american people and their families. >> is this job what you expected it to be? >> i never -- this is not a job that i don't think people who have observed me would think this is something i want to do. i don't actually consider myself somebody who thinks politics and republican /democrat stuff 24 hours a day. i want this place to work. i want america to be a better place. and this was the way i thought i could contribute first personally in the sense here's what i campaigned on and said i was going to do and i come here and can't do it. so i fix that problem. i want to live up to my word. but more importantly than me is this makes the country a better place and a brighter future. and i think that's what public service want to do. this job itself, there is a challenge. it's been great to see candidates across the country. many of them who just decided they want to make a difference. so there's been some great rewards.

there's nothing that comes from this job for me when it's done i hope we've made a difference and i hope the country is better off. >> senator jerry moran, senator from kansas. thank you for being with us. >> the centers for disease control will hold a briefing later today to provide an update into the investigation of the first ebola case diagnosed in the u.s. expected to begin at noon eastern and we'll have live coverage here at c-span. republican national committee chair recently talked about republican principles at a forum hosted by george washington university. he also discussed what the party could do to win more voters. this is 25 minutes.

you. thank >> you bet! you bet! >> thank you for having me. it's a great setting. great opportunity. much appreciated. >> we're just thrilled that you chose to come here and discuss principles of the rnc and we're excited to get into some questions. >> good. have been which brought to us by our students. them'm sure you will find interesting. so the first one i really want about, which our students talk about a lot, is actually that in the 2012 election, obama's campaign had two million volunteers, 300 digitalorking in the world, and in fact -- >> don't remind me. >> yes! know, one of the things you discussed in your audit is sort republicans to catch up on digital. and the question that i have for you is, after this election, whether you win the majority or how are you going to

measure whether or not you've actually achieved something? because electoral success may or may not be attributable to the digital. >> there's so many paints you're making -- points you're making here. just sheer horsepower on the ground. the digital and data really gets, which to the heart of who you're going to target and whether you know people,essage to those and then number 3, if you're making these improvements and so're claiming that you're much better, how can you actually prove it as opposed to just saying, well, it was a good midterm election, the wind was at your back, of course you were going to win these states. >> exactly. >> how do you connect that? i think those are great questions. heart,really goes to the by the way, of what the rnc has to do. i mean, one of the things -- do mind if i just take a few minutes? >> no. fine. a we had to stop being national party that decided that it was okay to show up once years, five months before an election.

trailerecome a u-haul of cash for a presidential nominee. that is a loser strategy. meantime, four years previously, the democrats hired ten people every ten blocks, in cleveland, in south florida, wherever they needed to be, and each one of their volunteers had names on the piece of paper. and they were going to get to know those people. >> yes. >> what the digital and data effort does is it allows us to what types of people and who do we think we need to polls.t to the everything about all of you, what you buy and don't buy, what magazines you subscribe to, what car do you drive, how many money make, how many kids do you have. fromanalytics can tell me, a scale of zero to 100, what's your propensity to support our candidate? so if i'm in iowa and i want to make sure that i get -- let's 100,000 absentee

ballots in the door over the next two weeks, well, i need to 100,000 people do i absentee ballot request forms to? you a clue.gives that's important and it's something that i think we've made tremendous improvements on the rnc. u-haulyou're just a trailer of cash and hand it off to the presidential nominee and you're not building and building building or your participating in a traveling obama is building a $100 million data youastructure -- right -- have to be a national party obsessed over the mechanics, ground game, a over the data game. when i walked into the door of the rnc, obviously we had to build from scach. i think we've -- from scratch. i think we've made some big improvements. the last point. well, how do you tell, although the narrative is you're making these improvements, how

do you tell that it's because of made theovements that difference? we're working on a project right now to help us measure that so in and say, okay, you have a full-blown field wards,on in these 100 you're doing voter engagements, data work, facebook connections, the tools and the platforms are, you'll full bore in these 100 wards. >> these two, there's nothing going on. test the voter outcomes in different wards, in different demographics, based on a control group and based on all the things you're doing in order doing whether what you're and saying and selling is actually working. employed methods and ways to do that through the midterm. one last thing. we also have become a midterm party that doesn't lose and a party that doesn't win. and that's because voter engagements -- my opinion -- i

believe voter engagement, engagement, on the ground work, is a-1. and it's even more important in a presidential. state of wisconsin. the republican party wins by everything you can imagine, from board to governorrer. we haven't elected a republican 1984.ent there since there's something that goes on in presidential elections that we have to get our act together what we'ret's working to do. >> okay. well, thanks for that. turn to another piece of what was in the gop sort of internal audit. referred to it as the autopsy. >> well, the media did. we call it the growth and report.ity but -- we're not dead. [laughter] autopsy.hings have an >> but it was -- one of the things you addressed in there outreach to women and the need to encourage more women think for office and

