information and technical support. >> senator inhofe? >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm sorry about the votes coming up. i think you're doing the right thing though, although we would all like to have more time to ask questions. what the first of all talk to the commissioner cloud and director neslin. you didn't say what percentage of the wells would be hydraulically fracked. been have a percentage of the state of oklahoma and colorado there would be using that technology? ..

especially in pennsylvania. could you tell us how this water is disposed of in your two respect escape? kind of briefly. >> certainly. in colorado, a majority of water resistor circuit overuse. we talk about the disposal, final disposal, 60% is deep underground. 20% of the evacuated. about 20% is just charged a surface water understate water quality permit that do contain environmental health-based standards. >> in oklahoma, we recycle most of the phrack water come up when it's used if we have 10,500 injection cells be put the

watertown, fluid sound. >> so it's roughly the same as they're doing in colorado. how do your agencies responded investigate groundwater complaints? >> director neslin, and we tell us how you did it quite >> certainly, this is event that led to the hearing last february. a couple things were important. we got in an inspector on spending having 16 hours collect mean samples for analysis. this inspector is a phd in chemistry and 25 years experience. he spent over four hours investigating the alleged intimidation of work with other members of our staff, including their engineering staff is already 30 page report on the documents in his investigation into various types of analysis were used as part of the exercise. when the landover was dissatisfied with the conclusions that had drawn, which was very been no impact from hydraulic fracting, he

received a half-day hearing from her commission within 60 days. then her commission unanimously affirmed this pathfinding. i think in terms of the rigor of the analysis, timeliness work and transparency of the process, this compares very well. >> about the same in oklahoma quite >> it is about the same, senator. given extensive field staff better over the state monitoring the boats as well as dvd. >> and then i only have about to be second class. i like to have you talked about new technologies coming along. is there a procedure they can find to commissioner cloud, where you investigate these new technologies and what dangers, and what to do to mitigate these? >> as i said, our staff is i'm top of it all the time. if anybody has a complaint in colorado, we are 24 hours accessible and we try to stay on top of every single instance.

>> thank you very much. dr. volz, there's a very negative article in the pittsburgh tribune review yesterday that i'm sure that you have read it now. i'd like to ask that be made a part of the record. >> that objectionable be included in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> sunder merkley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. neslin, to listen to your testimony so that there's never been any problem in colorado and we found no verified incident of hydraulic fracting, harming groundwater. how do we square that with the documentary are referred to earlier where mike marcum takes and pours water out of his kitchen phosphate, holds a cigarette lighter to it and after a few seconds, i quote, a ball of fire erupts out of the

sink, almost enveloping marcum's head. the source for flammable water in a process called hydraulic fracting. how is escorted no incentive fracting or water. >> we investigated that very well. the fact that the willis completed in a cold beer information that contains what is called biogenic methane, unrelated to oil and gas development. there are published papers that the u.s. geological survey in colorado geological survey dating back within 30 years, verifying that fact that many foreign nations there is naturally occurring biogenic methane, not attributable to oil and gas development, not released by oil and gas development. the allegations were thoroughly investigated. laboratory analyses were done. the conclusion was done this is biogenic methane ability to oil and gas development. it is based on not just the work

of art status, but scientific papers from the geological surveys dating back decades. >> so basically if he had been learned is what are 30 years ago you would've had the same problem? >> yes, sir. >> interesting. thank you for addressing. and dr. volz, in your paper you refer to a long list of chemicals that are coming out of the grind treatment facility. were these brave variants, pro-mine, benzene, glycol ether, clorox and so forth, with this developed specifically to try to basically address the challenges these slovak fluids and clean them up? >> senator, this is an older fluid treatment facility that's been in operation for about 25 years and up until about five

years ago, only took care of conventional oil and gas fluid. nowadays dealing with these marsalis fluids. >> so the technology in the facility is completely inappropriate or ineffective in terms of the fullback fluids now been sent to a? >> that's right, sir. >> if we were looking at a newer facility in pennsylvania designed specifically in mind, we would find all these problems have been addressed? >> i'm not sure of that, sir. i think there needs to be a very definitive review of all the processes that are used by treatment facilities, not only in the state of pennsylvania because wastewater from the state of pennsylvania is actually being treated by these plants and sewage treatment plants in new york, new jersey, maryland, ohio and west virginia as well as pennsylvania. >> so i may have misinterpreted

pictures that were presented in your sides, but it looks like pipes coming out of the running treatment facility into a creek and just dumping all of this and effectively treated, highly contaminated dangerous stuff right into the creek on a surface in pennsylvania. is that actually was happening? >> that is exactly what is happening, sir. there is very little treatment done at that plant except to remove some of the barium. it is precipitated with a sulfate solution in the barium is lower, still high, but much lower than in the flow backwater, but there is many other contaminants that are not treated by the facility at all. >> ways pennsylvania's department allowing this to be put right into the creek? >> i don't know, sir. >> thank you. >> senator sessions is the regular public good member of the wildlife committee. >> i don't know who is the

next -- thank you. mr. ubinger, the federal government regulates discharge and the strings in pennsylvania regulates. maybe you'd like to answer the question on mr. volz's commented pennsylvania with discharges against alpine safety of the people in the water. >> senator, the department of environmental protection in 2010 -- >> are you familiar with this incident? >> only from news reports about that facility. but what i was going to save the department of environmental protection formulated a statewide discharge limit for tps for strontium that became

