since 2009 can be attributed to exports alone. that is not an obstruction. that means more money in peoples pockets, more jobs. everyone billion dollars in goods exported from the u.s. supports an estimated 5000 american jobs. every $1 billion in service

export supports 4000 jobs. supportedu.s. exports 11 point 3 million jobs across the united states. for my perspective, that is huge. now we are in the throes of negotiating two major trade deals with our partners in europe and asia. thisdent obama is in asia week stopping in japan, south korea, malaysia, and the philippines. yesterday in japan president obama and prime minister abe voiced their commitment to create an economic cooperation zone in the pacific befitting the 21st century by continuing negotiation on the transpacific partnership agreement. president obama said yesterday as he has many times that the opportunity toan make trade fair and transparent and create good jobs for american workers to ensure producers of commodities, services, and manufactured goods can access international theets, and particularly

fastest growing markets in the world to protect intellectual property. i think, as i mentioned, as john stump said, that does not mean that we need an agreement that is only good for business. we need an agreement that is good for american workers and supports good paying jobs at home while protecting workers rights in the environment around the world. united states and japan are committed to taking the bold steps necessary to come fleet a high standard, comprehensive agreement. after working around the clock,while the president was in japan, we had something of a breakthrough on market access issues. identify a path forward on important bilateral tpp issues. i think that marks a milestone in the negotiations. and will inject fresh momentum into the broader talks. we now call upon all of the tpp partners to move the soonest possible to take necessary steps to conclude an agreement.

penny pritzker, our secretary of commerce, has been working hard to make sure that agreement comes into being. lay the great work and the united states and work with our trading partners in the pacific region to get a good result. maybe i, many i -- would start with you to ask you how uss negotiations at this stage and the importance of getting this agreement finalized and then ratified in congress. >> as he said, the tpp agreement is foundational for our economic growth policy. it is one of the most important things we are undertaking. ourreason is, which is, exports are directly related to a piece of our job growth agenda. the we're doing withh national export initiative as well as these agreements is to

really focus on helping american companies export more. million jobs in america are supported by exports the state of the tpp agreement, which is so important because tpp countries represent 40% of the world's gdp. job, ifirst took this spoke with about, with hundreds of ceo's. since i have been in this job, the past 10 months, i've spoken with over 1000. the number one thing they bring up is give us more trade agreements, whether it is the bicycle manufacturer in oregon or the fortune 100 company that has already has a global footprint, they are looking for eleater access and a lev playing field to be able to take their products around the world, but also our supply chains have become so integrated. that is extremely important that

we have these agreements in place. is state of negotiations continuing to progress. and i am sure that ambassador froman and the president are making good progress as they meet with a couple of the tpp per disciplines. as i said in the past, i have enormous confidence in their negotiating capability. the department of commerce place a role in negotiating some of those chapters. in coordination under the leadership of ambassador froman. as you can imagine, all of you are business people in this room, negotiations between two obligated, let alone between 12. this is one that is a process, but we continue to make progress. and i spoke with the ambassador right before he left. he understood what he was trying to accomplish on this trip. and was hopeful. >> great.

tom, maybe i will turn to you. we are not only negotiating and asia. we are negotiating in europe as well. maybe just start off with, from an agricultural perspective, specifically, we will get to rural america and the minute, but where are the opportunities, where are the big market access opportunities in these negotiations going on right now? >> five of the last six years have been the best record- setting years for agricultural trade in the history of the country. we want to continue that. the tpp is vital. it would open up hundreds of millions of new customers for american agricultural products and food products. we've enjoyed a trade surplus in agriculture for the last 50 years and that surplus continues to grow. so this is a very important agreement but it has to be a good, solid agreement which means that market access has to be far more open, particularly in japan and canada in terms of certain goods. that is what has made this

negotiation a bit more difficult but hopefully, with the conversations this week that we are getting to a better place in terms of market access. that is the hope. in terms of the european union, that is one of our five top trading partners and ag products today. the reality is after you get through china and canada and japan, korea,u, indonesia. you can see the importance of these trade discussions. the eu is a little bit more difficult because it is not just about market access. it is really more about some of the regulations that are very, very difficult. the europeans continue to focus on geographic indicators, which is a problem for us. you know, as penny suggested, hsn't it -- it is a toug negotiation. hopefully folks understand at the end of the day, free and fair trade with solid, high standard agreement is better for all parties and it's a job