about elected politics. we're heading into a where itial cycle looks as though the office of party, the democrats, are likely to nominate the first woman of a major party. so my question to you is, you have some women, state elected officials, what have you done to them?out to >> the odd thing is she doesn't pull very well, as well as you think with women. but first of all, i think, number 1, we've done a very good of electing women to congress and to the senate. thee got leaders all over country. i mentioned suzanna martinez, haley, indian-american governor in south carolina. i think sometimes we do really a bad jobagging -- bragging about it. as far as like putting obviously party up, on our the news on sunday morning, making sure that we're placing people better. we've improved on that a

lot. making sure that, in our case, something that you might not as far ast initially, recruiting women in politics, is candidates much the but doing a better job of training women to run campaigns, campaign manager, to be the communications director, because getting women involved the senior levels, at the rnc, and on campaigns is another in more women as candidates and leaders and people that are talking for our party. we've done a lot of work in that area. we've had a 14-and-14 program, ourh is a program that coach here has spearheaded and done an incredible job in recruiting women to be volunteers in campaigns, and campaign workers and activists. also she's done another great job in doing another regional training opportunity for women within the party. though, obama is

case as well. our if you look at polling -- i think i saw a poll a week ago between republicans and democrats, it was 43% so thet, 42% republican, statistical data, although i'm not going to argue with your premise that we need to do better, because i think that's that i'm just telling you barack obama has so atrophied women,the board, as to as of today, they don't have a sizeable advantage and the party, over the republican party, as much as that narrative has sunk in. as well.o the youth you'd be surprised to know that an actually beat -- that's separate issue -- beat terry on voters between 18 and 24. mean, these are -- he's a guy.y conservative but obamacare wasn't delivered as promised. want to be --on't

don't want to believe that obamacare was intentionally over,ed to screw them which it was, and they don't really like the idea of nsa reviewing all sorts of e-mails and communications. these are things that really -- mean, security and free markets solve. and that's why we're seeing a young people coming back to our party. >> thanks for that, because it's into what i was going to ask next, because our students here are certainly in this issue. >> right. >> how do you reach out to young voters? like the size of student debt on your agenda and party's agenda? it's certainly something of concern for many of the students graduating from college. >> yeah. i think it is. i think it's resonating on campus and one of the things i can do is, when you have an opportunity like this today, this is an important thing for so id our party, appreciate you all being here. it's important to me and where we want to take our party future.ly and into the

and i chose to do it here with all of you, at a university, i want to make the point as well that i want to speak to young people and what's happening -- i feel like i'm kind of young but -- [laughter] >> i feel like it. old.u're >> with all you guys so -- but i think it's really important. college, i was a republican when i was in college. and i'm not saying you have to do all that. i always remember students, when i was in school, like the most patriotic people on earth, loved the opportunity to be at an incredible university and love our country and want to be involved in politics and care know,the future and, you that's real. and when i was in school, i took -- i went to a pretty reasonably priced school as an undergrad, so i didn't really have a lot of debt in undergrad. but when i went to law school, it was really expensive. i went to university of miami out with a lot of

85,000 orthing like 100 grand. it's still a lot of money to pay off. things, where i'm going with this, is that when i loan and signed all those papers -- i can't remember sort of was, some counseling area -- i didn't actually understand or feel like was going to be really real. i was like, so what, i'll be money whene a lot of i'm done and i'll be able to pay it off. then you get done and that shack that you've -- that check you've got to write every month, and the automatic withdrawal, it is money.f and you wonder, like, okay, i'm doing really well, got this job. where is all the money going? and my point to all of this to debt -- is that it's real. at some point, it's gonna come has to be paid. and whether you're married or you're going to be married and kids, when you do, like

this light switch pops in your brain, when you have a child. you start to -- all those things au hear -- and maybe it's hokie cliche, but it really clicks in you when you have a child. and you start to wonder whether all these opportunities that we all have are going to be there for our kids. i think students in college get that. they also get that government shoved down your throat isn't helpful. i feel like we're doing much better. but it's doing things like this, getting involved in campuses openedthe country -- we college republican chapters at morehouse, central state university. i think the college republicans are also doing an incredible job on campuses. a couple hundred campus training.oming in for they have a permanent infrastructure on campuses across the country that can and talk about the values of the republican party. >> on that note, what do you think about the college latest ad that is a