effective late last year and early this year. that standard is now in place. that standard, i think, would require newly issued permit to include that standard. it's a very stringent 500 million parts standard. one of the issues is that the permit cycle, which is typically five years is running its cars send us far, as far as i am aware, the department does not ask anyone to accelerate revision of those events to fit the standard in place. at the import of the standard is that a number of the responsibility leaders in the industry have begun to recycle their flow backwater by reinject tenet into new marsalis while development. very developing statistics, i'm not sure which one is accurate, but anywhere from 50% to 90% of flow backwater -- >> in ages past ask, does it violate the clean water act and

the clean water act would apply to the discharge, would it not? the federal clean water act? >> -- >> with it, yes or no? someone should stop it if it is a violation, should it not? yes or no. he has made a complaint. he's trying to get around doing it instead of stuff being hydraulic fracting around the country. we are in a serious financial problem in america. i am worried about our economy. surging gas prices make a difference. natural gas absolutely can be an alternative to the liquid fuel we import, the gasoline. it burns cleaner. it is all-american. it is a lot cheaper. engines that use that will pay for themselves over a period of time. the president, i think, indicated recently that he was

interested in expanding natural gas for vehicles. i think it has tremendous potential. too often we see in washington is the american people are suffering under high energy prices about a year from washington is a distraction that makes those prices go up instead of down. and people are worried about it. not just i would have to say we need clean, lower-cost energy and i believe that is what natural gas is. i'd like to introduce, mr. chairman, into the record, a statement from dr. boland, director of the state of alabama, water and gas port, a large natural gas component and probably the leading producer of coal bed methane in the country, with dozens of wells over 20 or 30 years. we have never had a problem according to dr. boland has supervised. he went further in to media

reports of leaking in the groundwater allocations around the country. he called his colleagues around the country in those days and he is concluded that he has found no incidents in which groundwater has been polluted. you know him, mr. cloud, dr. boland? >> i do not. >> he has done this since 1982 when he joined the board. he has a masters degree and doctorate in water hydrology, not petroleum engineering. but i would just offer that for the record. just to paraphrase senator cornyn and follow up on it, i think we've got to watch the regulations in the lawsuit don't become a 5000 cut. mr. cloud, how many fracturing wells have been -- >> 100,000. >> 100,000? i think it's five or 10,000 in

alabama. >> i believe the numbers i got a million. >> it is just huge numbers and we just got to be careful this time and we desperately need cleaner natural gas, all american natural gas, keeping her wealth at home that we don't create a greater bureaucracy duplicate is the regulations that make it more difficult for us to fight back against high energy costs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. very much. i am honored to be on the subcommittee. you're a strong leader, an experienced member of congress. >> the house and senate are glad you're here. >> thank you very much. i look forward to working with you, senator sessions. senator whitehouse. >> i wanted to ask mr. cloud and mr. neslin when deputy administrator perciasepe is your use diesel fracting under the

same drinking water act. are you aware of what used this day aliment of the fracting fluid? >> senator, as i mentioned in my testimony we are currently investigating the issue. it is not complete yet. >> would it be -- let me ask you and give mr. cloud a chance to answer. >> i just want to emphasize that we do not allow correct fluids and clean through facilities through difference through were thoroughly through cycle through your so it doesn't reach your water supply. >> is that -- you of no concern that the deployment of the fracting fluid in the world

could ever reach your water supply? >> we always have that concern, but we are shared by our practices that doesn't happen. >> between the first -- >> s., it is submitted 200 feet of out there producing so, so it can't reach and we have filled the inspectors that witness that process and what it's undergone. >> why isn't it helpful to simply know what is being used as the fracting fluid you don't have to investigate that the company would've reported already since it's been injected into publicly and basically? >> well, some have discussed today, there isn't prior gcc and groundwater protection council initiative that is voluntary

right now, where companies then it's just in its infancy but we had a great response has been outlined a little bit today for people to divulge her companies divulge the type of fluid are using. >> is there -- i them new to this issue is too much we don't do a lot of this in rhode island. but i have seen stories on the news about families whose water, for instance, is suddenly compromised and did time as association -- it associated with fracting having taken place nearby. are there different geological differences that explain why this might be happening in other places or is there less well-developed technique or do you think this is actually not related to fracting and as a matter of coincidence.

>> if i answer that on behalf of colorado, we get dozens of allegations here that water wells have been contaminated. we inspect and investigate all of those rigorously. in some cases, we have found that contamination has occurred and that it is attributable to oil and gas development, not hydraulic fracting. typically this bill, a week, might've been a failure of the cement job. in most instances are in many instances we find there's been no contamination, that the conditions being complained of our bacterial contamination, a problem with maintaining the water well. another invention in response to another question, there may be an impact of natural gas, but it's biogenic natural gas,, not attributable to oil and gas development. >> speaking for oklahoma, we been doing this process for a long time and there's not been