creator. our ag export support one million jobs at home. we are very focused on making sure we continue to access trade. we have a series of program at usta to encourage market access. we will continue to work hard. >> ernie, let me bring you into the conversation. ustr has been very busy negotiating an agreement through tariffs oneliminate environmental goods. how important is that to united states both in terms of making sure that we have the ability to import technology at low levels, that also what does it mean for export markets to produce high tech energy technology that can be exported tariff free? >> it is critically important. i put it in the context that we need a clean energy transformation in this country and elsewhere. as we develop our domestic

market, that will of course provide a foundation for exports as well. to give you a scale, i mean this will be a multi-decade transformation. the markets are forming now, but the estimate is that if you look years, and you expect about half a percent of gdp invested into energy technologies, that's an average of $1 trillion a year. that is a lot of money. so we want to be, obviously, at the head of that train. with our technologies. i think we are making enormous progress. you take something like silver. or let's say wind. in the last seven or eight years, we have gone by building a market here, we have gone from 70% of the supply

chain for wind turbines is now to mystically manufactured. that gives us a platform again now for an export market. solar we have a similar issue. last year we went up to over 4000 megawatts. jobse have almost 150,000 there. great foundation for exports. i will make one other comment. one of the ways we are engaged trade agenda is through our technical assistance to other countries and to our own institutions. using solarim bank laboratories. our they've supported a quarter of a billion dollars of solar exports. that is just an example of the way we engage. one of the things had in the has been vexing politics of the trade, we have a

position on the left and the right, may be increasing on the this, and there's been constant interplay between tpa and tppa and ttip. the trade promotion authority that is necessary to get congress in essence to enact those bills is hard to get without seeing what the deal is, and it is hard to close the deal without having the authority to make sure the congress will consider it on and up or down vote. thatw do you assess how problem gets managed over the course of the next couple of months as we are trying to close tpp? you've pointed out exactly the challenge that i hear when i talk to both the senators and congressmen on the hill, which is, they want to know more about what is in the deal before they are going to

give trade promotion authority, trade promotion authority is a necessary precursor to getting either of the, deals approved. there is a chicken and egg aspect to it. but i think we are making progress in terms of trying to explain what are the fundamental aspects that are already negotiated in the tpp deal in terms of whether it is around labor or around various market access? and what are the values that are in these agreements that are expressed in these agreements so that trade can be both free but also fair? will createit prosperity in allthe the countries as opposed to be a win-lose. and that is the political challenge. going,ve that we are

that the negotiations for the deal that the parties involved understand the politics, because every one of these countries has their own politics that are being brought to bear in these grievance -- these agreements. iss is our own, and there's theirs, but everyone understands there is politics. i'm confident we're going to get there. at the end of the day, the argument for trade agreements is extremely important. if we don't set the rules for trade in a significant part of the world, then our competitors are going to do that. and you are not going to have the kind of level playing field, nor are you going to have the kind of standards that you want to have around labor and other things that are important, environment, which are important to our values as we trade globally.

so i think at the end of the day, while the political winds will blow in different directions, there is a recognition of how important this is from an economic aint going forward, fomrom austerity standpoint for the frankly a national security standpoint, the more we trade around the world, the less likely it is we are going to have significant differences. , having think that spent 27 years in the private sector and negotiating a lot of deals, the ups and downs and the political winds going back and forth, when the rubber hits the road we are going to get the. >> to emphasize what she said, the reality is this is is not a static circumstance. is not like the whole world is waiting for us to finish tpp or conclude it. the reality is the europeans are bilateral basis

entering into agreements which makes it much more difficult for us to get the deal that we ought to have and we need. important for us to accelerate the process and it is absolutely correct that without trade promotion authority it, it is difficult to assure the person across the table that the deal that you are about ready to make is the deal we can keep. so it is a chicken-egg issue. people understand, we have to move forward quickly because the rest of the world is not waiting. >> in asia, you have the dynamic of the -- this group setting high standards or an alternative group of countries probably led by china dealing with issues like enterprises and other questions that are subject to this matter being the standards we have set and a lower level. is that compelling politically when you make those arguments, your friends on capitol hill? you are up there all the time. the core of support for pro

