Skip to main content

tv   News Politics and Public Affairs  CSPAN  February 10, 2013 12:10am-2:00am EST

12:10 am
who have passed before me and you and will come afterward, i really support what you are doing. the support that you gave. it is truly an honor and privilege to serve in the united states congress. i am glad we get to do this type of thing, and i appreciate the role that you play. god bless you, and may god bless the united states. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we are finished. we have an after party. i want to give a round of applause to lynn povich. [applause] senator heidi heitkamp, congressman chaffetz. good night, everybody.
12:11 am
>> a conversation with jeffrey immelt. the national institutes of health headquarters is in the district of a crisp and holland. he will be on our guest to talk about the sequestered. you can watch that at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 eastern on c-span and . >> if somebody paid him to what's 10 columns for $2,000 each. he gets the money and they publish only six. he summons the editor and says, i wrote 10 and he published six.
12:12 am
the editor says, we paid you. that is the standard answer. maybe they were not good enough. here is a check for the columns you did not print back. he was entitled to keep it. that would clear his philosophy session because he wanted to do business with the other party again. i admire that. >> the 30th president of the united states and the "coolidge." >> over half a million people come to this church every year. they compare not because of our
12:13 am
amazing pews, they come here because of the events that happened here. what most people did not realize is what actually did happen here is still a genuine historical mystery. we have a very few records about what actually occurred on the night that paul revere oppose the plan was carried out in this church. we know there was a plan that. it happened across the way. he set it up on sunday. the what we do not know is who actually helped him to carry out the plan. >> the mysteries on american artifacts on sunday at 7:00 eastern and specific, part of american history tv. >> now, it discuss an unlisted
12:14 am
of journalism in afghanistan. from a washington, a journal, this is 35 minutes. host: abdul mujeeb khalvatgar is the executive director of the nai media institute in afghanistan. your begin with organization first. what is it and how are you funded? guest: first of all, a warm hello from miles away in afghanistan. one of the first media supporting organizations established in afghanistan in 2004. we started our activities in europe in commission from a news network. we are doing advocacy for media in afghanistan. we are based in the capital city of kabul. we are in the north, in the south in kandahar. host: how much money do you get
12:15 am
from the united states? guest: it depends. from the beginning up to now, it is millions. in 2012 it was 800. host: million? guest: $800,000. host: what is the main goal? guest: to support the idea of open media in the country. and to say what are the basic rights, and what open media and access to information, free information, and access to free information is for its citizens? it is something that almost is new for afghan citizens, and they are very eager to know it.
12:16 am
host: how does your organization keep its independence, or how are you teaching independence to its journalists, given that the united states funds operations? guest: while we are receiving money, we are never focusing on what are our goals. indeed, we are receiving money from ucid. they are supporting the measures we are having. host: what other countries are funding? guest: we are receiving money from other european countries. host: how many journalists -- are you teaching them? how many aspiring journalists do you have in this program? in iraq, and then all these things we did. we need to pay taxes and do it fairly. it is not fair right now when
12:17 am
>> investigative reporting and technical training and also to help present a program. it puts you right in the united states. you are based in afghanistan. what are you doing in washington. >> i am here to say that opened media is a big achievement. not only for the public year, but for everyone. this is a big achievement. after 11 years we lost more up to now, more than hundreds of
12:18 am
injuries and thousands of arrests and people who were faced with harassment. let's not lose the achievement. other than stress factors in afghanistan come focusing on media, the air quite aware what is freedom of expression. how they can use it in their daily lives. let's focus on and not pollute it. >> what you are a share in washington, who are you talking to? are you having to justify the money you are receiving from the united states? >> yes, just to justify the money we are receiving, not only for the organization.
12:19 am
defector, the field is something they really focus. >> in afghanistan we have different rules of receiving information it is a radio. all over the country. it is mostly popular in the city's that we have that. printed media is also more of a usable thing or a tool and the places people are in a couple. nowadays we are having social media where people are receiving the news. more than the 3% of the population of afghanistan
12:20 am
through radio. >> you mentioned the literacy rates. here in afghanistan, literacy rate over all 28%. mail literacy -- average imasco years is a 11 average. female 7. given the and the numbers, how difficult is your job of getting a promotion to afghanis. >> when you see 20% of the population is more than 72% are eligible, it the means we are with the people, they are not easy to receive things. not easy to judge just things. it is hard in a city like afghanistan. more than 70% of the population -- in afghanistan and security
12:21 am
and return to the people because of the geographic of afghanistan, it is very hard work. but does that mean any hardness will stop us. a keen to do anything we want. >> our guest is executive director of the open media and afghanistan. we are talking about journalism and how they get to their dues. the freedom of the press and that country. we want to take your phone calls on this as well. here is the world news section of the wall street journal this morning. is this the type of headline that afghanis would see those that read the newspapers?
12:22 am
do they get a world street? >> we are having two kind of them. those they are having our publication by our own, at the real access to the kind of application or international media. the papers, they are not -- at it is the kind of feed for our publication. most of the over all issues and topics like this are coming with international media. it is not the same you will be facing this morning, but somehow it reflects this.
12:23 am
>> when troops began to leave, money leaves the country from the united states. what does that mean for your efforts? >> and in general, it will effect our -- if the money is decreasing -- we will be having less funds, less activity. when we are facing with the decreasing of troops, less security. yes, less security means less as places.
12:24 am
it is effecting a lot of our work. true to the plans and the to the ways we see from now, we want to do that as much as possible. to not face with any stopping of our troops. >> we're going to get our viewers involved. rachel and of forney, texas. >> you know, we know afghanistan people having a hard time taking care of their families and feeding themselves. how did they feel about backwater. how do they must use our money over here in america. they spend on stuff that they necessarily do not need. they waste -- it how do they feel about that? >> thank you for the call.