one single documented incident of contamination to groundwater drinking wonders as a result of this process. >> your time is expired. >> thank you for your patient. you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all of you being here. i think you heard about some of the potential problems with the process, but also the solar shades. one of the things that mr. cloud and mr. neslin mentioned was the stronger review process. but i'd like you to do is very briefly, if you could talk about the makeup of their review teams , the observers, of valuations and follow the procedures of stronger -- and also i believe that sometimes the epa is involved in d.o.e. you can talk a little bit about that. >> if i might begin, stronger is a unique group with one third

regulators, one third environmental representatives and therefore on a study in stronger review, one third of the review team of the observers will be frowned each of those troops. it is a collaborative process. rather than a group of issues of majority and minority positions be participants to work collaboratively to reach a common assessment and a common conclusion and then it is a transparent process in which these reports are issued typically within 60 days after the reveal is computed and posted on the website publicly available. >> mr. neslin did a good job of the makeup of the board. in one third of the people that started the review in oklahoma, the regulatory commissioner and then a critic of the domestic and gas industry in the independent petroleum association of america.

the observers to the process for the sierra club and the epa and the stronger is funded partially by epa and d.o.e. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me thank all of our witnesses. this panel is been extremely helpful. there's still a lot of questions i think we need to deal with. as i was listening to testify, i was curious and i might be submitting questions on this as to what precautions are taken in regards to abandon drilling sites, to make sure that they are not only safely sealed, but the impact that the vacated cavity could have on geological activities? i'm not again a geologist, but i'd be interested as to whether we are at least mindful of these types of issues as the drill more and more wells with the amount of natural gas that we have. so i think there are questions that need to be answered and i do want to complement the states

of colorado in the states of oklahoma who have taken aggressive action to protect their public health of their citizens. they think we need to learn from the best practices and we've seen some of that sort of catch on in other states. we do have a framework year between the federal government in the state government. our committee will investigate to see whether that is strong enough under existing law or whether new laws are needed. it looks like they are progressively dealing with some of the open issues on public health. you will be following up on the questions they may be asked that it's done. to respond in a timely way. the joint hearing of the subcommittee will be adjourned. thank you all very much.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> a few months ago i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties were your differences and found common ground. now, the same cooperation is made possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history.

>> the chairman of the house subcommittee that oversees the federal communications commission spoke today at a forum on possible changes to the fcc's regulatory authority. florida republican, cliff stearns cosponsored a mesh of the passed last week, which rejects recent fcc net neutrality rules. those regulations prevent internet access providers from blocking or slowing certain traffic on their networks. he is followed by a panel discuss and which will include major internet service providers in the sec chairman's chief of staff. this is just under two hours. >> check your watches. boy, that's very nice. usually takes two or three of those announcements. we will start in just a moment.

>> lets to get started. my name is randy may, president of the free state foundation, a nonpartisan free market-oriented think tank that specializes in communications, law and policy issues as well as internet issues. i especially want to welcome our c-span audience again to a free state foundation event and thank c-span for being here. our topic today is regulatory performed at the fcc, why not now. we are fortunate to have not only a distinguished panel of experts, but also a distinguished representative and chairman of the pertinent house committee. i'm going to introduce representative cliff stearns formally in just a moment. but i think this question

regulatory reform at the fcc, why not now, has been pertinent for many, many years. but as time goes by with all the development of marketplace competition driven by rapid technological change, the question is more pertinent and may submit more urgent than ever. since the agency was created in 1927 as the federal radio commission and reincarnated in 1934 is federal communications commission, the sec has undergone little fundamental institutional change. to be sure, there've been changes that impact the way the fcc a hurry and regulates. for example, in 1882, the number of commissioners was reduced from seven to five. the enactment of the sunshine act in 1976 affected the way the commission operates in the way that commissioners interact or

perhaps more accurately failed to interact with each other. and compared with its preferred mode of regulating during this first decade from almost the last half-century the sec is regulated primarily through conduct team rulemaking proceedings rather than post hawked adjudications. for the most part, it is fair to say in fundamental respects the fcc functions to regulate much the same way today as it has for the past half-century. this has remained true in the 15 years since the passage of the telecommunications act of 1996 which was explicitly built by congress by deregulatory and truly revolutionary close quote by president clinton. it has remained true despite the fact, as i have said that there've been unprecedented marketplace changes result in an

increase in all market segments. some of you have heard me say this before but it is too relevant not to repeat. then fcc chairman william kennard, bill clinton's fcc chairman released a strategic plan which he called a new sec for the 21st century. the first two sentences read quote come in five years, we expect u.s. communication markets to be predominant figure is competition that will greatly reduce the need for direct regulation. the advent of internet-based another new technology driven communication services will continue to erode the traditional regulatory dissensions between the different sect or said the communications industry. this prediction, of course, was correct. so as a result, phil kinard

continued quote, the sec as we notice today will be very different in structure mission. he called for turning the commission into quotes a model agency for the digital age close quote. since then there've been some rearrangement renaming it the boxes on the agencies through an office organizational chart. here is the most recent example. this was just two weeks ago from the fcc. there was an announcement that the wireless bureau renames a division. the announcement read, the fcc's wireless telecommunications bureau announced today that the spectra management resources and technologies division is changing its name to the technology systems and innovation division to better reflect its duties. there've been quite a few of those types of box moving types of organizations.