trade was in rural america, probably because of the connection between agricultural exports. do you feel like it's still there? thet is, because it is trade that basically stabilizes prices and it is the trade that also encourages and supports jobs. so i think there is an understanding and appreciation. i think congress wants to know more, and they want to be kept up to date with the negotiations. froman hasassador done a good job to say, look, we're going to tell you. it is not something that is being done behind closed doors. i think the more they are comfortable with that notion that they are in the process, that is not going to be a fate accomplish, the easier it will be for people to ultimately get to passing trade promotion authority. >> john, i think it is extremely

important that the business community helps make the case and each and every district around the country. those of you in this room, you export. you are here because of -- this is what you do. ourmaking it real for political leaders to understand ow that market access your you grow your business and your employment base in the united states is something that is extremely important to illustrate. one of the things we have been trying to do is to gather stories so we can make it real. that is what i hear from a number of members, particularly in the house. let me understand how businesses in my district are benefiting from this agreement. that is a big task for us to try and figure out for each one. but there are folks in this room that can help us do that.

and they want to be able to to,e those stories frankly, there is a lot of misinformation out there about exporting and about trade. we have cities in this country where 100% of their groceries since 2009 has come from exports. kansas city being one of them. to me, we need to get -- these are the stories we need to bring to life in order that there is why weh murkiness around are pursuing these agreements. we pursue these agreements as we think it will help economic growth in the united states. morning, earlier this larry summers was here and sounded from what he heard that he probably wanted your job. but he -- >> he is very talented. was arguing for more

exports of natural gas. i guess i want to ask you a two-part question which is, what is the strategy on providing licenses for exporting natural gas, which is an abundant supply in the u.s.? and secondly, what is the opportunity for companies that, to export goods and services in the natural gas field in areas around the world that can exploit through fracking technology and to exploit the shales that are available around the world? i think american companies are the leader in that. >> first of all, on the process isue for exports, because it relevant to this discussion around the negotiations going on,, by law, we make a public interest determination for trades to non-free

agreement countries. for free trade agreement countries, the approval is third cover a and ttip will very large market for natural gas. we are awaiting the outcome of that. now, moving forward, as i have said, we do a public interest determination. that requires balancing a number of factors. including impact on domestic many of for example, as you know. the manufacturing industry in the united states, many of them are urging caution. producers would like additional markets. so we balance that. and bluntly -- >> because they want to keep the price of gas low here. >> they feel that would not see

major price excursions jeopardizing major investments that are investing in new capacity. there has been somewhere north invested in new manufacturing capacity in the united states because of the natural gas revolution. there is quite a bit at stake on both sides. current geopolitical situation that we know is playing out right now in europe, license, kindlast of elevated the role of geopolitics as a factor in the public interest determination. and we will continue to do so. ofo want to end this part the response by noting that if lnglook at the volumes of that we have approved or conditionally approved, 9.3

billion cubic feet per day from , that is very nearly the amount that is exported today by qatar. i do want to emphasize what has already been approved is very substantial in volume. in regard to your second question, no doubt about it. american companies, but also, of course international companies that operate in the united states is essentially where all of the experience lies today in terms of major production from shales. they are very active, american companies. ron, the majors, exon, chev but also the major independents are extremely active in shales around the world, bringing their, applying their knowledge to those shales. some of those shales have proved to be more difficult than was

anticipated. but nevertheless, i think we will see a lot of production. that itself will change the geography of supply and ha vve a major impact on global markets. >> you are currently in conversations with your european colleagues, ng-7 colleagues, have the resistance to exploiting those shales been reduced as a result of concerns about the certainty of russian supply? >> well, just to clarify, we will have a meeting of g-7 energy ministers in rome week after next as called for by the g-7 leaders. the subject is energy security. we have been having some phone conversations. and i think i would say cautiously there may be an openness to re-examining the fracking issue. we do want to emphasize, of course, different countries have very different views on this.