12:25 am
we will answer this, a person with a politician. 12 years back from now, the situation of the people was quite different. for example, people were family that they had, they were families they had dinner but not breakfast and lunch. now, people are having different opportunity. just starting with eating and food, people have now opportunity to work. it is a change. i did not actually miss these
12:26 am
the bunny. >> you do not want with the term? >> people in afghanistan need for the infrastructure to see the future of the money. it does not mean that this money as something that is needed for ever. that is why you need for a time to receive help from our international supporters and friends. it would be a time and to our infrastructure and planning properly and in the future we can somehow contribute to the world. cooks who wrote to john and next. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. the reality of it is afghanistan is based on -- it does not matter if you are a reporter
12:27 am
not. if you criticize cars said today. your life is very short. i want to ask abdul purity you have protection if he say something that the talent and does not like he does not like. it feels up a big man in afghanistan. anytime somebody " says that person, they never see the days of life again. the reality of the freedom of press to me is like a joke. you cannot have the freedom of press and afghanistan. every tribe protect their tribes regardless of whether it is wrong or right. >> can you hang and the line until we get an answer and we will come back to you. >> i think what john is saying as really not the reality of it.
12:28 am
i do know if he can get the kind of description that we have an afghanistan. it could go to my physical, and also to my would walk and see what i am doing as a normal citizen, a government criticized cars i, criticized the way that people somehow are creating the problems, they are coming and doing anything they want. i am a normal citizen. they now have many bodyguards. protection for its analysts.
12:29 am
two was a protection. the kind of skills we need under the reporting how we said our life and organization there are providing six houses, providing security advisers and providing any kind of journalists have. >> that security exists for reporters. you are able to criticize cards i. >> i am able to criticize cars i. i am able with what they are doing. what they're doing, able to write. this is the reality that we are able to criticize cards i. whether being for example whether there are being assaulted by camp. >> are you from afghanistan?
12:30 am
>> i am a part of the understandable -- i have seen that i have a lot of friends. the reality is this. what i have seen as based on tried. the freedom of the press, it is short. >> this is a good question. how many journalists get killed when they criticize the leaders. my answer is that, at directly criticizing 8 liter, and anybody in afghanistan is not consequently resulted in calling from 2001 up until now. 39 journalists across the country, but not because of
12:31 am
criticizing but because of the kind of exclusions they were reporting from a. the second explosion happened under this type of thing. >> the world press freedom index put together a by the reporters without borders ranks afghanistan would hundred 28th. the comparison between afghanistan and iraq debt. how much did they tell a been and al qaeda interfere with freedom of the press and afghanistan and? >> i want to say comparing 2011 and 2012, afghanistan moved 22 seats. the numbers for 2012, yes -- >> ok. clarified it. >> the call a bond as not having
12:32 am
a place for example, a base center in any prevent place. they are coming. they are limiting the freedom of expression. they are trying to not find exclusions or any kind of activities that they have. the a trying not from them. our not having that much power to lament everything it. >> human rights article says there was a draft to media log going through the legislature there in afghanistan. under that, the word choice of media outlets would be controlled by the government. is that what is on the books today? what are the laws pertaining to the media? >> comparing our country is one
12:33 am
of the best media aligned regions. through some kind of forced through the government, it starts to revise the media. a cam within the draft. it was comparing to the current law. it was keeping lots of at or to government to control media. a kind of the national -- to set the process of government. it is not going to be a kind of regard to the lot. the current law is somehow seems to be -- >> the current law stands. as for as journalism for you.
12:34 am
what will afghanistan lead leg 10 years from now. >> it depends on what is going on. the international engagement enforces an engagement. and in general, what could i say. what we are having now in the sector of freedom of expression. and 10 years from now i am seeing we will have a more literate people. more people they could support freedom of expression and free media. not having the couple of outlets from now but we will be having radio stations across the country and hundreds of papers and tv stations across the country. >> jams from maryland. a republican caller.
12:35 am
>> there is a talent and published media. what would he like to see the americans do before we totally withdraw in 2013? >> can i ask you, are you asking of the top and has its own media? >> did it publish regularly. they have access to reporters who have access to tell of an spokesperson's? >> first off, the taliban. are not having publication inside afghanistan on. they are able and a broadening program system, it is done a lot. there claims to be from the taliban and then some of the
12:36 am
provinces often -- this is not a permanent a radio station. the caliban spokesperson, they are having access to a number of telephones of journalists. they are sending voice messages. they're having journalists it there are and the activities from them. >> to get their side up. >> to say what they think about an issue. >> to independent and jealous. >> to many journalists across the country. what is needed for american troops, for example, before bowell from afghanistan, let's focus more, and more, and the more of the freedom of expression.
12:37 am
it is very important to read one without a lash could drive a village people from one place to another place. from the demonstrators, with up to 40 armed one of the results of free media and the free press's is this. let's focus before the withdrawal. >> i have one question. i was and afghanistan. i witnessed poverty which is tremendous. also the danger from the afghan
12:38 am
government including the taliban. it was a massive. i also have a question. what is going to happen afterwards separate peoples the troops out? >> thank you for the question and the problem and places or in war zones is it is something people are -- it does not mean it is a general picture of media and afghanistan war on the places. i could surely say that we hear a sigh from the propaganda of the taliban. we do have a tv stations and radio stations, what will be
12:39 am
happening after 2014 with the withdrawal of forces from afghanistan? i an not hoping to a full withdrawal of americans or after a fifth cousin 14. i need think that we do need more assistance rigid long-term existence and afghanistan. the kind of interference is that we have from other countries. our neighboring countries. here is a need for a long-term existence of forces in afghanistan. if a full withdrawal of forces means there will be a number, but not what we have now, that number will help us to go to
12:40 am
1998 or 1996. >> executive director of the ninth media institut supporting open media in afghanistan. that is our topic this morning. taking comments about the press and afghanistan. to the afghan people want western-style liberties or did they prefer the tribal rule. >> it depends to what you want to define it. we do want democracy. it would be different from the united states or from countries in europe. we do not want that in afghanistan. would you want democracy.