but the fundamental fact is while the fcc has moved a few offices here, the agency remains in place. many of the regulations adopted decades ago. and the agency's annual budget has continued to grow, even as competition continues to develop for around 200 million in 2000 to 354 million requested in fy 2012. without saying anymore at this point, it is my view that it would be a stretch to claim today's fcc as quote, very different in structure and mission in the fcc that bill and art spoke about in 1999. so what we're going to do today is talk about regulatory reforms and institutional changes that are to be adopted or perhaps in the view of some not to be adopted to make the fcc into the model agency for the digital age

of which bill kinard spoke back in the turn of the last century. now, i'm going to introduce our principal speaker. all of you have hopefully have the bios that we printed up. and so, as our usual this, i'm not going to give what the congressman's provision is absolute full biography, but i'm going to even give him more than the other panelists which i know. they'll understand. representative cliff stearns was the lack did in 1988 to the u.s. house of representatives. his only elected office his bio says. does that include student government and everything? okay. for the 112 congress,

representative stearns is chairman of the oversight and investigations committee in the energy and commerce committee. and of course, for our purposes here today, that is most relevant. i wanted to steal any of his thunder from his remarks, but his bio says and i'm quoting is chairman i will act to rein in excessive regulations to hold all federal agencies accountable to the american public and increase transparency in the air. so that is obviously key to the hand today. in addition, chairman stearns served on the commerce committee's subcommittee on communications and technology and the subcommittee on commerce manufacturing and trade. the previous congress, representative stearns was the republican leader on the communications subcommittee and

obviously a leader in the types of subjects that will be discussing today. chairman stearns was born in washington d.c., one of those rare people even among our audience here today, intended george washington university, graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. he participated in the u.s. air force rotc program on scholarship and was honored as air force rotc distinguished military graduate. following graduation come he served four years in the u.s. air force as an aerospace engineer and satellite reconnaissance during the vietnam war. so with that, please join me in welcoming chairman stearns. [applause] >> brandy, thank you very much.

i appreciate the nice introduction. i prefer central florida which runs for linda to jacksonville and i have some wonderful indian sounding names in ocala, where is my hometown we have a small town called okahumpka and another small town called mcindoe p. some of the farmers introducing a little different way, randy. they start out by that stearns was born in a very early age in a hospital to be near his mother. so that's the kind of introductions. i went to thank you for the free state foundation for holding this event today and it's a deeply appreciate this opportunity to give a speech to you and share my thoughts on reforming the federal communications commission. obviously this weekend we averted a government shutdown and reset the stage for the think all of us believe much-needed spending reductions. as jay leno said the night after

we did this come is that a lot of people wonder what the government shutdown would be too bad, but i think a lot of other people wonder what a government running properly with the light to them. and in this age of technology and information, new products are coming on the market. new services. we need a government, as randy mentioned that runs smoothly and properly, one that does not hamper innovation, that leads to economic growth. it is clear that we now know today perhaps love little impact on the future because it will change. the internet and community technology has transformed our age of information. these forces have introduced dynamic changes in how we communicate, to business and educate and entertain ourselves. and these remarkable changes have occurred very rapidly. the one thing we can share is that we don't know today what the future will be in the information age.

the fact is that our market dynamics have changed dramatically and we know it simply a convergence in the marketplace where labels really don't matter anymore. where there was a separate phone, a separate cable, wireless and other industries providing distinct -- very distinct clear services. we are now seeing a simple player. providers all compete against each other for consumers, offering broad and, video services and often times altogether. so here we are 15 years after the telecommunications act of 1996 as one of the conferees on the senate of this bill. check deals with the chairman at that time and technology simply has advanced far beyond what anyone could imagine when we served on the conference. yet my friends, the simple laws that govern in these industries have lagged far, far behind and

many are no longer relevant to the new services and the new technologies that have arisen over the past few years. so attempts to classify these new services into outmoded regulations. cycles of innovation and simply creates uncertainty in the marketplace and diminishes the increase in productivity that is directly attributable to such innovations. of course contributing, in my opinion to the problem in the fcc byzantine regulatory processes as the pace of competition and technological change occur, increase communication submarkets and sound decision-making at the fcc and faith, simple faith and how it makes those decisions become all the more important to all of us. not only are the issues far more complex, they affect far more americans and american businesses than ever before in our history.

we need to improve the quality of the fcc's decisions and request in the countries agency itself. one of the first changes could be in its adoption and early seven order. the sec often adopts orders after a comment. and issues press releases with the summary of the orders weeks or even months prior to releasing the order itself. this is again to congress announcing that will cut $30 billion from the budget, but not saying specifically where the cuts are coming from. for example, they try annual review has so with controversial issues relating to competition in the local telecommunication market was released six months after it was officially adopted by the commission. the sec should let the public

proposed rules before it adopts them and should provide everyone with a realistic amount of times to comment. if the fcc expects the american people and the regulated community to respect its decision, i don't think it is fast too much of the fcc to show some respects for the rest of them in return. not only will this improve everyone's confidence in the fcc's decisions, it will improve decisions themselves, both because the agency will then be forced to exert more rigor in developing policy and because the public and matriculated community can often be the source of the best ideas, the secrecy breeds both inefficiency and distressed and of course the fcc in my opinion rdf does. we also need to reform the sunshine rules under which the fcc operates. under the current sunshine laws,

