on the movement of data and localization of i.t. infrastructure. an important issue for large companies, but more more for the companies using the cloud to sell globally through internet storefronts. tpp also says strong i.t. roles, particularly with respect to the status quo. that is important to our members to help against foreign that and counterfeiting. one of the things i learned living and working in asia -- america, we tend to have free

trade in our dna, other countries do not. tpp provides new transparency and fairness, and nondiscrimination rules. competition policy and state owned enterprise which levels the playing field and expand opportunity. it provides binding, time-limited transparent dispute settlements for most of our key operations in the tpp to make sure that commitments can be enforced. with the growing middle class and increased spending power in asia, there are clearly opportunities with our ranchers, farmers, and businesses. goods, and 25% of services already voted asia -- already go to asia today.

there is so much opportunity. apply in asia has been exponentially growing. america spice of that pie -- america's slice of the pie has been shrinking. across america, congressional district could valued at $500 million or more go to asia. send at leastates a quarter of the exports to asia. put another way, 32% of export dependent jobs over there living -- owe their living to asia. tpp gives the u.s. a strong hand at writing the rules of trade in this important part of the world. it makes is an active player, not a bystander. will confirm our ties in asia, at a time when many of our trade partners perceive us as

pulling back. many of our asian friends have made clear that they will judge america's commitment to asia by whether or not we ratify tpp. in conclusion, from our perspective, the u.s. cannot force us to sit on the sidelines while others of the rules for trade. to create jobs, growth, and prosperity that we need, we must set the agenda. , weet the foreign markets urgently need to ratify tpp. with all of our trade agreements, old and new, we must ensure that they are fully enforce. the chamber looks forward to working with your association. books be passing out later. thank you for your attention. [applause] fast. were we have a lot to be concerned about. now, a new issue.

australia is beating us in i had never heard that before in crops, ory you does it always have to be money for the dues? thehave another view of cpp. she was yellow. [laughter] >> no pressure. [applause] >> thank you. all right. works. that, it ok. yes, indeed. i spent most of my life as a farmer in north dakota. i was an elected official in north dakota for a dozen years. my focus will be more agriculture.

we have a long-standing view of supporting trade, but being smart about it. i will give you pieces of data that might be something to think about. this is just a map of the countries that are in tpp. you have undoubtedly seen that before. tammy did not talk specifically .bout exports to korea it is instructive for us to look to korea because korea was the last major trade agreement that the u.s. entered into, about four years ago. i got the data about korea. if you listen to those who support trade agreements, they always talk about exports. you rarely hear the word, import . the difference between exquisite imports-- exports and

is like the money going into your bank account and writing a .heck out of your bank account it is a big deal. experts to korea went up. that is passenger vehicles on the left, pharmaceuticals and machinery on the right. to 2015. ag exports to korea also. .eef is a big one other ones.w it doesn't really matter. they are randomly chosen items that are chosen by folks who .romote free trade in fact, that is where these two charts come from. they don't talk about the deficit. the deficit is the difference between exports and imports. as i showed you, all the experts

to korea going up. are going up they faster, you have a problem. that is what happened with korea. the deficit has doubled in the last four years. specifically -- 10 or 11 years that we have in this timeline -- the export is the ugly dark green color. the tall bar is imports. what you want to focus on is the red bar on the bottom. that is the to its between the two. the deficit. line is whendashed it was implemented. what you can take from this is the deficit has been declining -- you see sort of an upslope

until it hit that line, and then a downslope following that this implementation of the agreement. promised, in advance of the korean agreement, that the deficit was going to continue to shrink, and it was going to create 70,000 new jobs. 75,000-90,000s jobs lost because of the increase in the deficit. i don't want to talk about this one because it is just designed to show how small agriculture is of the total. i do that on the next flight as well. i mostly talk to agricultural we mostly focus on the good things of trade agreements relative to agriculture. agriculture, by the way, is a really good thing. rule, year after year, we

have surpluses that we produce relative to trade. we sell more stuff to the rest of the world that we buy from , relativef the world agriculture. that is a good thing, but a very small thing. agriculture is a relatively small part of the overall economy. in rest is hemorrhaging trade deficits. that is what this chart shows. this goes back about 30 years. maybe not quite 30 years. you can see where some of the trade agreements entered the the recession. this is a fundamental point that i want to make. we believe in trade. we believe we ought to be a whole lot smarter about how we do trade.