grad?ff of say yes to the >> i don't know how many people have seen that or not. i think it's a pretty clever ad. you know, you have to remember too, i think -- i don't know if alex is here or not, but i think she's like 23, 24 and she is really plugged in, i'm program.that nowadays, advertising and messaging is targeted. it -- you're not taking one ad and putting it on the, you know, national league play-off series. you're going to programs on -- is microtargetted now. so if you want to appeal to a certain segment of the want to speak i to college students, well, i can hire an ad buyer that will tell me, at 8:00 to 9:30, on these ten shows, you're going to get type of audience at this time. i mean, everything is targeted. this analysis that goes on with ads, you gotta consider, where could i place get me to theould

audience i want? and that's -- politics is not a different than when abraham lincoln said find every them to the polls. think about it. find every wig. how do you do that? data, knowing more people are watching, knowing as much as you can about what messaging works people, then getting them to the polls is another mechanism. thing withme advertising and data and everything else we're doing. >> absolutely. so taking sort of a different tack, this is more a long-term question. basically, since the early 90's, swapped powerve every few cycles. sort of unusual to see one party win two cycles, the other party come back and win one.ext and really, this alternating mom always jokes that we're not bipartisan, we're bipolar as a country -- and i

think she's right. what's generally happened is that people have gotten into office, decided that a hugection was validation of their platform and principles and oftentimes, it was really the voters rejecting at party that was in office that moment. so the larger question to you, is,he republican party, should you win 2014, how can you look to maybe not just win 2016 but to win longer term? thoughts about how not to, i guess, become too huberus that you behind?e country >> i think that things under bush '41, clinton, bush '43, are far different than

under obama. look at reagan and tip o'neal and bush carrying 1992, bill clinton -- when they had a government shutdown, newt gingrich -- you may not remember, some of you -- was at the white house every day. there was a camera stand and a microphone outside of the white day., every single there was a cooperative nature, at its core during those administrations and getting things done. the basis of both parties get angry by that or that it's not -- it shouldn't happen. i think this president has taken it to a new level. i think that if you talk to a of democrats appraisally, they're -- privately, they're very frustrated. speaking about bipolar, i think it matters that a leader, i think, in the white house can take -- speaker boehner and we'rereid and say, guys,

gonna knock heads here and figure out what we need to do to passed, to deal with this issue in syria, whatever it might be. what we see.sn't obviously there's some people here that think, of course, you're saying this is part of the rhetoric. i think it's very different. i really do. i'm honestly telling you, i president has taken this sort of nonengagement to a level that we haven't seen in american history. point, though, there now --r 350 bills right some of you may not realize -- sitting on harry reid's desk. well,rrative is, republicans aren't standing for anything, is what people -- or standing. they're not doing anything in congress. the truth is, the isublican-controlled house the only body doing anything. 360-some bills. a lot of those bills, i think of them, were

bipartisan. the majority of them passed by a two-thirds vote. i think 50 or 60 of them were actually authored by democrats. and the republicans passed all those bills authored bipartisan, and they're sitting on harry's desk doing nothing. doone of the things we can is with a republican-controlled senate is take some of those be 100, 200,r it 300 or 50, and put them on the desk and sort of say, you're gonna have to sign some of this stuff here. our country.t to i think when that happens and you see the president signing you have a republican-controlled senate and house, i think then people are say, okay, this is how a normal functioning body should operate. and i think that's going to sort of set the stage for 2016. next year then, would you moret there to be sort of

confrontations with the president which maybe perhaps might lead to more negotiation? >> i actually think things can get done. there's enough sitting in the senate right now that the president is going to have to deal. he's gonna have to sign something. saycan't pass 300 bills and nothing here is worth signing. and i think it's going to set stage for 2016. >> so you envision there might moreme more vetoes and passages? >> but i also think there's enough that's waiting there for president that he's going to be forced to sign some of this stuff, which is important. i think i'm going to take just one more question, because we want to make sure to get you here on time. and the last question really with youro do principles. i think what i'm most interested what, you know, we hear often is more of this conversation about the economy. seems as though every day a

new story comes along to sort of the economy off the front pages. and it's not to say that important or the scandals in the v.a. or whatever in the secret service. but certainly the american people are most concerned on a daily basis about, why hasn't really recovered? and you touched on this in some of your principles with regard regulations. but how do you actually look at the idea that government can push forward jobs? mean -- >> and that's -- so it can be you don't break it down into a specific example. keystoneor sure is pipeline. it's just very clear. whether you like it or you're on democratic side and you're against it, i think most people country.t in this