only two commissioners may meet outside the construct of an official at the meeting. now in theory, such a requirement promotes open discussion of issues under consideration. to my friends in reality, most commission business is conducted like circulating drafts of orders for comment to get around the simple sunshine requirements. the result is less transparency, not more and this requirement actually hinders discussion among the commissioners, especially in cases where disagreement on the draft is very significant, reviewing and reforming the fcc sunshine laws they think would be a great place for congress to get involved. the issue of reforming the sunshine rule is bipartisan. the commissioner copps has taken and talked about this on numerous occasions and recently communication subcommittee ranking member, and sco has

simply introduced legislation which would amend the sunshine act to allow more than two fcc commissioners to meet privately to discuss agency business as long as they commissioner of each political party is present in the content of the meeting is publicly disclosed. the bill would require that the meeting summary be published within five days. official actions such as voting would be prohibited and discussions would be limited to fcc commissioners that her staff. but though i think would go a long way to solving some of the structural problems without sacrificing transparency. another one of the biggest problems with the sec is the timeliness in their decisions. some of the basic work of the fcc affects every day function of the telecommunications industry. these processes simply take too long to complete.

it is not unreasonable for those that are waiting for a position to know what resolution will occur and when and whether it's in their favor or against. licensing applications have been sitting at the fcc for years with no action. there is a multiyear backlog at the bureau level, where hundreds of applications have been sitting there for years to simply gather dust. furthermore, the fcc's internal shock but to act on merger or license transfer is six months. yet the xm sirius merger took over 16 months. and a rapidly evolving market, particularly in a difficult economic times, uncertainty itself can be one of the greatest obstacles to investment and business -- long-term business planning. we need to set deadlines for actions in the various types of decision that the fcc intends to make.

such timeless what provide further operational certainty within the industry. and when the commission adopted a decision, and the text of that decision should quickly become public. the longer it takes for the orders language to become public, the more it appears like a decision was not really made when the fcc said it was, but rather ironed out later through last-minute backroom deals, guilty or not come in the fcc widely suspect did the changing its mind between decision and regulation. one suggestion would be gave the fcc's strict timeline of days from adoption of a policy to release the actual tax of the decision. as chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee on energy and commerce, i plan to engage in vigorous oversight on all agencies under jurisdiction

including the fcc. one of my main goals as chairman is to increase transparency and accountability across the federal government. the fcc's regulatory process is a major need of reform. the bottom line is that the agency's processes do not fit with today's communication and techno logical environment. transparency and good management should not be a partisan issue. this is an issue members on both sides of the aisle should be able to get behind and support. i hope to continue to work with my colleagues within the industry, within the congress towards public interest in the community and with the fcc to make commission decisions as well crafted an unassailable as possible. i think that is a goal that we all share in this room. so i appreciate your listening to my comments and invite to take a good liking to you, but not too soon.

[applause] >> chairman stearns, thank you very much. there were some terrific ideas and that's exactly what i was hoping for to get us started on our discussion today. i think the chairman has agreed to take some questions, so i'd like you to do is we have a make in the audience and raise your hand and all calling you. and please if you would just announce your name into your root for purposes of identification. again, keep in mind we have our c-span audience with us today. we want to get a number of questions, so let's ask a question and not make a statement. okay, who would like to ask the first question? that's a good point. chairman stearns said we ought to ask whether you have suggestions for reform herself

for ideas and that's good or we want to carry that through actually the whole program, so thanks for reminding me. okay, don't be bashful. i know we've got from a lot of previous events that would be lying if i said we didn't have some aggressive questioners out there in the audience who might know. yes and i think that is dan brenner, but stand out. >> grandee, you are correct. this is very important. one thing that comes up at the fcc is the role and what role they should play in the process of the condition. how do you think members of congress should participate in

rules of the fcc? >> well, we have here is that we bring all the commissioners that. we have an opportunity to talk with net neutrality where we talk to the chairman and all the commissioners and of course all these commissioners come into her office on a regular basis that we had an opportunity to convey our decision. i think that in a way is very good way to do it. it is an open process at the hearings and when they come. china chows give the chairman has issues dealing with spectrum that told ideas of getting to act in an influential way to convince the commissioners that some of my ideas and asking them inside to include them as a priority when they set their agenda. so i think that member of

congress can interface that way. if you're not a telecommunication technology subcommittee or you're not in the energy and commerce committee and you have a constituent that indeed has a problem than the fcc will be a little harder. but then again, every member of congress can call a commissioner to his office and most likely it will come even if you served on armed services or transportation because as a member of congress, you have that authority. i find it's easy to talk to them and it's also helpful in an open hearing to hear all sides of the commissioners talk about an issue, whether it's inspection or net neutrality were deeper, all the issues you can ask them being good to get outside to tell you in the room. i think in a way that's a nice way for us to influence the same time have transparency. we'll use the moderators prerogative. last week i threw out this idea

and i want to reaction to it. and you were serving at the time the 96 act was adopted. in my view that there were two provisions put in the 96 act that are not in the land of enabling statues for other agencies, which made the 96 act somewhat unique. i think were prepared to further the deregulatory sword is pressed or orientation. one was of programs division given the fcc regulation when it made certain findings in the otherwise the provision for periodic regulatory reviews and in fact i was regulatory reform that provision. so in my view, those provisions have been underutilized without going in today with all the reasons that i'd be so. so i suggested that congress