thatcountry, the goal congress give store negotiators is simple. it is pretty straightforward. you just say, we want more trade. goal wethe official tell people to negotiate. more trade. we don't specify -- differentiate between exports and imports, which we ought to. as yout of the matter is look at our performance in recent time, is actually about 40 years of persistent trade deficit. wehave a real problem, and have not taken any action to deal with this. the difference between the red is thed the dark line the balance

without agriculture. if you add in agriculture, you of a littlecit as s of the little bit. we have half $1 trillion every year that we import more stuff relative to exports. havelieve that we ought to a different charge given to ustr. the charge being we want you to bring back agreements that .esult in a balanced trade why is that important? type deficit convinced -- that deficit converts to a 3% drop on gdp. you know what has happened to

gdp since the recession. overe just over 2% growth the last 10 years. most economic metrics, pretty poor. lowest sinces the well before world war ii. reason for the growth being so low is a 3% net ag on gdp, a direct consequence of having a deficit. what should we do to deal with this issue? economists will argue that the single biggest reason for the deficit is currency manipulation. currencyminant manipulators in the world -- china, by far the biggest.

studies have suggested that the 350ese are responsible for billion dollars plus of the deficit, and the single largest isson for the trade deficit currency manipulation. currency manipulation, very simply designed, is when countries intervene with other countries' currency markets for the specific purpose of cheapening their currency, and decreasing the value of ours. repeatedly,ned immediately following the conclusion of trade agreements. fact, asth nafta in soon as the agreement was negotiated, the following here, peso dropped by 50%.

some of you remember ross perot talking about the giant sucking sound created by nafta. it happens. whether he knew why it was going to happen, who knows. the fact of the matter is it did happen. the currency with devalued -- devalued's significantly. there is a direct relationship that is worth you doing a little math over. i trade negotiators tell us, and most economists will come up with a number of round this number that for every billion dollars of exports, it is worth jobs.5800-6000

instead of a billion exports, you increase imports by $1 billion. of jobs.that number now, a lot of folks are seeing the impact on lost jobs. party talked about the korean trade agreement. this is the final slide i want to show. my light just turned yellow. this is a different source of data. is awe are looking at here measure of wages. terms isened, in real americans, especially the lower fact, which values are in

declining. that is a problem. that is when you all start hearing about the impacts of trade agreements. that is my concluding slide. [applause] >> yellow is the new red. [applause] >> this is really a very serious issue. it is why we have so much controversy over it. questions? mentioned you would like to see more trade agreements. can you tell me what that looks like?

, the thing we have to be smart aboutis being serious currency manipulative. people talk about how china is a huge currency manipulator, get we do nothing about it. has zero currency enforcement. biggestthis is the cause of the deficit, get, the only thing that happened was aside peace negotiated at the last minute that said all the countries will sit down and talk manipulation, but no ability to do anything affirmatively, or to sanction a

.ountry historically, japan has been a major currency manipulator. reduce theter china amount of its currency, followed in pursuit. malaysia did as well. th dvd.e members of we need to do something about that. >> what does the sanction looked like? is manipulation. what does the sanction looked like that makes you more comfortable with those trade agreements. you have to do is put some sort of import tariff against those countries. that is exactly what the wto provides with the sanction.

when countries lose the case before the wto, that is what they do. money, ander much whatever that value is, they are given the authority to extract those sorts of tariffs against whatever part of the offending economy's that they choose. our dollar devalues, with the reciprocal be true? when i traveled to ireland a number of years ago, our dollar was weaker, and the end of spending a lot more money over there. >> absolutely. don't mistake changing values of currency for currency manipulation. in a free trade environment, currencies ought to move just like commodities, any

ind of things that move trade, currency ought to do the same thing. what happens when countries choose to manipulate currency, if they deliberately go into the financial market, and by of up dollars, then you get the artificial and balance. that is what economies around the world have been arguing relative to chinese behavior. what needs to be disciplined. no surprise, we have a little bit of a difference of opinion here. we do agree that currency is a real issue. the chamber does not agree that a trade agreement is the right vehicle to address it. nothave ministers of trade, finance people. this is the first time, to my