motionain, there is a of going forward. whereas in france and bulgaria, their into a pause. interny, you lead the agency process on the national export initiative. i wonder whether you would assess where we stand today with a major commitment of the administration to move exports forward here. what's your assessment of both work that isncy going on and how we do in terms of supporting the business community to meet those strong targets the president set? >> we have made a lot of progress. we are exporting a record amount of $2.3 trillion of goods and services, but we need to continue the growth. and so what we've done in the inter agency process and will be coming public in the next 30, 45 iteration of next

where we want to take the national export initiative. let me highlight a couple of things about the export initiative. 95% of customers are outside of the united states. and american business needs to integrate that into its thinking every day, whether you are a small, medium, or large size business. we not only have a huge domestic market to address but we have a huge global market to address. one of the objectives we have is to make this exporting part of the dna of american business. few businesses exporting and far too few businesses exporting. do, 60%, or only to one country. our objective is to get or companies are exporting to multiple countries. why do we want to do this? it is good for america and american job growth. so we are very focused at the

department of commerce on this. i'm sure many of you are aware, but i will just reiterate, put in a plug for our efforts. we have u.s. >> port assistance centers. they exist in 100 different markets in the united states. our job is to work with you and your peers to help you find markets where your good ans and services are competitive. in country we have foreign commercial services officers to help you meet partners are retailers or help you overcome regulatory hurdles so that you can get your products to market. we partner very closely, i will put in a plug for the ex-im bank, they are very important partner for many companies, not just large companies. we work very closely with companies like drycorp, which is waterproofing company that took whatusiness and now 70% of

they do is exporting because of the partnership created between the north carolina department of commerce, the u.s. department of commerce and ex-im. they are now in 40 countries, which they were not. or bio human addicts which is another company that's in the ag products business. today, 70% of their revenue is from exports. they have grown jobs in america because of exports. export initiative is to have more and more companies like that that are not only bringing their products to market in the united states but doing it around the world. ex-im is an important partner for financing. so, obviously, the administration supports reauthorization of ex-im, but we at the department of commerce see every day how critical that is thrust to help our companies get their products into foreign our companieshelp

get their products into foreign markets. >> you have put a big emphasis on smaller, rural businesses, manufacturing, etc. i know you work with ex-im, too. what is the opportunity going forward? >> one of the great things about ex-im is a willingness to go out of small towns and explain to small manufacturers, food processing companies that this business of exports does not have to be complicated. it does not have to be something you would have to be something you would have to be a fortune 500 company to be able to do. do try to focus on reducing barriers. if you are a small company, you are probably. worried about when you would get paid if you do not get paid, how do you go about collecting money from somebody in vietnam? ex-im basically has an insurance policy you can have is a small business. they would accept the risk of nonpayment. those kinds of programs are important, which is why the team up with the commerce department forums.m to do these

penny suggested we do more of these forms in rural areas. we will have one in june in pennsylvania. exporting opportunities for rural companies. it will give us a chance at usta to talk about the programs we have. we can expense the cost of the trade show for a small business. we have done 2500 small businesses. it is held every single year to the usta programs. we are good partner. we have loan guarantee programs that help credit guarantee programs, similar to what ex-im does. we go first. if we cannot get the deal done, they come in after. it is a strong partnership. to me, the message is it does not have to be complicated. every business can take advantage of an export opportunity. >> john, maia at a little bit to the word tradeshow? -- may i add a little bit to the

word tradeshow? in addition to planning joint important trade missions, i want to put a plug in that june 3 and 4, we will be cohosting in ethiopia a u.s.-africa energy ministerial. it is going to draw upon leaders from across the continent, energy leaders. what i want to emphasize is a very important part of this meeting is business. so we will have an expo. we want to have as many american companies and african companies in the energy business there. network and i want to make it clear, you are all invited to take part in this expo. june 3, 4. >> let me add on to that. there are also trade missions. opportunity to travel overseas. we are adding a trade mission in china this bring for the first time ever. our biofue industry will be

invited to open upl export opportunities i n terms of bio fuels. we will be going to malaysia and thailand in the fall. an opportunity for business leaders here to travel to these countries and make the sale and make the pitch. >> biofuels will be part of the africa meeting. >> just to support these efforts, our foreign commercial service offices, which are the folks in those countries, are there to service you and your businesses as you come to the country to help you, as i said, access to markets, find partners, find retailers, overcome regulatory hurdles. that is what we do. we are just opening five new offices in angola, ethiopia, both in the -- mozambique, tanzania, and burma. we are expanding our offices throughout asia as part of the