it's a clear example of thousands of new jobs. if you ever go to north dakota or any one of these oil patch areas across the country, a airport withal about 500 pickup trucks parked of these airports, and they're great-paying jobs, good for families. us the national security as well, in becoming more energy independent. but that's one. and that's sitting on harry reid's desk. likeor a while, it looked a lot of these senators that are democrats were in favor of it. and the president, after a billionaire named tom steyer decided to spend tens of millions on campaigns, all of a backed offpresident of keystone pipeline. that's one good example. in can legislation washington create jobs? that's one. another one is, when paul ryan or six budget proposals, now, they're tough but they're real. when they just didn't do

anything or go anywhere for five years, that the president was in charge of this country as the ceo and didn't budget in five years, that stifles job creation in country. obamacare is another example of jobs. losing small businesses closing up because they don't want to pay premiums. there are three examples of where a republican-controlled the difference. and i think it's important that we do that, not because of our party but because of our country. >> okay. well, thank you for your time here. >> you bet. you, everybody. i appreciate it. >> thank you for sharing your perspectives. certainly there are plenty of students here who will be say hello to you if you have a minute to shake hands. >> i do. perfect. >> and thank you again for coming here. >> thank you. [applause]

>> the centers for disease control will hold a briefing to provide an update into tin vestgation into the first ebola case diagnosed in the u.s. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students

will award 150 prizes toteling $100,000. create a documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, show shareying points of view, and be submitted by january 20, 2015. go to student cam.org for more information, grab a camera and get started today. so >> next retired general david petraeus and robert sell eckskiss u.s. relations with canada and mexico. the two were part of a task force that made recommendations. this conversation was led by jonathan karl of abc news on the council of foreign relations this is an hour.

>> welcome. we have the cochairs here. last time i interviewed you we ere both in sudan. it's good to be in a slightly tamer environment here. but i want to get right to the question of why now, why this. reading the newspapers the attention, the focus of this administration clearly on foreign policy on the current crisis in the middle east, the administration has talked much and clings to the idea of a pivot to asia. and what you are talking about is a pivot to north america. so why? >> it's time for a new focus as we say. the reason is when you come back to it, our number one and two trading partners are our two neighbors, not other countries or regions of the world. we are enjoying the

extraordinary opportunities as a result of the u.s. energy revolution which very likely will be replicated in some scale in mexico and already is producing a great deal of energy in canada. the fact is that a couple of months ago i was in london for a conference and asked the question, after america, what? and i think the expectation was i would respond the chinese century, whatever. i said north american decades. and in fact i teach a course on this at the city university of new york in the third semester of having done that. with each passing semester i'm more convinced of the power of north america 20 years after bob helped negotiate the north american free trade agreement you see the level of indgration of these economies and see the complementry strengths that each of these countries present in a region that really doesn't have the kind of security issues that you find in most of

the other parts of the world. mexico is not asking china to balance with .o balance with them against us we are allied with canada in the biggest alliance since world war ii. we are in this integrated market. we also say we are not looking for the e.u. of north america either. the first point you make on fact thehe staggering united states has surpassed saudi arabia as a producer of natural gas. >> they are the number one producer and will probably surpass saudi arabia in a couple of years.

crude would not be trading what it is today, it has dropped another $2 today. it is plummeting. the reason it has stayed stable in recent years despite one million barrels coming off the market because of sanctions, which is when i first started getting into this being asked what the price would be after the next round, it would has happened is because we have added $1 million per day additional in each of the last three years, we have more than compensated for what came off from iran and libya because of the violence there and other disturbances elsewhere. you see an extraordinary development in the oil market, in the energy markets at large, and again that is the foundation for the whole north american decades thesis.

>> first, we have a number of the task force members are so want to thank them, and in addition to enjoy work with david and china, also the canadians and mexicans were really kind. we went to ottawa and mexico city and had great meetings. i want to pick up exactly started talking about sudan and whatever. >> iraq. >> we have worked in canada and mexico and other regions in the world. rather than looking at this is a question of regional policy, the heart of the idea is how to think about north america as a continental base to deal with the questions you are dealing with peer questions of future energynd strength or whether it be economy, security. think what's been missing in

u.s. policy is the recognition that rather than deal with north america after you deal with all the crises, which never ends, we have to start with north america in the process. the big difference here, david alluded to this with the european union, is european union has a logic of shared sovereignty and trying to deal with issues of globalization. the history and culture of canada and mexico in the united states certainly heightens it -- that each one is very sensitive to independence, sovereignty. so here are the challenges. how do you deepen integration and at the same time respect independence and sovereignty? that is the different angle we try to take for each of the issues. >> it seems we have taken a step backwards on this. remains much of it unfulfilled. steps that were moved forward towards immigration in the last administration seem to have been