before it gets to a comprehensive rewrite of the communications act that it might rather surgically amend those two provisions by bleeping the criteria the same but just establishing an evidentiary presumption more or less in favor of deregulation. i don't want to put you on the spot. you have a reaction to this type of way to achieve some reform? >> randy, those are two great provisions in the telecom act. be prepared fact with community banks across this country and the fdic and i think other federal agencies would have the cause and particularly one with oversight and regulation than to make amends if it turns out it's highly regulatory that would influence the development of jobs. i.d. hearing with cat sensed

danger was bizarre that josaphat regulation in this country. and i asked him about his criteria for regulation and all the criteria and not one thing was all dealing with distributive income, which is distribution of income, self-esteem, dealing with environment in a whole host of things. i think what you are pointing out is the success of the telecom act and 96 was an away presumptive on the fact that were going to let this thing go without high amount of regulations and government involvement. but those two causes. the tall, but the confluence of the broadband and high definition television, i think there should be a new telecom act that would allow us to have the forbearance and less technology and regulation

minutes in there so many ways that will bring in more competition with this confluence to make sure it can happen in such a magical way that we don't face barriers from large corporations that can prevent it. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, making the issue, is there certain pieces of reform that are useful or more easily move than others in a huge package. could something like the sunshine act that seems to be generally bipartisan agreement. what is the prospect of moving dialogue rather than having perhaps more controversial reform? >> since you got commissioner copps in favor and anna e. hsu. i'll mention that to him. that would be a great tearing in which we can pass the bill.

we're looking for things on the republican side that, shall we say, keep the agenda going in a bipartisan fashion. as you can see with the possible shutdown take a partisan and we still have many people who say they are not going to vote for the cr. several people have said that on the republican side and that has to be passed and of course we have the debt ceiling increase in after that we have the budget. so we are looking for issues that show biters partisanship. this is a good example. but the great agility back to greg walden and see if i can push that. >> in the back. >> chairman stearns, i appreciate your remarks about reforming the sunshine act. the results of the congressional review was also the rule for congress to repeal any government regulation.

however, there is exception of the statute of the health communications act and now there have been several resolutions of net neutrality. would you be in favor of amending the statute to limit and only exception in that provision they are in the telecommunication act? >> i don't know if i want to make any broad statements this morning, but i think the point is well-made. i have my legislative director your that's going to take down that. i think it's worthwhile. tell me in your opinion if that was amended, what would be the impact -- immediate impact? >> the impact would be anything serious a rule pending right now. i don't know whether it's congressman shadegg or some other paths that, but elisa would clarify whether that was a resolution. by repealing not in the fcc rules or anyone who wanted it, just like the epa or the fcc

would be subject to a resolution by the house and the senate. on the senate side you can't filibuster on the republic for and as a public tool on the house side to start doing now. i think it makes sense to regulate with one exception in the statute to the telecommunications apples. >> i think all of the people and the federal trade commission or wherever would all like that exception. and that's why at least philosophically that would be good because it brings jurisdictions back to congress and you don't have these executives and stars running off. disapproving the bush administration a gal who was in the bush administration said mr. sun steamed during 4000 new regulations. that is what she said.

obvious to regulations have an impact whether they come from epa, department of transportation, wherever. i think you mentioned shadegg -- >> congressman shadegg -- >> john shattuck is no longer here. >> john shattuck also -- i'll go look at his bill. john shattuck and i are friends. he is retired from arizonans who is retired to arizona so i'm going to look at that. i think certainly that would be worthwhile to talk to the speaker about to make that part of some of these other bills. if we build a strong about net neutrality in the sense we are doing there, certainly will apply elsewhere to prevent the administration from doing things on their own which we see a lot of today and this would be true for any industry shen, just democrats or republicans do. there were some technical language added under the bush administration after bills passed, so i think it's a good idea and what to thank you for

bringing it to my attention. >> were going to have just one more question. this'll be the last one. >> a couple of questions. utah devout the shock block for market approval. i think the problem is the hold up and confessions out of it. the pages and pages of confessions that said the net neutrality provisions regardless of what happens to the net neutrality order. i think that again will be more performed in the shop talk. >> excuse me the transparency. >> to vote on data roaming which will overreach the net neutrality. they are going to have to chase them around with 9 million review act resolutions.

i just like to hear your comments on the sessions and the foe. >> well, the shot clock is very important and intimidating if you're a small company. time is money. if you're larger company with so so much in reserve that just answered capital, the people and lawyers. it's hard to intimidate the big guys, but all the small guys coming and have to answer questions and technicalities that make its mind and mindbending and intimidating. a good example is in the permitting and the golf corp. remains after the moratorium the president asked in the courts in february and i was supposed to issue permits based on the sheets experiment. the president has only issued six and he still aided by doing a process asking more and more questions going around and around. the shot clock is extremely important it will create jobs, innovation and wish to love shot

clock to be terminated so they can. as far as the roaming is another example that could affect the smaller companies. .. please join me once again in thinking chairman stearns.