president having us to continue to refocus and rebalance our efforts towards asia. here trying out to help promote business doing more exports. that is a big part of what the trade promotion inter agency effort does. as i think people can tell, there is an enormous amount of cooperation that goes on between our various departments. we work hand in glvoe. ove. >> one of the most important development initiatives is power africa. that is thought of as our ability to shape strategies that get the investment in africa going to provide energy to the citizens of africa, which i think is part of what you'll be talking about in ethiopia, ernie. but how do you see the mix of energy developing in africa fossil hydro, renewable?

there are a lot of places in africa that are pretty remote. what is your sense of what the likely strategy that countries are likely to pursue their? >> first of all, let me say on power africa, that was a major deliverable of the president last year in africa. and it is starting with six countries, ethiopia is one of those six countries. but i can tell you in our preparation for the summit, there is an awful lot of other countries who want to be part of power africa. in terms of how the energy and for structured will evolve there, first on the power africa side i should say that it's very important in africa to be looking at grid solutions, mini-grid solutions and off grid solutions. they all have their role, but we do so in looking to a future where there are many more energy

services in africa. a major focus here will be a lot of interest in using their natural gas resources more effectively. than is the case today.a nd renewables will be a major focus. we will also be looking at hybrid systems in terms of gas renewable systems. all be on the table for the electricity side, but as i mentioned earlier, and i should say as well that we collaborate specifically in biofuels on the the transportation side we will also look at the enormous biofuel potential in africa. accounts, just the price of diesel was a huge -- >> enormous. ability ton the spend money on education, health care, etc. >> this is where in the rural

context, burning in renewables, the cost competition is very different when you think about what they pay to bring diesel fuel over long distances. from indiacolleague who has been very engaged in bringing renewables, especially in rural settings, once made a statement i have repeated many times. , thisd that solar energy was a long time ago. solar energy is too expensive for the rich but very affordable for the poor, because it allowed a new service to come in and small and modular. i want to emphasize we are making solar also very affordable for the rich as well as the poor as costs come down. >> penny-- >> i'm sorry. i had one more thing.

in terms of how we are trying to help develop our domestic market, get our technology our first movers out there. one example is in our loan program. we kicked off the large-scale solar-thermal business here. it's resource intensive. bank wouldere ex-im play a major role, but this is a terrific technology for certain parts of the world, especially as it brings in storage and can be implemented at utility scale. dedicated a 400 megawatt plant at the nevada-california border. >> so north africa -- >> north africa. and the company in that case is in active discussions in that part of the world in terms of this technology being exported. bute are out of time, you and i have been working on a report that will go to the

present next week on big data and privacy. i wonder whether maybe just take a minute to assess our interactions now with the european union on the question of how, whether we are under discussion of amending and adjusting safe harbor provision to protect the privacy of data both sides of the atlantic. >> the european union is looking to make sure we've taken privacy seriously enough. they want to see that the united to, inis taking actions the context of all that is happened over the last 12 months as well as in the context of there being the phenomenon of big data. and the fact that we have ubiquitous data collection everywhere. i guess that is redundant what i just said. the processeu is in

of working with our team to look harbors, to see if we can come to an adjustment of the safe harbor or safe harbor reform that acknowledges how things have evolved over time and how collection has default over time. i think that it's a work in progress. we are making progress on a number of fronts. whichxtremely important, obviously we are doing, that they understand how seriously we take the obligations to protect our values around privacy. off thee need to get stage but i want to throw you one curveball question, which is, as you encounter your counterparts around the world, other countries trying to do what you are all trying to do, which is to help americans exceed, if there was one practice that you see out there that other people are doing that

you wish we could do and had the to do or we should be doing more of, what would it be? >> let me start. sense, traveling to brazil working with them on biotechnology and the need to get regulatory approvals through processes more quickly, brazil i think has recently been very much involved in streamlining their system. we have as well. i think that is something we could continue to do a better job at. frankly, on the flip side of your question, my hope would be that china would also work with us to synchronize the regulatory process so that we would be able to get biotechnology opportunities, not just working here in this country but also working in china would make it easier for us to export our goods and commodities. so i think regulatory