halted. give us the state of play. >> i don't know if we've taken a step backward, but we have stagnated. in the almost 10 years after nafta sense to those when you saw huge explosion of trade, three, four times about a trade. a huge amount of investment within the region, within the three countries. after 2001 in part because of china coming into the wto and in part because of 9/11 and changes on the border, we start see slowing down of trade, movement of people and goods. so as we look at this report we thought how can, we know the benefits of this. we know that the other -- we know it makes the united states and other companies more competitive in the world. integrated are more competitive around the world. you think about automotive, aerospace come increasingly electronics, technology, computers and the like that are produced between the countries. those we are able to compete and expand in terms of production, benefiting companies but workers on both sides of the border. so how do we move forward?

so in that we thought about for -- four big areas. one is energy that we start you ed talking about. all of the countries are changing. there's more production here, more production in canada. and mexico they just reform the ed the system so that potential allows for production to happen there. how to take advantage of that, not just as individual countries but as the north american region to provide stability, supply, resiliency? we look at economic competitiveness. nafta did a lot of great things. one of the biggest things was lower tariffs. but after lowering tariffs utah -- you saw their are other parts that are not part of nafta.

trade is one of the reasons we are economically competitive. we looked at security. we have seen a change in security after 9/11 for lots of good reasons. how do we work with our partners to improve making sure everybody is safe but also allow the economic benefits of trade back and forth. the final area we looked at is what we are calling community. this has to do with people in the region. part of it is immigration, how we can facilitate movement. part of it is more than that. about theking regional workforce and labor force. as we have seen a deepening of economic integration, companies with a plan on every side of the border where production goes back and forth, workers depend on each other. what happens in mexico affects the jobs of the people on the u.s. side of the border. how can we think about upgrading the regional workforce and allow the movement back and forth to enhance north america?

>> i want to focus on two of the recommendations you make. they hit on hot button political two issues right now. one, you come out in favor of approving a keystone pipeline. the other you come out in favor of immigration reform. so first let's take keystone. you spent some time at the state department as deputy secretary of state, undersecretary of state. the explanation i get whenever i ask the question of the white house is this is just over at the state department and we're waiting for them to go through the process. [laughter] so can you tell me, why is this decision taking so long, really? >> it's a very - [laughter] >> i should remind everybody we are on the record. that's why we have cameras back there. >> the courteous answer is is that i think the administration has some political priorities. and that really goes to the heart of what we're trying to --

proffer in this report. when we went up to canada, the xl pipeline is much more than a question of infrastructure and the pipeline. frankly, canadians across the spectrum, even people you might suspect would not support the pipeline, were really a fronted by how they were treated by the united states. and having been in diplomacy for some 25 or 30 years, frankly you don't treat your friends and partners that way. if you want to build a long-term partnership, particularly if it you are the biggest country, the united states, you have got to be sensitive to those things. the point is the state department, he referred to, has also made the case that environmentally you are not doing anything for climate change or frankly for safety or for potential dangers from the railways or other ways of getting the oil. the oil will move anyway. maybe people have a different conclusion but that would be my answer in terms of what has held it up. the bigger point here is that

both shannon and dave talked about sort of how energy is one of the catalysts. there are other factors. the reforms in mexico, demographics, wage rates are going up more in asia and elsewhere. i think technology innovation in the united states and candida. so you could combine the best of develop market innovation of the best the developing country, a new growth market. one of the issues to make this work is you have got to create the infrastructure. it's partly pipeline, but it's also partly electricity grid. we actually have electricity grid connections with canada in the west and the north. it is modest in terms of amounts, 2% of the flow. but it is about consistency. these energy reforms, these are politically tough. bill surprise yourself. there'll be a lot of opponents out there that going to try to say this doesn't benefit things. and, frankly, the oil reforms will take years to show up in

jobs and other things. they said if we could expand the approval process to extend the electricity grid across the southern border, then we could get lower electricity prices which are quite high in mexico based on lower natural gas prices. we could produce more, they said about 40% of everything export has u.s. about the content. so that's another example of where you connect the xl pipeline with the overall question of infrastructure for energy. there's parts on u.s. side. you talk about slightly controversial recommendations . we talk about lifting the ban on the crude oil exports because if you want this engine -- energy revolution to continue in the united states, you've got to be able to price but that's what signals investment. if we don't export we will not get the benefits of it. another point is natural gas line but everybody is concerned about the poor children coming from central america. as you know part of that region is countries are fragile states. they have high energy costs. they don't have development.