12:41 am
we do need it. we are defining its -- it will be a different thing. it will be defined the to the tradition of afghanistan, to the real lesson of the people of afghanistan. >> gary and ohio. >> you are on the air. >> i am attractive understand if he believes an islamic law. if he believes and liberties. why did the press not come out against the execution of people who covered from muslim to chris -- christian. what did not understand it as a complete -- >> not that kind of the islamic. as a muslim i would say that
12:42 am
what is a against humanity is against -- that is not accept fund buying me as a muslim or by muslims. we do not have our on investigation, that is not the way it was understood in that general here. we are leaving on human rights and democracy, leaving on democrats reject -- >> the world press freedom index showed the united states and afghanistan 128. polls report america is ranked 28th or 32nd in freedom of the press. since our constitution protect
12:43 am
the press, who is restricting it? i want to ask that about afghanistan. who is requesting the press? >> the problems we are facing with afghanistan we are seeing the -- we see the media people and media communities. and said the government of afghanistan, the people who are fighting with the government, the taliban for example, local governments across the country, these are the three main barriers we are facing with all of the constitution, the article 34, 22 access to free media and the freedom of affirmation, if the article 15 is granting access of reformation. all of the media lot articles by granting the axis of
12:44 am
reaffirmation and information expression. the three elements i have worth telling about are the three elements we are facing with problems through them. >> what was the news like under afghanistan? what's let's say this. we had only one radio station. no tv station at all. there were a few papers that were run and it managed by the government of afghanistan. it is quite understandable that when power its managing the news, what it should be looking like. no news at all about keyboard no news at all the but the demons of the public.
12:45 am
it is all about with the taliban thought about that time. we have more than 54 tv stations across the country. >> are those mostly local? clucks national and local perry would have more than 162 ready as stations across the country, most of them are local radio stations. we have 214 papers across the country, most of them are a independent. you can amex and the change. what does the chance to look like? >> are they owned by individuals? are they on by corporations like they are and the united states? what's a few of them are owned by corporations. mostly by community and individuals. >> is there an industry set up for advertising and marketing?
12:46 am
>> not a proper system of marketing here in the united states. we have order and as i say since. they are salsa stem the book here they are having a good marketing system. not an organization to do marketing for others. this is a kind from the elements, from the organizations that are burning the media outlets. >> i book try to get and one more phone and call. if you can make it quick. >> thank you. given one of the last cause i have heard for if there is no phobia or jingoism. what policies does your guest have coming back to other personal loans and being for a
12:47 am
afghanis and so? >> he wants to know what plans you have a place to make sure the journalist aspect are trying as i say in afghanistan but goes to other parts of the world? >> i think plans for having the connections and afghanistan and across the world is something we are planning in two ways. first, fiber networks. we are having an affiliation with the organization's outside and washington, d.c.. they are providing space for me to come here and talk to you. these are the boys we are doing our best to talk to journalists. >> thank you very much for talking to our viewers. we appreciate it.
12:48 am
>> on the next "washington journal," president and ceo of the republican mainstream partnership. he talks of what the role republicans will play in fiscal matters." the presidency zero of the national effort to end domestic violence discusses the renewal of violence against women act. the center for strategic international studies looks for the nuclear committee of north korea. >> a conversation was general electric jeremy emerald. after that, and addresses by president obama to read the 100th anniversary of the federal income-tax. >> having observed a steady improvement in the
12:49 am
opportunities and well-being of our citizens, i can report to you that the state of the youthful union is good at. >> once again in keeping with time-honored tradition, i come to report on the state of the union. i am pleased to report america as much to improve. there is good news to believe they good will continue. but it is to report on the state of the union. to set forth our responsibilities and the board of our founders to set a more perfect union. the set of the union and strong that. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war. our economy as a in a recession. the civilized world is as unprecedented in just the state of a reunion has never been stronger.
12:50 am
>> it is because of our people the feature is hopeful. the journey goes forward. the state of the union a strong. >> tuesday, president obama delivers this year poses address starting at 8:00 eastern and the president at 9:00 followed by the gop response and your reaction. instead of the unit, tuesday night and c-span, suspend radio, and his band -- >> the kinds of grief this woman was going through was amazing. people demonized her for that. we found out she was not crazy. mary todd was a significant
12:51 am
percent. i hope some day we get a better view of the range of things that influenced karl life. not just the strategy. >> first lady's -- and florence and ladies. examining the public and private lives as people who served. 9:00 eastern and pacific on c- span, suspend radio, and c- >> the ceo says the uncertainty is having a bigger impact on small and medium businesses. part of a discussion on manufacturing posted by the atlantic magazine on thursday. this is just under one hour. [applause]
12:52 am
>> thanks so much for joining us. i want to start big picture. it has been a rough couple of years for the economy. people keep referring to the tantalizing signs of manufacturing revival. manufacturing jobs are up to about 400,000. they are down roughly 6 million in the prior 11 years. is what we are seeing a dead cat bounce? is something going on here? is there a manufacturing renaissance in america? what are you seeing? >> is the u.s.'s manufacturing more competitive than it has been in the past? yes. there are a number of drivers. in high-tech manufacturing,
12:53 am
material innovation is happening. there is a lot of innovation and advanced manufacturing. materials are higher than it was in the past versus labor. the energy construct is being created by shale gas. the ability of u.s. companies to sell around the world and export in the markets that are growing. in the case of manufacturing, the future has a chance to be different from the past. we are at our most competitive in my 30 years on a globally relative basis. how does that translate to jobs? it is a more complicated equation on around productivity and other elements. will it go from 9% to 20%? that is unlikely. could you see a steady increase of manufacturing jobs in the u.s.? that is likely to happen. whether you get all 5 million
12:54 am
back, i do not know. there will be productivity. there is a bigger opportunity for more content in the u.s. today. >> jack welsh once said the ideal situation for multinational is you put your factory on a barge and move around the world to whatever location has the best set of competitive operating environment at the time. that model went too far. you, yourself, in a speech suggested that the outsourcing trend have gone too far. one of the trends people are talking about is the re-shoring. businesses are coming back to america. we have a lot of anecdotes.