knowledge, that they brought in the trade secretary and finance folks to come up with a currency commission. my colleague is right. it is not legally binding or enforceable. all 12 countries agreed that they would not manipulate currency for competitive advantage. under at covered resolution. 1.i should make is right now the u.s. treasury department cannot can determine and can call out the country for manipulating a currency. but, they haven't. one other thing we should note reciprocalthis is a agreement. whatever we ask them to do, we are agreeing to do the same. but we have very long discussions about how to make currency -- put currency in

there, and make it binding. our treasury guys were frustrated because they did not .ant to give up that could you imagine congress allowing for countries to sanction our policy? that is what putting binding currency provisions in a trade agreement would do. is a realree currency issue, we would like to see it through g20, g7, the imf, a financial body, not a trade body. eliminated have to foreign governments. it is a good thing to do. we should do it because it is the right reason, not because of the lobbyists. >> as an american who lived abroad -- two decades of my career -- i can tell you, we

play by rules that no one else in the world does. our companies, our farmers, your .onstituents are disadvantaged it is not a perfect agreement, but it makes us also to a more level playing field. >> if i could make a brief we aret about currency -- now putting a sharp point on the problem. it is this. currency manipulation does not belong in trade agreements. if the lungs with the finance ministers with the imf. some have said with the world u.n.or the hum each one of those says, this is not our problem. what vehicle to be had in the space? a majority, for the first time and congresshouse

said they want this. if you do not have it someplace, and binding protocols in place, we are going to talk about this for another four years, while we continue to see deficits get ever deeper. that is a real problem in this country. >> fascinating. thank you very much. [applause] , consumer advocates from around the country are in washington for the consumer federation of america annual conference. this morning, we will take you there for the future of marketing. live at 9:00 eastern on c-span two. this morning, a look at the terror attacks in brussels and

the threat posed to european citizens. live at 9:00 eastern on c-span three. >> vice president joe biden called for the confirmation of president obama's pick for the supreme court, merrick garland, at the georgetown law center. this is 40 minutes. [applause] vice-president biden: my name is joe biden.

students thatn of i almost decided to not to the speech here, even though my son went to georgetown, my staff went to georgetown. first year of law school here -- he ended up graduating from yale. [laughter] long story, but he did his first year, and transferred to y ale. i feel an intense loyalty to georgetown. have gone to georgetown. i went to a good school. and went to delaware. decided to not do it at georgetown, and do it at gw le victoriansto nurse from me. thought she had to go to

minnesota. thank you. you have been a great friend, a brilliant mind. you have helped me negotiate an awful lot of tough terrain. i want to thank you for that. it is great to be back. last week, in the rose garden, i stood by president obama as he's his constitutional duty to nominate a chief justice . as you have noticed, you have heard no one question his integrity. you have heard no one questioned his scholarship. you have heard no one question his open mind. you have heard no one find substantive criticism of merrick garland. you will have difficulty finding anyone. that makes us all the more

perplexing. as the president said, chief astice garland deserves hearing, just as a simple matter of fairness, before we talk about the constitution. it is also a matter of the senate fulfilling its constitutional response ability. my friends, republican senators, said, who have ever -- whomever the nominee may be, they advocate the response though the completely that what they say today, what they said than, what republicans say they will do, in my view, can lead to a genuine constitutional crisis. born out of a dysfunction of washington. i have been here a long time. i've been in the majority, the .inority, both sides i understand. if you read, most people say i with the relations

republican party, as well as the democratic party. .'ve never seen it like this washington, right now, the congress, is dysfunctional. they are undermining the norms that govern how we conduct ourselves. they are threatening what we value most. undercutting what we stand for. i have traveled over a million miles since i've been vice president of the unites dates. i'm not exaggerating. they usually go because when i go to meet with world leaders, they know that when i speak, i speak for the president because of our relationship. i spend a lot of time. i promise you, it is what i hear . whether i'm in beijing, but will gota, uae, dubai. i tried to convince them

i give you my word they will look at me and say, but can you deliver? say that again. when the president of the united states speaks, or i speak for him, world leaders look at me and say, can you deliver? traveled around the world and other parts of the world, you know that the world looks at the city right now as dysfunctional. and that is a problem. problem is with the congress. the great justice robert jackson once wrote, "while the constitution that uses power, it is better to secure liberty. it also contemplates that practice will integrate and

express powers into a workable government." that is an important sentence. it enjoins branches, but upon his bridges it enjoins separateness, but interdependence. autonomy, but reciprocity. separateness, but independence. autonomy, but reciprocity. seven years career, as vice president, 36 years in the united states senate, at the bill ears as either a ranking member or a chairman of the summit judiciary committee, i ofe never seen the spirit interdependence and reciprocity at a lower ebb. in ourng our people, but government.