so we can extend the pipeline s that go down to central america. part of this idea is how can we think about north america, not only among the three of us, but with the western hemisphere and our global power and economic competitiveness. >> one thing i didn't see much on here was alternative energy, and not a lot of discussion of climate change. you do mention it as a concerned and you do talk creating a market-based solution for carbon. >> which is a fairly big deal. >> also controversial. >> again, we -- >> but how big of a concern is climate change? >> it is a big concern. >> the downside is -- >> it's represented in here. but the fact is that again, our industry to meet energy. -- our industries do need energy.

the united states has been going about this in a way that is actually pretty responsible. emissions have been going down. our consumption speed we picked up this year, right? >> we are consuming less because of efficiency in the united states as well. so when you look at the overall aggregate demand throughout the world for oil and so forth, you actually see that our demand has gone down a bit. so has europe's again as a result, a large measure of efficiency. but again, this is going to be the foundation for an awful lot of our economic progress. it already is. if you are in an industry that requires natural gas as a raw material or requires cheap electricity, you are going to build your plant here in the united states. just ask dow chemical and all the other global firms that do the petrochemical industry. they all have construction on

going in the united states. but certainly we should, we say that there should be a support for the sustainable energy industries, and, indeed, that that should be promoted. but in the meantime and tell -- until that is competitive, you've got to continue to do what it is that we've done and to do it in a responsible and as climate friendly a way as is possible. >> let me add one other dimension. in the first bush admission, -- administration, i was in charge of the rio treaty which was the last climate change treaty u.s. senate has confirmed. acted on. and the key point is, this is only going to be dealt with at a global level. certain countries have to play a leadership role, no doubt. what we saw after the copenhagen failure was a mexican president, calderon, takes the lead and have a successful climate change summit in cancun. and he took apart the problem by looking at different pieces. some alternative technologies,

some energy efficiency which there's huge potential savings globally if you look at the energy subsidies. you look at deforestation, different technologies. our point here is if we're going to lead effectively, we will be much more effective, in this case if the climate change agenda has a developing country and developed country working together. the tricky part of this is if people don't have low-cost energy sources to start the you will have a hard time pushing this. it's a good example across the how to start thinking about north american issues how , we can leverage them for global influence. >> is there a national security application? one of the things interest, you've had the oil and natural gas boom here in the united states.

you have had a similar boom in canada. mexico production is down i should point out. >> but is going to go up. again, among the 16, that's a historic number, constitutional reforms that were approved in president pena nieto, just in the first year, more than all three of his predecessors in all 18 years. among those very prominent is the reform of the energy industry in mexico. and it's not just, by the way, the oil and gas production. it also has to do with the electricity production. >> what are the broader implications in terms, the concerns for so many years, u.s. dependence on oil imports from the middle east? >> a huge issue. in fact, it is conceivable that north america as a continent could be self-sufficient in energy, a certain number of years. there's no question we are more independent in terms of our energy. doesn't mean by the way we are not still going to have a vital national interest in the free flow of oil and gas through the gulf and to our trading partners. mideast oil still feels our

-- fuels trading partners our economies. so we will still have a vital national interest in that, but we will not, at the risk of a pun, we are not going to be over a barrel the way we used to be on this issue. [laughter] >> a horrible pun. >> sorry. >> the other kind of hot button issue is on immigration reform. the way you described your recommendation is the task force strongly recommends the passage of comprehensive federal immigration reform to secure u.s. borders, prevent illegal entry, allows it on the basis of economic need, invite talented and skilled people to settle in the united states and offer a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants in the united states.

were you talking about the senate bill? is that essentially what you're talking about? >> i don't think so. these are very carefully chosen words, legalization. and again the task force members contributed enormously. but look, i think everybody in washington agrees, however fractious of the city maybe, that there is a need for immigration reform. and that does include border security in various measures. but we have to have the low skilled or unskilled workers for a number of the industries in the united states, and we need a legal pathway for them to come to our country. and would also need the h. visa limit lifted. situation where we have the best and brightest come here but we cannot keep them because there is a limit on that particular category. >> you are right. we tried to work out what we think is a pretty definite position on immigration reform. there's different ways you can get to it. that's not kind of, we are not