12:55 am
it is hard to tell whether the trend has changed. what have you seen? has ge made a decision that went too far in that direction? >> i do not think about it in terms of off-shoring re-shoring. i think of it in terms of competitiveness. there are two different things. one is globalization. globalization is where you go try to sell your product to people who are buying them. that means you get to add capability to the company. i was in four countries in africa. each could be $1 billion in the near future. you may have 70% of the content in the u.s. and 30% locally. globalization is not a bad thing. it gets lumped and cast. it is a thing called outsourcing. that was a lot of what happened in the 1980's and 1990's. virtually everything we have done has been how to access local markets.
12:56 am
when you look back on manufacturing and looking at putting it in different places, the record is mixed. a lot of it has not worked. for a variety of reasons. supply chain reasons. innovation reasons. when i look at the vast majority of what ge makes, we want the manufacturing close to the innovators. we want to be close to the markets we sell to. does that mean a vast majority
12:57 am
of jobs suddenly come back? the extent to which we brought outsourcing piece -- it is because of where we used to make things, we thought we would earn higher margins by making them in the united states. >> what are some of the elements in the process? where are you finding that there was extra value to be had been closer to home? >> supply chain and materials. if you take the majority of our products, if you can get a one percentage higher yield in the material we use, it offsets any labor one way or the other. we use high-tech materials. we do them in a consistent way. that is where i would say. supply chain shrinkage. you go from a world where oil is $12 a barrel for 30 years to a world where oil is $100 per
12:58 am
barrel. the length of time it takes to ship something is quite material. there is nothing that is a panacea. we will create jobs here and in china and a lot of different places. we are a global company. i will never apologize for that. there is a competitive structure today that works for the united states. it is based on proximity to market, high skilled workforce around materials and the ability to innovate. >> high skills is a key thing. whether or not this benefits the american worker is a huge question. 20 years ago when people thought of going to work in a plant as manufacturing, is the factory job of today different from the factory job of 20 or 30 years today -- ago? >> i hope so. it is similar in some ways and different in some way. if you work for ge, and you assemble jet engines. you go to a factory in north
12:59 am
carolina. it has maybe 400 production workers and one manager. you do all lead manufacturing. you do all continuous process flow. the teams drive the productivity. you have empowered teams on the floor. you have sophisticated materials, titanium coming together that is being assembled by people that are working in teaming structures. that is different. in some ways it is the same. in some ways, focus on speed, it is different than what it was when i started. >> if a neighbor asked you for a job at that plant. what is your advice to him? this is the education you need. >> the first thing you want to
1:00 am
do is say that there -- we have people that have different aspirations. you want them to understand where they will be. i would say if you are 22 years old, and you want to i would go outside and say if you are 22 or however old and you want to project ahead a bit. you have to do addicted manufacturing. you have to have some computer skills, so i would encourage them to have a facility run computers. and have to be able to be competitive and work in teams. we have an initiative now taking veterans and putting them back to work. we can make a go of it.
1:01 am
>> does america produce enough people with the skills you need? >> not yet. the whole community college feels training and the u.s. is one of the places where we can focus. one of the guys on the panel today did a great job framing how other people do it and other countries do it. the government of vietnam trains 15,000 welders every year. a government program has a ready supply of people into the work force. we can still orchestrate -- what are the skills needed and how to get people with those skills into the work force. >> it may be hard to persuade the government to look at vietnam as a model.
1:02 am
>> i tell it as an anecdote. >> what are some of the initiatives you would like to see us doing at the community college level? is there a model in germany that works better? >> i would start with -- mississippi. it is not quite vietnam. [laughter] we put a bunch of aviation in mississippi with high flow from both the universities there, from an engineering and a materials science standpoint. also a great turning program had in place. it got people repurchased to do teaming. it was a great private public partnership with mississippi. a lot of this happens on the local level. they can pull together.
1:03 am
we are going to need 500 welders, how do we do a great job of getting those people and 30 small businesses that locate around that? i see it more in the states -- colorado, mississippi. i can go down a list of places we have seen recently. community colleges will be the key to this process. >> let's talk about the mississippi plan, the decision to work on engines. was there a chance those jobs would not go to the united states? tell me about a change in the process and locations.
1:04 am
>> we have this backlog of engines. there is a real transformation going on in aviation. we could see five years ago a tremendous wave coming into the system. we need suppliers. a lot of them are in europe, japan. we have to go down the learning curve as a lot to those engines. we wanted more capability closer to home. we would have to the engine after engine, apart after apart. and the learning curve is steep. that was a strategic decision to invest more in our supply chain. then we look for a little bit of diversity in states. for places where we can get good workers.