the monster held our diverse republic together for the last 129 -- the bonds that hold our diverse republic together for the last 129 years have been strained. the world knows it. it limits our peoples'and other governments' trust in us, our trust in each other. hyperbolet just a that suggests, without trust we are lost. to the trust to give branches or within the bridges, anches, we are lost. back in 1992, and the aftermath of a polarizing confirmation process involving clarence thomas, who had been nominated by president bush with no consultation just four days after thorough good marshall

retired, i spoke about the supreme court nominating process. the senate majority leader, and he is my friend, mitch mcconnell and other republicans today, have been quoting selectively from the remarks that i made in refusingt to justify cheap judge garland a fair hearing and a vote on the floor of the senate. they completely ignore the fact that at the time, i was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper senate consultation. they completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom line, so let me set the record straight. i said and i quote, "if the president consults and cooperates with the senate or

moderates hits selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did justice kennedy sudor."icece i'm it absolutely clear that i would go forward with the confirmation process. few months before presidential election. if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the senate. just as the constitution requires. advice toent presidents of both parties, including this president, has been that we should engage fully in the constitutional process of advice and consent. and my consistent understanding of the constitution has been the senate must do so as well. period. they have an obligation to do

so. because there is no vacancy after the thomas confirmation, we can't know what the president of the senate might have done. but here is what we do know. time a ranking member or a chairman of the judiciary committee, i was responsible for totaljustices and nine nominees for the supreme court -- more than, i hate to say this, more than anyone alive. [laughter] [sighs] old.'t be that some i supported. a few i voted against. and in all that time, every nominee was greeted by committee members. every nominee got a committee hearing.

heery nominee got out of t committee even if they did not have sufficient votes to pass within the committee because i advise the senate must and consent and every nominee, including justice kennedy in an election-year, got an up and down vote. not much at the time, not most of the time, every single solitary time. you hear all of us talk about the biden role. frankly, it is ridiculous. rule.is no biden it does not exist. there is only one rule i ever followed in the judiciary committee. that was the constitution's clear rule of advice and

consent. article two of the constitution clearly states, whenever there is a vacancy in one of the courts created by the constitution itself, the supreme court of the united states, the may, the shall -- not, president shall appoint someone to fill the vacancy with the advice and consent of the united states senate. advice and consent includes consulting and voting. nobody is suggesting individual senators have to vote "yes" on any particular presidential nominee. voting "no" is always an option and it is their option. ayingaying nothing, ss nothing, reading nothing, hearing nothing, in deciding in

advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option in the constitution, it does not leave it open. it is a plain application of the senate's solemn constitutional duty. it is an application, quite frankly, that has never occurred before in our history. able to square the unprecedented conduct with the constitution. my friend mitch mcconnell and the chairman of the committee is my friend. they areor from iowa, now trying another tactic. the ask, what's difference, what difference does it make if the court has eight or nine members?

[laughter] no, i'm serious. remember, they said they were not going to fill any vacancy is on the circuit court of appeals in the district for four years. that is not a constitutional court. the supreme court is. clear for folks who may be listening at home. you students-- and all know this -- what happens at the supreme court makes significant difference in the everyday life of the american people. one gives the power to congress to fix the number of justices. 1866, the number one asked and waned between five and -- the number waxed and waned between five and 10.