streamlining. >> in the the energy area, just focus on what can be difficult for our companies our extremely capital-intensive projects -- nuclear power plants, for example. while i think we are making progress there, but there are other countries, for example russia, was fundamentally builds the plant with a purchase power agreement with a country. and makes a turnkey plant. that is not something that really is feasible for our companies. especiallynd partly, in the current context with that particular country, i think other countries do see other values that we bring to the table in terms of training and services, etc. an asymmetry in funding that can be difficult. clark's that that does undergird

why it is important to keep programs like ex-im authorized and maybe even increased opec as well. >> absolutely. >> i will just underscore something that i think is an assumption in everyone's answer here, which is we live in a competitive world. and in order to compete, we need as many tools as possible. at the same time, we need to uphold our avlues -- values and our laws, which we take seriously. having a tool like ex-im is extremely important. the idea that we would have to struggle with the idea of renewal and we create that kind of uncertainty creates a real problem for a growth of american businesses and their endeavor to export. they need to know this is tool,ble to them as a whether it is in energy,

manufacturing, whatever. regardless of the size of business. as we focus on smaller and medium-sized businesses and helping them through the national export initiative, and the ex-im bank has been so creative in taking about how to finance in the health-care care field, and field other than what everyone just assumes -- large products like airplanes. they have really done a great job. but we need that to be something that is reliable so that if i'm making the investments to grow my business in terms of going out and getting the contracts, i know i can get financed. >> well, if you agree with that last statement, please let your congressman and senator know that. please join me in thanking these great leaders. thank you. >> on the next " washington

thoburn onannah changes between russia and ukraine. friends of the earth erich pica and cindy schild join us. plus, the day's news and your calls and tweets and facebook comments. live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. next, supreme court transparency. a discussion with reporters, former law clerks and scholars. panelist focus on policy changes the court could make in the future. this panel as part of sunshine week, a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. from new york university, this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> thank you for coming.

my name is tony morrow and i am on the steering committee of the reporters committee for freedom of the press, which is co-sponsoring this. and i want to thank n.y.u. also for sponsoring this event. i have also covered the supreme court for 34 years and have been immersed in these issues for pretty much all of that time. this is the second discussion we have had on the subject of transparency at the supreme court. the last one was a few months ago. the theme then and now really is that transparency in the case of the supreme court is about way more than just allowing cameras in the court. of course, that is very much on our wish list. we will see these other issues related to transparency develop even more this morning than over the last event.

we have a terrific panel to discuss these issues, led by dahlia, it's my great pleasure to introduce her. she's also on the steering committee of the reporters committee for freedom of the press. another panelist sonny west used to be an intern at this reporters committee. dahlia covers the courts since before the turn of the century. when she arrived on the beat and ever since she's been a breath of fresh air bringing tremendous insight as well as a touch of humor to covering the supreme court beat. when she writes about a supreme court argument, you almost don't need cameras. emphasis on almost because her writing is so vivid. before i turn it over to dahlia, i want to mention if you would like to give the supreme court a piece of your mind on these issues there's the scotus booth of truth upstairs where you can

tape a brief video with your views on these issues. i will turn it over to dahlia. >> thank you, tony. i want to redouble tony's thanks to the various sponsors and to n.y.u. for this absolutely gorgeous venue. and you all probably know that last fall for the first time in history some advocacy groups knocked a camera into oral argument for the first time ever we got to see live video of oral argument, which actually looked more like a sighting of the loch ness monster. it was awfully blurry and confused. but america went kind of crazy and people were interested in it, reminded -- especially those of us who go back and forth to the court and get to be in those arguments, the extent of which the branch that is meant to be

the most transparent and open and everything that you need to know about the courts working is contained in the four corners of the opinion is actually completely unknown and unknowable to 99.9% of the american public who were glimpsing for the first time blurry judicial shoulders and getting very excited about it. so we're here to talk about transparency. not just cameras but all of the aspects of transparency. but i want to 0 just open by saying that transparency means not just that we can't see the workings of oral argument. but it means we also can't hear the workings of oral argument until the court releases audio on fridays. we can't readily access their website when we on the day the