1:05 am
a place we can scale over time where we can get in there with 500 and scale up to 1,000. any one of our businesses, they probably do work in 20 states around the country -- montana, mississippi, ohio. we tried have new diversity and launch capability. >> you must always hear discussion of tax advantages. states and localities wonder if we need to do a deal on taxes. how important is that? >> training and education is always more important. a jet engine lasts for 40, 50 years. so whatever decision you make today will change at some point in those 40 or 50 years but if
1:06 am
it cannot deliver the people or the talent, you will hate it for 40 or 50 years. education and training programs are at the top of the list for me. it does not mean we do not go after the other stuff. the people always dictate how well a place goes. >> going back to re-shoring, there is a lot of attention to labor costs going up and in china. cheap labor has gone. so much downward pressure on the united states. a lot of people are looking at this re-shoring as a reversal of the cost of arbitrage. from what i hear from you, that
1:07 am
is not really -- >> it is really about markets as anything else. you have to be agile in markets and have to have a good flexible supply chain. wages will fluctuate to meet markets and stuff like that. in many ways, everybody knows wages have been stagnant. the bigger piece and into the last 30 years as materials are so much more expensive. steel, copper, titanium, oil. even if you look at a basic product like a refrigerator. if you make it the right way, it is a permissible product. refridgerator. it has maybe 1.8 hours of labor. something like that. material goes up and down but
1:08 am
particularly in high-tech products, if your yield on a turbine blade goes down 1%, that's millions of dollars. if labor causes that, no matter what you are paying, it is cheaper to expensive. >> there was an interesting study out last year and one of the key takeaways was how many jobs in manufacturing do not fit our traditional notion of what a manufacturing job is? is that one of your experiences, things like the rnd of a ge product are much higher than it
1:09 am
used to be. therefore your more drawn to that intellectual horsepower. >> the product is the process. there is this indigenous nature between what a designer sees and how it gets made that you cannot separate. manufacturing technology gets down alongside the product technology. and does not mean you cannot do it in a certain way. i'll never give up on trying to win globally but most products today have this incredible linkage between the design and how it is manufactured. we will purchase $13 billion from small, medium-sized
1:10 am
companies. >> when the day setting stories in manufacturing these days is exciting the day's stories in manufacturing these days is 3d manufacturing. is this over hyped? is this a game changer? >> if you look at a company like ours, we make incredible -- at our core, we are a materials company. the common thread between gas turbines, jet engine, locomotive, if the material
1:11 am
technologies. that is who we are. and we do unique shapes. in shape of a turbine blade might be the difference in one or two points of fuel burn it and to the way that engine works. that is billions of dollars to our customers. you get a block of something and you weld it and take the scrap, that is how you make those parts. preprinting allows you to make the product right the first time from the car up so you do not have as much waste. the tools are cheaper. the time is faster. that is the holy grail.
1:12 am
if i thought 3-d printing could only do your shoes, i would not be talking about it. if you want to make unique shapes with high-tech materials quickly, that is worth my time. >> i was sitting on an airline and somebody said the turbine blades are made of the printer. i am not thinking it is a smart idea to get on the plane. >> close your eyes and fall as leep. [laughter] >> you are talking about products that have high loads on them. >> i think we are proving it right now. some are new engines. they have the best materials. content will grow over time. i think this is one of the things. there is stuff that you say this is really worth the time and
1:13 am
effort. this is the latter, not the former. you develop a better sense. what is worth spending a lot of time on. >> does it open up customized manufacturing? just to be about making millions of the same thing. >> both in terms of cycle and where you can do it and how fast. it should reduce the cycle of how long it takes to produce, designed a new gas turbine. we would have thought about a new gas turbine taking five
1:14 am
years to design and commercialize. it does give the ability to do a lot more customization. >> this is washington and it is hard to get away from it. seven days ago, you were relieved from one year obligations. -- one of your obligations. tell me about your two years with the jobs council. being the ambassador of business and administrations. >> we were having some much fun. [laughter] i was honored to serve. i am glad i did it. i enjoyed the people that were on the council.
1:15 am
we worked well together. it was a challenging time. we tried to be as pragmatic as we could be. we talked through most of those. one of our recommendations was to invest in the infrastructure. we had the case. maybe doing in infrastructure bank are other ways to build. the thing that will make us competitive over the long term. that is hard right now, so we did the best we could. >> this would be great time to take a small print of would like to invite three more panelists. -- small break.
1:16 am
i would like to invite three more panelists. we have margaret brennan from cbs news, howard schneider and john harwood. >> thanks. >> i would like to jump in if there are any questions you like to ask of the conversation we just had. >> i have a question when it comes to the relationship to those you are implying. -- employing. it seems like when you talk to people looking for a job now or who have looked, the new understanding is that a corporation providing you with health care or any kind of benefits is really an add on. the companies seem to want you to keep you temporarily employed or up to just the level where they would have to provide you
1:17 am
with something more beyond hourly pay. is that the new understanding between workers and corporations? has that model changed? >> i do not think so. we still invest in $1 billion in training for the company. our health care plans have changed to be more competitive. for new employees, the pension plans have changed to be more competitive. but we still like having a ge company. we still think culture is important. its means something to be a general electric employee. >> i worked for a ge for a couple of years. . was oene of those kids
1:18 am
[laughter] >> we have temporary workers in the company but we have 300,000 full-time ge employees. that is a city. we still have that as well. to manage work loads and stuff like that or do jobs we do not think we will do for a long amount of time, but the fast are full-time employees. there is surge work, temporary work that still goes on that we do not bring in full time people we hire a lot every year. we still think culture is a good thing.