making a tactical judgment about how one does that. i want to come to point that shannon touched on which is where we're trying to look beyond immigration reform. one of the strengths of north america is not just energy and natural resources but it's the 500 million people here. if you look about the future of the economy or society, it's what they do with the human capital. part of the pena nieto reform is education. howe is a challenge about that will be implemented. with allere in canada the energy boom, they were describing how many petroleum engineers but cannot get u.s. srained petroleum engineer because they do not meet certain certifications. when we were in mexico mx said because, frankly, have been developing a lot of these resources, we need petroleum engineers. you can start to see in north america wide you can start

to identify skills that our own systems prevent based on the lack of mobility and certification. we introduced this idea of a mobility. this was the way people could and without citizenship maintain citizenship. this has been discussed at some of the areas that are kind of less skilled jobs but also sort of higher skilled jobs. one of the areas shanon researched is coming coming out of nafta, a special visa program called -- frankly it has not been used very much because it has a whole series of restrictions compared to h-1b. we talk about if you want, after 20 years, let's make that work. the educational and skills and certification area, the future of all our countries compared to europe, japan, russia, china is better because our demographics are better. we don't have the same aging workforce overall but that only works if you have some of the supply in the training. and, frankly, i think in all

three countries you're on the edge of a transformation, public and private with use of technology, perhaps different types of degree programs, different types of hybrid and sort of use of other issues. you can see this in the private-public sector, while there is a need to focus always in all three countries on local control of education. we would miss a big opportunity if we don't interconnect the three countries. the core resources are the people. >> i have to ask you about tactics. this task force, very nice it provides, it's a very convincing case. but there is the question of how it gets done. immigration reform, we've seen stalled by the fact so many -- despite the fact so many major interests involve to push for it. we mentioned the market-based solution, carbon. that might, pushing that might across the democrats in the double that -- pushing that might have cost the democrats the house in 2010 or help cost

them that. and i wonder if today nafta company, could nafta passed today? could it get through, you, the political -- >> we will find out with tpp. first you need tpa. trade promotion authority. on the politics of these issues, i am shocked you think the three of us alone will not be able to move the agenda. [laughter] assuming that you are right. [laughter] one of the points of this report on what we're trying to do is kind of to stir the pot of the debate and that's why we've made some positions. we hope the administration will act on some of these things in its last two years, a part of this is to set up to 2016 debate. so look, you know, i talk to

people, i visited primarily the republican side but i know some on the democratic side as well, you are getting people to go to mexico or canada first recognizing this is good policy. i think there is good politics in this if people look at the hispanic american community as well. there's a political base to go forward with some of these issues. we have to get people to understand that foreign policy is not just what you are reporting daily as a hot story, but it is this story. with congress i have to say, again with both democrats and republicans i try to stay in touch on some of the trade issues. when you present these items and make the point about how this can help our economic competitiveness compared to other regions in the world, there's an audience for this. there are a number of people who said when you get the task force

report, we would like to follow it up in different context. like anything else i think we have now provided -- now the question is can we get some political attention. >> let me add into this. we lay out a big vision for north america. and what it could be 10, 20 years. some of things to get us pretty long way there are you don't have to be a huge comprehensive immigration reform. there are things that take we out bumps in the road. six-figure industries, the rate for differences, that would make a huge difference. improve the infrastructure at the border. the department of transportation study said it will cost between six dollars and $10 billion which as we all know is not really a lot of money. it can make a huge difference in the flows back and forth. start working with our counterparts on the other side. one of the main themes will that -- we lay out in the task force is that in all these areas, economic, energy, security, we can start thinking trilateral where we can and bilateral. i think some of that change can we can start doing those things now and later on if there is more of a political will or

cooperation to try to go for some of the bigger things. you could make a lot of progress with smaller issues. >> you have the chance of the bless you have the chamber of commerce here. i belong to a ceo task force that using this as put together, and these are major companies going back to some of, look, we -- to what david was saying are applying information , technology in ways you couldn't conceive of a much of our business. why can't we apply this to get stuff across the border safer and quicker? >> mexico is in the midst of a manufacturing boom. it's now the number four car exporter in the world. i was just in tokyo last week. they mentioned toyota's new plant is not in japan to its . it is actually in mexico. by the way, production facilities are just about every of the make and model of car in the world. what's going on there is quite extraordinary. and then now as you see the 16

reforms actually start to get implemented, you see the pipelines that will help them lower their electricity costs. there are two big pipelines being built that will help them lower their electricity costs some 75% more than ours. so this will actually provide even greater opportunities for integrating our markets, noting what bob mentioned earlier a car , that is produced in mexico actually is 40% american. and the same if you do that up in the north. so the are really historic opportunities here. and the question is can we take full advantage of them? >> let me give you two examples. shannon mentioned that tpp. this is the united states negotiating with 11 other countries. we have free trade agreement with six of those, including canada and mexico. it took a while to agree to include canada and mexico as part of those negotiations. and yet even that there are 20 year-old aspects of nafta, why not use the tpp to be able to try to clean up some of those things?