in 1869, the congress passed a law setting the court size at nine and that law has not been changed since. in 1992, i said on the floor of the senate, it was pointed out to me or for me, that it was no big deal for the court to go through a period of periodits because the would not last that long. but i don't believe anybody in their right mind would propose permanently returning the court to a body of eight, or leaving one seat vacant, not just for the rest of this year, but for potentially and likely, the next 400 days. that option would not be much better. this is all the more true

because congress has become almost entirely dysfunctional. justice scalia wrote, "if you have a justices on a case it raises the possibility that by reason of a tie vote, the court will find itself unable to resolve significant legal issues presented by the case." that possibility becomes a reality in any given case, the justice will have to announce that they cannot decide either way. clearing theleft case from their docket, or taking it down the road to be argued under a new court where the justices finally confirm. pressing controversies, would profit the court to grant me view in the first place in many cases, because of different decisions in different certain

courts, would be named unresolved. the issues the court believes where too important to leave in limbo are going to b remain in limbo, suspended in mid air. a few centuries ago, justice john marshall famously declared the court "has a duty to say what the law is." not an option. a duty. a solemn duty. if the senate refuses to even consider a nominee and prevents the court from discharging that becausetional duty an of a so clearly divided court. the same court by keeping the seat vacant for hundreds of days . it matters a cousin it perpetuates because of the way if fractured cot fractures our .

the famous designers gave one supreme court the responsibility of resolving conflicts from the lower courts. if those convicts were allowed to stay, we would end up with a patchwork of law, inconsistent with federal laws. federal laws will be constitutional in some parts of the country, but not constitutional in others. i don't have to go to the cases you know that are pending appeal because of how controversial they are. freedom of speech, freedom to follow the teachings of your faith, to determine what constitutes the teachings of your faith, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure -- all of this could depend on where you happen to live. i think most people in this country was think that is unfair

and unacceptable. we are after all, the united states of america. either the constitution protects rights across the united states, or doesn't. the patchwork constitution is hardly a national constitution at all. wea divided supreme court would be unable to establish uniform federal law. what that could mean, as you students and professors will know, claims of race or sex incrimination got once way california and arizona, and another way next-door in utah and colorado. you could have one fate in no idaho and iowa and another one in wisconsin. look at the cases. mighs of unlawful policing result by one standard

in nebraska, but there could be a totally different standard in another state. there is nothing plausible about these scenarios. the american people deserve a fully staffed supreme court of nine. not one disabled and divided. one that is able to rule on the great issues of the day. race determination, separation whetherh and state, there is a right to an abortion, police searches. these are all actual cases before the supreme court of the united states, before the courts. we have to make sure that a fully functioning court, supreme in a position toi

address these issues. --a geographic happenstance a geographic happenstance cannot fragment our international community. unless you think this is an exaggeration when you study brown vs the board. chief justice foreign had the votes to decide that case, but he waited for one southern justice to rule with the majority. because he knew what it would do in dividing the country if that were not the case. extrapolate that to today. the same principle about one constitution. why it is important. could these laws be applied and the constitution be applied the same white everywhere in the united states? analogous, exactly but think about what it says about how important it is.

alexander hamilton had the foresight to warn that such a fragmented judicial power would a-government from which nothing but confusion and contradiction could bare. ia patchwork constitution could deepen the gulf between the haves and the have not's. powerful can use it to their advantage, the geographical distances, and gain notsystem available to normal people. the democracy rests along the twin pillars of basic fairness and justice in the law. law students, you will be a to

write essays about what those things mean. every american knows what the government means. they understand it. it is intuitive. demandese pillars that we not trap ordinary for whatever lower quirks they has chose for them, letting other powerful selectively choose courts that fit their needs. i know there is shopping now. high courtonger this vacancy remains unfilled, the more serious the problem we'll face. a problem confounded by turbulence, confusion, and uncertainty. about our safety, our security, our liberty, our privacy, the future of our grandchildren and children. in times like these we need

more than ever, a fully functioning court, a court that can result diverse issues peacefully. them inn they resolve directions i did not like. areunction and partisanship bad enough on capitol hill. senate spreadhe that dysfunction to another branch of the government, to the supreme court of the united states. untilt not let it fester the vital organs of our body politic are too crippled to perform the basic functions they are designed to perform. and i think you probably think i am exaggerating, but think of all the things that have not been acted on it now unrelated to the court upon the hill. that are profoundly important to the functioning of our

foreign policy, our domestic policy, just left unattended. no action. that to spread to another branch of government. my senateo what republican friends want you to believe, the president and i are former senators and we take advice and consent very seriously and we did when we served. we do so not just because it is our constitutional duty, but because we care deeply about thatng past the gridlock has left our people understandably frustrated and angry with the government in washington. how many of you have gotten when you go home, "you go to school