[applause] col d'aspin atingua to start the program we appreciate it. we look forward to seeing you whether these things can happen and be brought about in this congress. thank you very much. >> i'm going to ask the panel members to come right at what now were. while they are doing that and getting settled in, were is the event coordinator were what and i will try to get some good speakers here and think about what we are going to do in terms of intellectual content, but she does all the rest so can you just to join me in thanking kathy baker, the event coordinator, too? [applause]

>> okay with. we are going to dive right into our panel will come and as i alluded to earlier we are fortunate to have such a distinguished group of fellow panelists and of course they are such a distinguished group i'm not going to waste much time trying to reset the topic. i.t. we all have in mind, or to spend an enormous amount of time of introducing these panelists. again, you have your biographies and what i want to do is just say a sentence or two about each one-woman war. and if they will listen carefully, i think what we will do is just in the order i

introduce them i'm just calling to then ask them to seek could speak and i asked them to speak for just five minutes and quote will some of these guys have been on the three state panel events before and know as distinguished as they are that i will cut them off. that's just the way it is. okay. we are going to start with james assey. and james walk is executive vice president of the national cable and telecommunications association will. as most of you know, he's been acting as we speak still filling in a believe were worth between dorworth, keisler and michael whole's joining the association as president would. james began his tenure as executive vice president on february 1st what, 2008, and as

the second most senior executive at the association he's involved in all aspects of the world ncta merkel the cable industry. james wood is a white graduate of georgetown university law school and an adjunct faculty member at georgetown university law school what. i think next we will have steve largent speak. steve is president and ceo of course of ctia wireless association. steve became president and ceo of ctia in november, 2003. and prior to joining ctia, steve represented oklahoma's first congressional district in the u.s. house of representatives from 94 to 2,001. his biography doesn't mention

this, but i'm going to do it. i think most of you know he's in the nfl hall of fame as one of the nfl's all-time great receivers for the seattle seahawks. i think next to were we are gwen to hear from -- and that is obviously not gigi sohn. i think the card may still sees beagle sohn, that gigi is serving on a jury today. when i invite her she knew she had jury duty but she told me there was a 90% chance the way things work in the district that she would actually not have to serve on the second day but there's always that 10%, so gigi couldn't be with us and sends her regret but she also sent michael weinberg to fill in and he is a full-time staff attorney at public knowledge when what. he also served what two years as a clerk and student intern of

public knowledge and received his jb from george washington university law school will. okay. after michael we are going to hear from walter mccormick, president and ceo. notice we have a lot of presidents and ceos were were. anyone that isn't equally distinguished, don't worry about that. so, walter is president of the united states could telecom association representing broadband service providers, manufacturers and suppliers. prior to joining the u.s. ta as we still call it in 2001, walter served as president and ceo of the american association have also served on the general counsel of the united states, excuse me, u.s. senate commerce committee, and since i said that i should point out also that of james served at a distinguished

with the senate commerce committee as well. last as we say and absolutely mean that in this case we are fortunate we edward lazarus, chief of staff of the federal communications commission will city was named chief of staff at the fcc in june, 2009, previously the kuhl leader of the litigation practice, a member of the committee's management what committee. what with 800 lawyers, can you imagine a committee with 800 lawyers? without would be herding cats as they say. so i have to pick out one thing what but he also was a law clerk for the supreme court justice harry blackmun as well. so, with that, i'm going to ask, we are going to start, as i

said, with james and go right on that line, and each one of these distinguished gentlemen will offer their ideas about regulatory reform and institutional change and then we will have a good discussion were, and also get your ideas as well. but james? >> sure. thank you, randy wood and for hosting this forum on the topic that is one very important and someone that spent 14 years in the government service not at the agency but at least in the halls of congress, that's near and dear to my heart as well. i was struck again of this morning listening to radio and they announced and that it's i guess the centennial, a south carolinian native but the centennial of the shot fired at fort sumter reminded me of my wonderful when can quotes all of

us probably learned at one point or another, and in particular of the one that goes something like the bulk of the past and for the what president cases who were so we must think anew and act anew we must disenthrall ourselves and the civil war has absolutely nothing to do with regulatory reform. [laughter] for a television audience to say that, but at least one job decrease the connection in my brain were one that i think goes to the point of how difficult the regulatory reform is we are in some way if she or for form creatures of habit and fall prey i think to doing what things are planning to do things in the future and the way were we will is a man in the past whether or not that is the greatest good or the most benefit for consumers will watch such a tinkling ken's charge we must figure out what it means to disenthrall

ourselves with the ways things have always been done when it makes sense to do so so that is at least myograph where we start. the other pacific we start is it's important from the outset we recognize the regulatory reform is really what and in the previous agency or any new non-communications agency were put in for stance is an opportunity to recognize i think that the world that we live in is very different from the boat with that was created when various regulations or in many cases the statutes themselves were enacted and in many ways regulatory reform is a celebration of the fact that we no longer have to rely on the government to set the norms because the marketplace and the social norms have graduated to the point in which they are able to guide the market place in a way that maximizes consumer

benefits. and if we look at that and we look at the regulations we live under and the statute we live under and by any measure, and we can go back just to the 1996 act, but if we are true to our word, much of which still stands in the statute even predates the 96 act going back to 1992 and 1994, and i just kind of looked up statistics at least in our industry where we've been. we have 565 cable networks today. in 1984i think we had 49. in 1996, we had very few, if any, telephone companies to the customers and today serves 24 million customers. 1996 most people if they knew with the internet was, the new it just by virtue the sound the modem made when they picked up the phone if they were connecting on dial-up, and today