also in the process start to think about a north american market. we have a trade negotiation going on with the european union, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. i have been a trade negotiator. i know it's not easy with more people at the table but, frankly, it's a big strategic mistake not to include canada and mexico at the table. you go exactly to what david said. areas is supposed to industry.e audi we were in canada and they said we have an auto parts industry. a lot of the industry in mexico is based on assembly. so frankly we are being shortsighted in terms of our future competitiveness not to include them. those are for practical things. you don't need to pass a law to do that. >> i want to get to questions

next before that i want to ask about security. general petraeus, what is the greatest security for this region? is it the whole issue of foreign fighters? is it violence in central america? is it the criminal cartels? what do you see going forward as the central security concern? >> i think it is elements of all of the above, certainly. so there is an emphasis in the report on improving border security, but there's also a suggestion to try to move beyond the internal borders with our neighbors and actually look at the overall regional borders, if it could be in a sense the defense. you would have a better chance of ensuring that some of the security threats don't actually materialize. beyond that though we also want, while improving security, as shannon mentioned, improve the flow of people, goods and vehicles across the border, which is actually slowed as result of measures taken, understandably since 9/11. and yet there are all these

technologies out there, pre-inspection programs, a host of different initiatives that could be pursued. we have not yet really pursued those to the extent that we should. again, to make the most of these three highly integrated economies. time is money at the border and there's lots of wasting of that that goes on. >> the disconnect is what people have seen in the newspapers. the terrible example of the poor children coming up from central america. they did not fly here. they came across mexico. if we develop a deeper cooperation on some of those issues from mexico, frankly you are going to deal with them at an earlier point and we need to go beyond that. we talked about looking at the columbia example where you have criminal networks. it goes to energy and the larger development issue. things i dealt with at the bank

and state department and elsewhere. moreouldn't we be effective if we were doing that in concert with the mexicans as well as the colombians as we did with central america 20 years ago? part of this is to stretch people's thinking. david mentioned this. cybersecurity and other issues. we need to try to create a fromed security logic another set of issues for central america. >> we will get some questions. wait for the microphone. state your name and affiliation. remember to keep the question short. do we have a first question? that's never happened. there would go. -- there we go. >> thank you very much.

davis robinson, a member of the executive committee of the canada-u.s. law institute. i've been struck by the fact that none of you has even mentioned water or the affect of the inability of the national governments of these three nations to act upon the states and the provinces. just as one single example. the great lakes are losing an enormous amount of water. neither washington nor ottawa has been able to do anything about it. so now the two provinces and the six states, they have gotten together and they're going to do what ottawa and washington should have done. what they may be doing it may violate the constitution of the two countries but at least they are doing something. >> well, there's a good opening because they're certainly a discussion of water in this

report. >> there is. and interestingly, it came in large measure as result of the encouragement initially by the canadian ambassador. we had both ambassadors quite in addition tos, the trips we made to ottawa and mexico city. water is in there. you will through it, see there's a strong recommendation we need to confront these issues proved these are the issues of the >.ure in many respects it >> there is a century long issue in this. commissiony waters has worked well because they involve a lot of stakeholders outside the capitals. your second point i want to draw attention to. one of the challenges for north american policy is a lot is not

made in washington, ottawa, and mexico city. a lot of it is made in state, local, and the private sector. part of what we are trying to address is how you think about so-called foreign policy in a different way where you are dealing with a set of transnational actors. we talk about the role of governors and provincial authorities and how you can interconnect. all countries have to be respectful of federalism and the limits. it led us to do something which i was skeptical about at first. i am not one who believes in government reorganization to solve problems. i tend to think you need to go out the problem. we did say because of this challenge about getting america, we north talked about high-level champions among officials. part of this is not only to bring attention to the issues in

the u.s. government, but part of it is to work on the challenge of how you work more closely with the state and other authorities to capture the energy knowledge and activity of those bodies. i'm glad you raised it. >> next question. yes, sir. >> bernie aaronson. one of the points made repeatedly is we need greater political leadership and focus to move an agenda like this forward. but that is a perennial problem with regards to the united states and latin america. we also lay between deep in -- we also late -- we oscillate between deep involvement and then backing off. it makes a difference in who the personnel are. administration, you had a president from the state of texas and the