Panel One of a Hearing of the House Education and the Workforce Committee on the Role of Education in Creating Jobs

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: PANEL ONE OF A HEARING OF THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: THE ROLE OF EDUCATION IN CREATING JOBS

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)

LOCATION: 2175 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES: ALAN GREENSPAN, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD

BODY:

REP. BOEHNER: (In progress) -- this is an election year, and we all know in election years there's a temptation on both sides to point fingers instead of solving problems. And with due respect to all of my colleagues, I know my constituents are tired of a lot of finger- pointing. What they want is sound policies that will help them improve their lives and their families' lives. And it might take some doing on both sides, but I hope we can keep them in mind despite election year pressures.

And with that, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished guests today.

-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-

REP. BETTY MCCOLLUM (D-MN): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We live in a global economy, and it's clear that the American higher education system is also part of this global economy. For example, we have tens of thousands of students from China and India being educated in American universities, and these students speak fluent English, they understand our culture, they graduate, frequently with advanced degrees, I might add, and they are immediately prepared to compete against the American worker at the highest levels, in our country or in theirs. Yet our country does not possess a similar highly educated population that possesses both the technical skills as well as the language and the cultural skills to compete in the world's largest emerging markets-China, India or the Arab world.

From a national security perspective, we've seen these challenges presented in our intelligence and our defense communities, in having Americans with technical skills but lacking the language and the cultural skills to allow them to function effectively even in Arabic- speaking countries.

Mr. Chairman, I know how important it is for this generation and the next generation of highly skilled Americans to also be able to speak Chinese, Spanish or Arabic while possessing the cultural skills to compete in this global marketplace. Or is the American-centered, monolanguage workforce going to be sufficient enough for our future?

And I have another question. I serve on the International Relations committee, and human rights in China has recently been discussed. As you so well pointed out, foreign entities invest in the United States because we have a set of laws that protect their property rights. We know we have jobs moving to China in part because of cheap labor. But along with property rights in the United Sates, we have workers' rights. Should we be asking for protections for workers' rights in the countries in which U.S. corporations are now taking our jobs? Does not this job gap in protecting workers' rights have a negative impact on the workers here in the United states?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MR. GREENSPAN: Congresswoman, first of all on the-let me answer the last question first, if I may.

Individual cultures create certain rights for people within a society, and it very clearly is the case that the higher the standard of living, the more rights exist in a society. I mean for example, in those countries who are struggling on the edge of maintaining standards of living, we find that child labor is rampant, we find that types of labor standards are virtually non-existent, and they would argue that they can't afford them. In other words, they will starve if they don't have (them ?).

I think the issue gets down to our putting standards out should be an issue not of economics but of ethics and morality. In other words, we shouldn't be dealing with people who produce goods with slave labor or the equivalent. But if we're substituting what we perceive to be a moral purpose as really a change in name for what truly is protectionism, that we ought to avoid. And I think that I fully support what is-we are an ethical people and I think we ought to essentially try to spread that around the world, but not use ethics as a guise for protectionism, which I fear in too many instances is really what it's all about.

On the issue of multiple languages, it would clearly be the case-it would clearly be to our advantage if we had far greater language skills in this country. I mean, take a small, little country like Switzerland; there's more multiple languages-which everyone speaks, and speaks exceptionally well-than anyplace in the United States. We have been a parochial-for most of our history, we have been remarkably self-sufficient. And what has happened is that because of our extraordinary economic strength and military strength, English has become a major international language, so the pressure for us to learn second languages has been much less than others.

But as you point out, we're now seeing the consequences of that. There is a significant downside. I wouldn't call it economic, but it is a national security question. And I wish we had the capabilities that we don't have. And I fear that we are seeing certain consequences which we otherwise, if we had far greater skills, far broader skills in languages, I think other things equal, we'd be more effective. But while it's important, there are other things which I think clearly are more important to this society.