health care cases came down tried to access their website, it crashed. the best source of getting information about the court is not, in fact, the court's website. it's other websites. we don't know the justices' speaking schedules. we don't get copies of their speeches. it's very difficult to get their financial disclosures. don't get me started on their papers. so this branch that's supposed to be open and one of three coequal transparent branches of government is awfully hard to get into. and so that's what we're here to do today. and we thought in lew of me -- in lieu of me reeling off introductions of panelists who are amazing each in their own right, i'm going to ask each of them to just introduce themselves to you and tell you for half a minute who they are, why they have skin in this game. then i want them to answer a question that is completely open ended because that's the kind of hipsters we are. and the question is going to be, what does transparency at the supreme court mean to you? we will start right here with willie and go down the line. just ten seconds on who you are and why this is an issue that's

important. and if you would sort of develop an idea about what transparency means to you. >> sure, thank you, dahlia, very much. it's a real pleasure to be here. i'm a partner at the partner goodwin proctor here in d.c. why am i here? i'm here because i'm a lawyer who briefs and argues cases before the supreme court. i used to work for the justice department and now i'm in private practice. much of work -- my work is before the supreme court as well. what does transparency mean to me? as lawyer and advocate, it's not about the cameras, it's not about the papers, it's not about the speeches and certainly not about financial disclosures. it's about the decision of cases, which after all is the justices' a number one job, to decide cases. when they decide cases, what do they decide and what do they decide them based on? those are kind of transparency things that get me up in the morning.

because the courts will often say we're a transparent branch because everything is public. the briefs are public. they're on a website, not the court's website. the oral argument is public. it's transcribed easily, peruseable on the court's website and so on. does the court limit itself to what's in the briefs or not? and i think one striking example of that is through buried in justice kennedy's juvenile life without parole opinion from a couple years ago where he was developing some statistics about how many young offenders were incarcerated for interment life without parole. you see in that opinion very unusual citations including letter to supreme court library from federal bureau of prisons. letter to supreme court library from i think district of columbia, department of corrections. basically the justices had asked other parts of the federal and

municipal d.c. government to do research for them and provide that information, secretly, not copied to the parties and i'm not revealing inside information because i don't have any but the solicitor general did not participate in that case. it may have been a surprise the attorney general, slit iter general the bureau of prisons report that the bureau of prisons was opining or providing factions on this fairly complicated and nuanced issue. i think it was a surprise as well. so when you're standing in the court, you speak your piece, sit down and chief justice says the case is submitted. the briefing is all done. oral argument is all done. then researching begins so the transparency concern i have is justices of on view that as the

beginning and not the end of the fact at law and science gathering process. justice breyer i think is also fond of citing social science and other secondary literature in his opinion. in most cases none of which is cited by the parties, his own research. that's how he decides cases. he finds it useful. how do you respond to citations and convince hem not to rely on them because you have not seen them until they appear in his opinion? >> hi, i'm clay johnson. i'm the c.e.o. of a company called department of better technology. i'm a former presidential innovation fellow. used to be director of sunlight lab at the sunlight foundation and before that founder of blue state digital. we made barackobama.com in 2008 and a bunch of other things. i guess i'm here to present the technical aspect as you can tell by my lack of tie. what does transparency mean to me in terms of the supreme court.

i think it means three things in descending order of primplete first thing is means to me is education. there are no other fields in the world i can think of where the players at the top of their game are obfuscated from public view. imagine if you will, we took every beautiful skyscraper and wrap td in a cardboard box before you could see it, or the scores to the super bowl were the only thing you saw from the big game. and this has an adverse effect i think on people who aspire to these jobs or to aspire in the legal profession not to be able to watch people who are at the top of their game deliberate before the court and argue before the court. i think that that's a remarkable law. the second thing is history. transparency means history to me.

we're doing a great disservice to the dignity of the court to make bush v gore or citizens united are captured in low resolution audio files and that's it. and moreover, because of various technical things, oftentimes webpages are cited and arguments all of the time but someone did a study more recently that said, about 30% or so of all of the links cited in these arguments are now gone. so we're not taking that sort of technical step of archiving the context of these decisions at all and as we further rely on technology, especially the web in order to do that, this level of context being removed seems to be a great disservice to our children and to the people that are going to come after us. and finally, it's about accountability. i don't find that argument to be the biggest and most important one.