1:19 am
>> this debate in europe now seems to be a wholesale real violation of the social contract. when you're deciding to make the next investment, how much are you paying attention to the political signals coming out from individual countries. you know, france versus spain versus germany. you could go almost anywhere, put your money almost anywhere. how much is the political signaling playing into the capital decision? >> we listen to it. and we think about it but our stuff is so long term, these people change. the attitude changed. the country dynamics change. i really like chancellor merkel.
1:20 am
i think it will be more stable. that could change all quickly. most of the investment is about markets. if you do not think europe will grow, you'll not invest as much there. if you think northern africa or nigeria or saudi arabia will grow, you will be willing to take more risk there because you think the growth is there. when you see political upheaval, it scares away investment because you do not think the,. you don't think the region will grow. >> if you're sitting at the street, hunger is the white house, how much of this can be a proverbial discussion?
1:21 am
say you are talking to an asian company that may be interested in investing some more on this side of the world. >> investment certainty. debt limit and stuff like that. that is distrusting -- distracting. we need education, regulations, tax reform, those things that basically said we want people to invest in the united states. our fdi has trailed. i think there are 5 or 6 things that i've mccaul systems of the competitiveness. -- of what i would call our systems of competitiveness.
1:22 am
we all know what they are. i think it also helps when the president of the united states stands up and says, i want people to invest in the united states. i wanted manufacturing. that is helpful. >> these do not have to be mutually exclusive from a point of view but it tends to work out that way. and the democratic side, an emphasis on will government. government. you're talking about human capital and infrastructure investments. on the other side, republicans emphasize less government, less regulation, low rates. when you think about those solutions, which has more relative importance? >> you know you will not get a clear anwer. [laughter]
1:23 am
>> i thought you were businessman and not a politician? [laughter] >> institutions like darpa, the nih, have created an immense amount of innovation in this country and jobs. the notion that says government can never play it will, be a catalyst for innovation and change, would be to disprove what has already tested for generations. i woud leave that as an foundational point. the amount of regulation has grown and grown. no country in the world follows us anymore. nobody looks at the u.s. and says that as such it best
1:24 am
practice, i will pick that up right away. i leave that as two goal posts. it would be a repetition of what already exists. it is the best in the world, bar none. that is the heart and soul of the u.s. the government to play a role. on the other side, we still do too many things that are not necessarily conducive to competitiveness. >> what is an example of regulation the obama administration has promulgated that you think is a ridiculous strike on growth? >> if you think about the fact it takes 12 years to get a power line permitted across state lines, i could give the dozens. every permit should be approved in less than 24 months.
1:25 am
there are jobs there. i guarantee it. there is no excuse for anybody not to have a short cycle time. >> you said that to obama? what did he say? >> he stepped in on the dodd council and said we are going to shorten this one. there are several permits the the president stepped in on executive order and set year-ago period. i still think there is an immense amount of work to do. e says, i;'m not quite ther e e
1:26 am
yet. i would benchmark ourselves against other countries that are moving ahead. maybe they wanted a little more than we do. i am competing against global players try to get the same business we are trying to get. regulation is a good thing to work on. >> on access to markets, the economic diplomacy front, where would you want to see more of a free trade access model? >> on both sides? or to sell our products more openly? >> there has been a lot of focus on the transpacific partnership.
1:27 am
where do you need government help to open up a marketplace? >> we would like multilateral free trade agreement. we believe the tptp will be great. [laughter] a better extension into europe, things like that, ouare outstanding. we are for all that. >> in that relationship the need to get the government to open that door for you more important in asia and europe? >> i think asia is probably harder than europe. but we get there. and to the end, i could sell my stuff anywhere because of our size.
1:28 am
for a $2 billion american company to win, it would be. very be-- it would be very helpful. >> i know ge has had a complex relationship in china. this administration has put a lot of emphasis on energy and market access. what grade do you give them in the first term of what they have been able to accomplish? >> i get the president credit for is that he is engaging and has avoided, you know, following
1:29 am
every wave of controversy. the long-term focus is important. let's try to see through some of the bombs in the road. he is keeping: that. it is a complicated relationship for companies and governments, but if you said to yourself, the two biggest economies in the world have a better relationship. we cannot afford not to engage. we are better off with the u.s. government being engaged. >> does that mean the argument obama have with mitt romney during the campaign where he said he would claim time not a
1:30 am
-- claim china a currency manipulator on day one. >> i think the role of the president is to have this brought perspective that last longer them whatever the debate was. think about a world where the two biggest economists in the world did not do any business together. hard to imagine, really. >> how do you make the case of globalization been a good thing. you could argue that are that it is inevitable. the living standards have been raised. that is a good thing. how to make a case our relationships have delivered on the promise. >> and the billions of dollars
1:31 am
of exports or out the door to dina. -- china. >> it is a complicated story. there are instances where you cannot make a case. if the world ended today, you balance shve various eets. 90% of people in the world live outside of the united states. we have to figure out a way to access that. rich was on the council. we would have different but i understand it. -- different perspectives but i understand it. i think we just happen to do as good of a job as we can.