in washington?" not a joke. we know how this sounds. washington."ive in i'm serious, thick about it. think about how we even laugh about it like "yes, we although it is true." it is pretty sad. you, we all care deeply about making this government work again. the president and i care about the letter of the advice and consent, as well as the spirit of advice and consent. of accommodation and forbearance, not a spirit of -- that is what both of us, we spent countless hours

meeting with and soliciting views of the senators and both parties -- including, i sat there in the oval office. the president and i spent hours together. admittedly, we sit down like the three or two other nominees and we are the last two in the room. and it hasn't been a closed process. we reached out. "who do you want?' "what type of person should we nominate?" we did our duty. the president did his duty. we thought advice. -- we sought advice. we chose the course of moderation because the government is divided. on toesident did not go find another brennan, but a garland. bei s a reputation for

moderation. i think that is a responsibility i of the administration in a divided government. some of my liberal friends agree with me. it is about the government functioning. it is about the admonition of justice jackson. fullyesident has discharged his constitutional obligation. so, it is a really simple proposition in my view. now it is up to the senate, to do the same. polling shows the american people expect him to do this. the american people to consider his nomination and to give him an up and down vote. look, the american people are decent and inclusive at heart. it is not our nature as a noatin

to shut our minds and treat those with whom we disagree with envy. it is not the american people who are to blame for this dysfunction. it is our politics. our politics are broken. secret, the congress is broken. regardless of your political ld love to hearou what one of you in class things. invite me and i will tell you how this system is functioning. even the most serious, persistent national crises haven't motivated the current congress to find a new middle ground. they just moved to the side. they haven't even addressed them. we were watching the cubs

additional crisis in the making -- we were watching the constitutional crisis in the making, born out of dysfunction in washington. it has got to stop. ofreally does for the sake both parties, for the sake of our country, for the sake of our ability to govern it has to stop. the defining difference of our great democracy has always been, no matter how difficult the issue, we've always then ultimately able to reason our way through to what ails us. and to act as a citizens, voters, and public servants and go fix it. this would require that we act in good faith, in the spirit of reconciliation, not confrontation. with some modicum of mutual goodwill. country, theof our country we love, because of what

we value, i mean, that is who we are. we can't let one branch of government threatened the equality and rule of law in the name of a patchwork constitution. let justice benot delayed or denied as a matter of fundamental rights. you must not let the rule of law collapsed in our highest court because it is being denied as a result of the senate refusing to accept the presidential nominee. in the promise of the supreme court delivering equal justice. requires -- it requires nine. i still believe the voice of the people can be heard in the land if we follow a constitutional path, the path of advice and consent. in path of collaboration

search of common ground. perfectionism is dangerous and it is self-indulgent. greatest constitutional republic in the history ar of the world. it is a simple proposition, folks. not a joke. unless we can find common system how can the designed by our founders function? no joke. govern if he doesn't turn off the phone? [laughter] if it is my staff, you are fired. [laughter] but all kidding aside, how can able ton, without being

find common ground? that is how the system is designed. to has worked pretty darn well for the last 200 plus years. one of the reasons i came to law was to get you to challenge what i have said. look at it closely. whether theand see argument i am making is right or wrong. make your voices heard. make your voices heard. all. to thank you god bless the united states of america and most of all, may god protect our troops. thank you so much. [applause]

>> for this year's student cam contest, students produced documentaries telling us which topics they wanted the candidates to discuss. they told us economy, equality, education, and immigration are all top issues. congratulations to all of our winners. every weekday in april, starting on april 1, one of the top 21 onning entries will air c-span. all of the winning entries are available online at studen tcam.org. >> coming up next, "washington journal." former cia director michael hayden on national

security. in about 45 minutes on "washington journal," daniel raymond policy director for the harm reduction coalition talks about combating drug abuse. and then megan mccarthy on the federal and congressional response to the heroin and opioid epidemic. >> it has been described by hillary clinton as a quiet epidemic. it was a major issue in the new hampshire primary and the cost oin epidemic is estimated to be about $34 billion in crime, health care, and economic costs. this morning on "washington journal," we're going to focus on the heroin abuse issue and as with all c-span programs, your call and voices are central. here is how you can participate this morning.