1:32 am
it will not be perfect. my story is more complicated because i will see it in a different way. i completely believe globalization is a good thing. it is inevitable and can be made to share more properly. >> during the republican primaries campaign, rick santorum had a 0% tax rate for manufacturers. good or bad idea? >> i would take some derivative of simpson-bowles where you simplify the tax system. lower the rate. i would start there. we do not need any more
1:33 am
controversial than that. that time the system gives everything we need to be as competitive as we can possibly be. put jobs where they should be to be more competitive. >> are you disappointed there has been so little attention to the corporate tax side? do you believe the tax debate is harmful? >> going from one of these to another, going from the fiscal cliff to sequestration, i think that is disruptive. our competitors are siemens are people like that. if i quit for six months, my
1:34 am
-- our competitors are siemens are people like that. if i quit for six months, my global competitors will kill me. the people who get hurt are the small and medium businesses. these are the people we think are the heart of the u.s. whether you are republican or democrat, you say you like and those of the ones -- those of the ones that call. this can only be solved here. this may be a case where -- it would be great to get resolution.
1:35 am
>> this said there is a divide on the corp. in front -- corporate front. large companies like yours would benefit more from corporate tax reform, especially going to territorial places. it looks like corporations are doing pretty well if you look at profits. what is the case? >> would it be unfair for me to ask for the same tax system? >> i do not think it is. just give me a playing field where i can do the things you want me to do.
1:36 am
win business and compete effe ctively. we should have a tax system that allows us to compete with relative competitors. that's all i would ask for. the same system that is what simpson bowles and people like that. companies adjust. will i like everything? no. but we will adjust and can go on. but would like a system where we can compete. just the way that would make us globally competitive. >> where are american wages had it? >> my sense is they will improve. >> raises have not risen to pay.
1:37 am
to do more. you have been asked to do much more with much less. >> you make it seem like this is a charles dickens sweatshop. >> no, i'm not. [laughter] >> we want a force that is well- trained. our turnover is close to 0. people like their jobs and we should pay them appropriately. >> not being accusatory in any
1:38 am
way. >> it is a big problem. it is a big problem that maybe is a vestige of globalization in the end. but i did not know how to reverse. >> you talked about input costs being a huge factor. natural gas is a big topic. is there an input cost, seven that can be a trigger in the u.s.-- something there that can be a trigger in the u.s. to increase manufacturing?
1:39 am
>> there is a competitive game changer that is available. we have a pipeline system. the pricing will not always stay as low but it will stay low and create jobs. i think it is a very severe factor. this country should be very interested to read every citizen in the u.s. should be interested in how we develop these natural resources. i think it is quite important. and could lead to a variety of options. >> back to the sequester issue. you have a fundamental split. obama is saying no. you will hurt seniors, if we do
1:40 am
only spending cuts, we should do revenues as well. who is right? >> i think there is no way to solve the problem without taking an approach somewhat like simpson bowles. they have to put $5 trillion of cost reductions. i thought that plan was reasonably balanced. the devil is in the details. you'll some ways have to do both. there is a scoreboard. >> you are saying obama is right, we need revenue as well as spending cuts?
1:41 am
>> you have to get significant entitlement reform. this has got to be substantial and has got to be now. rather than me endorsing either one, but the nearest -- but the deeds to be reform. i have never done a deal without meeting with the other side. i went all of my arguments in my own congress -- conference room. it is only when i open up the doors that the world really stinks. i came here to talk about any
1:42 am
faction and not this, but i would feel much better if -- i do not know how anything gets done unless you sit and negotiate. business can be a catalyst. this work needs to get done here. it has got to be done by compromising and negotiating and not to buy, you know -- >> you said we do need more revenue of. >> i do not want that to the seminal point here. i'm not here to endorse either one. >> but do you think he intends to accomplish entitlement reform? >> he has said that this is something port and that he has got to do. -- important that he has to do.
1:43 am
i am not here to take the side of the president or other republicans. we need to grow the economy and do all the things that we want to do. that is what i'm calling for. i would feel better if they were meeting. >> it seems one of the things that gets lost is there are different ways of reducing the deficit. the president talks about the debt reduction deals we have. if you look at the spending side it is all discretionary. all on the defense side. it is research and work development, all of these things
1:44 am
that are r&d. they do not deal with what most economists would say is the real problem. has a debate somehow skewed in how we have failed to make these distinctions and where to make the cut? >> this notion of federal government driving innovation versus private and filling a shift there. >> there's always both. the government has been the catalyst of the private sector involved. if you go back 30 years, most would come from the department of defense. today there's a lot more in the private sector than ever before.
1:45 am
it is quite strong. >> there is not one company, ge is not alone, that has not changed their health care a pension plan. they are difficult decisions that are hard to do. we do it in a constructive way with employees. the notion that we are in a world where we cannot do anything about some of these big entitlement costs, i do not think that exist. >> on the defense side, there is concern of layoffs. you mentioned darpa. the except the restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into
1:46 am
play, that have negative-- acc epted restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative impacts? >> we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of catalyst is something you see in every corner of the world. whether it is europe or china or anyplace else, i did not go to one place where there is no one government at all. the private sector is still very strong here and innovative. the private sector can pick up a lot. just getting it done.
1:47 am
there will be such a value in a just getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust to move forward. the sigh of relief is incredibly important right now. i am an optimist. it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. the work force of this country is as good as any in the world. >> thank you for the optimistic note. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
1:48 am
>> in his weekly address, president obama speaks about sequestration and tax policy. senator lisa murkowski delivers the republican address. she delivers her policy for an energy plan in the u.s. >> hi, everybody. over the last few years democrats and republicans have cut our deficit by more than $2.50 trillion to a mix of spending cuts and hired tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. that is more than halfway toward the four trillion dollars that you elected officials say we need to stabilize our debt. i believe we can finish the job the same but we started it with a balanced mix of more spending cuts and tax reform.
1:49 am
the overwhelming majority of the american people agree. my preference and the preference of many members of congress is to do that and a balanced and comprehensive web making sensible changes to entitlement programs and reforming the tax code. both the house and the senate are working toward budget proposals that led up the balance path going forward. the budget process takes time. right now, if congress does not act by march 1, a series of harmful automatic cuts to just creating -- the sequester is scheduled to take effect. the result is a huge blow to middle-class families and the economy as a whole. if it is allowed to go forward, about the americans who work in fields like clean energy are likely to be laid off. firefighters and food inspectors
1:50 am
good find themselves out of work, leaving communities more normal. small businesses could be prevented from getting the resources and support they need to keep the doors open people with disabilities could be forced to wait even longer. economic progress could be put at risk. then there is the impact of the military readiness. the military is forced to delay an aircraft carrier forced to deploy to the gulf. changes like this effect are ability to respond to threats and an unstable part of the world. we will be forced to make more tough decisions and the week ahead of congress fails to act the good news is, there is another option. we faced a similar deadline two months ago and instead of making cuts that would cost jobs, democrats and republicans come
1:51 am
together and made responsible cuts and manage a book changes to the tax code that will bring down the deficit. congress should pass a similar set of cuts and clothes more loopholes and took a can find a way to replace the sequestered with a longer-term solution. most members of congress including many republicans to not think it is and get idea to put jobs at risk in the unnecessary damage to the economy. the current plan puts the burden of avoiding cuts and seniors and middle-class families. they would rather ask more from the vast majority of americans then close a single tax loophole that benefits the wealthy. we have made good progress toward reducing the deficit and a balanced way. there is no way we can i keep chipping away at the problem and go with that middle class families and small businesses should suffer because washington cannot come together and eat them eight tax loopholes or
1:52 am
--11 eight tax loopholes or government programs that do not work. at a time when economists and business leaders have said the economy is poised for progress, we should not allow a self- inflicted wounds to put the progress in jeopardy. my message is this. let's keep working together to solve the problem and give our workers and businesses the support they need to grow and to thrive. thank you and have a great weekend. >> hi. i am senator lisa murkowski. i want to discuss the tremendous opportunities that await us and the opportunities it. energy has been a source of anxiety since the 1970's. thanks to new technologies, an era of scarcity is giving way to
1:53 am
one of abundance. we have a 90 year of supply of new gas to eliminate opec for decades and a broader range of options for alternatives and the efficiency. there may never have a been a time when america has had more potential for energy production were better ability to use energy wisely. we recognize that all is not well. energy production of public lands owned by the federal of government stayed flat or fell in the recent years. the energy infrastructure has aged. the price of oil as high in the need for reliable energy has never been more urgent. projects are hamstrung by regulations, delayed permits and regulation. the energy sector which has improved in some respects, but we should demand a better. to take full advantage of the opportunities and to face up to
1:54 am
the energy challenges, i released the report entitled energy 2020, at a prison for the -- a vision for american energy future. it is based on a simple and-- insight. energy is good. energy provides the basis of modern society and allows us to provide lives. as we found out during the power outage, it is important to professional football. energy is not a necessary evil. energy is good. that is why it is and our national interest to make it abundant, affordable, and secure. our challenge is to align federal policy to align with
1:55 am
them. my blueprint offer is 200 recommendations. they span the spectrum of resources and reforms from the approval of the keystone pipeline to a trust fund for energy resource paid for with the new production. every recommendation is associated with a clear goal from the year 2020. we can end its dependence on will pepper oil. -- opec oil. we can make energy more repetitive and build on our gains and reestablish the supply chain for critical minerals. we can ensure it research and not and less regulation is the-- and not endless regulation is the force behind innovation. through sensible and regulatory reforms we can prevent the misuse of reforms and allow products to receive it. projects to proceed. we can maintain the highest environmental standards and the
1:56 am
burled. the ideas and my blueprint would create new jobs, generate new revenues and slash the dependence on foreign energy. shore up security and strengthen the economy. help us minimize the dependence on energy development and reduce the emissions. it is true my blueprint does not rely on do mandates or new regulations to achieve these goals. it does not drive up taxes or energy prices. it does not limit choice or a lavish subsidies. there are some who continue to believe those options represent the only path forward. that is wrong. there is a resource that must be protected on tap and undisturbed, that is you, the american tax payer. not every member of the congress will support every proposal and my blueprint. that is why i describe it as a conversation starter.
1:57 am
it is intended to provoke a better discussion about energy to recognize how bright our future can be and to provide a prudent alternative to the heavy-handed approaches from the administration and the epa. we can do better. we can agree imagine our energy policies. it can help guide the way. i want to thank you for listening. if you are interested and-- in reading energy 2020, it is on my website. thank you so much. >> next, federal income tax 100 anniversary. after that, a house hearing on immigration policy. that is followed by "washington journal." >> the prime minister discusses the state of the british economy.
1:58 am
the prime minister pose a questions on sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> what i discovered when i have gotten older and mature is that the worst strategy to achieve happiness in life is to make that your primary goal. if you make happiness what you are striving for, you will not achieve it. instead you will be sort of narcissistic and self involved and caring only about your own pleasures and satisfactions in life is your paramount goal. what i have found is that happiness is a byproduct of other things. it is a byproduct of beautiful work and family and friends and, and good health and love and care. we get happiness not by aiming directly for it, but by throwing herself into the projects and
1:59 am
involving ourselves and be a good person. >> in "a conscious capitalism" john mackey examines how the good of business and capitalism can lead to a better world. a sunday night 9 p.m. on "after words." find more "book tv" online. like us on facebook. >> the old north church is one historic sites. many people come to this church every year. they come here because of that evidence that happened in 1975. what happened here in 1875 is a historical mystery. we have very few records about what actually occurred on the what actually occurred on the night that poverty o


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on