we are talking over 40 million cable broadband customers with speeds meeting or exceeding 100 megabits in many cases, so we are in the presence of a new agent it important for us to disenthrall ourselves and think a new to how we approach that new age. and to its credit i think the fcc has started this with a very ambitious task that the chairman along with blair levin lead in constructing the national broadband plan in an effort to a very high levels to melt and look at where our nation was and where it needs to be and to try to chart a course to reach that future. that's certainly not an easy task and i think any of us who've spent any time reading that national broadband plan at least whether we agree with parts of it or disagree with parts of it have to tip our cap to the effort that was made, and

i think was particularly important in that plan the emphasis on how critical private capital was going to be to achieving our goals and recognition that we were at a time where command and control regulation really needs to receive from the foreground into the background so that we could unleash and continue unleashing of the dynamic investment that's made such a difference made and continue to do so in the future. and it's also t. dividing some critical issues, one that i would be remiss if i didn't mention a universal service and compensation reform where the doherty and knott has been tied so tightly teamed up for the actual action i think is one of the most important parts of the plan. that's not to say everything is perfect from the perspective of the industry and that there's not more that can be done. obviously, has weakened not only

about the regulations that are on the books, but also regulations we may face in the future it really is incumbent and difficult to ask because whether it's consumer interest groups or the industry we are buying for the time and the regulators to in one way shape or form, but it's important i think to have a strong regulatory screen that counsels against regulatory intervention and in particular where we see areas of rapid development in the marketplace we need to be very careful before we decide to jump in because of the costs imposed by the false positives and the fact that the marketplace often will sort this stuff out and there's actually in the lumpkin is in the bomb of the progress innovation tremendous consumer benefits that we don't want to stall. so why don't i talk for a long time -- >> how was close.

that will work out and we will both be able not to get in a fight about that. steve commodores next. >> thank you for having me this afternoon, too. it's been a pleasure to be here at the foundation and both of you have been consistent voices for the free markets of government for a long time to revisit this is a perfect setting to talk about president obama's recent exceeded order designed to remove or prevent unnecessary regulation. and what we say, ctia strongly supports the president's initiative. and some of you may know, on january 18th, 2011, the president issued an executive order entitled improving regulation and the regulatory review process. the order directed federal agencies to review existing rules and to consider whether the new proposals to create barriers that unnecessarily burden businesses and the economy. specifically the exit of order in the relevant part requires each agency to, and i quote,

propose or about a regulation only upon a visa noeth determination that its benefits justify its costs, recognizing some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify. and tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account among other things and to the extent practicable the costs of the cumulative regulations. this is exactly the right approach. it is one that will allow private companies like those in the competitive wireless industry theme and innovating new products and services for consumers. we also strongly support chairman julius genachowski's directed to the commission to follow the executive order. we applaud this choice. chairman julius genachowski stressed and i quote, one thing the government all levels can do is ensure efficient and effective regulation. we need rules that serve

legitimate public needs without creating or barriers to the national broadband plan has red tape as a significant obstacle to broadband deployment. let me read that in the national broadband plan identifies red tape as a sycophant obstacle to the broad and deployment. burdensome rules and regulations can slow down the planet and raise costs and also can limit business ability to invest in the new technologies and how your new workers. we interpret the to directives to mean two things. first, do no harm. second, identify areas where there is current harm and work to remove those regulations. as for the first, do no harm, we believe the commission measure needed several proceedings including the shell shock proceeding, the transparency requirements and benet neutrality item and a few other areas that cause harm and we are working with the commission to address these potential harms. as for the second, identifying

areas where there is current par and this is important area as well. one area the commission can reduce government barriers of innovation is in the area of spectrum policy. the chairman and folks at the commission have been leaders in this area. working hard to free of the spectrum for other flexible use of it can be used for mobile broadband services and that is a central pretty flexible controls limit the use of the spectrum in the broadcast television and to provide over the air broadcast television services. this despite the overwhelming demand for additional spectrum for mobile broadband services and dwindling consumer demand for broadcast television services that is why the fcc efforts to create a more flexible framework that could ultimately accommodate the reallocation of the portions of the underutilized tv man that is so important. the government has a key role in coordinating spectrum lights up the wireless industry also has a tremendous record of investing,

innovating and leading the consumer demand. it's delivered on parallel benefits to consumers and businesses across the country with consistently lower prices and new and improved services. there's also no extending those benefits to new sectors with a potential to improve our ability to meet the key national priorities such as education, energy efficiency, healthcare and smart transportation. as we are looking forward to working with eddy, chairman genachowski and other commissioners to create a business friendly environment that will allow the many players in the wireless ecosystem to continue to meet the consumer demand and innovate. >> thank you very much, steve. michael, your up next. >> skill mick i apologize to everyone -- >> i polis to everyone who can expect in gigi since her regret and as you said she is an injury to the not necessarily excited

but pleased to be doing her duty. i want to focus on a couple of things and this is a very good opportunity. two years ago with public knowledge just as the new president came in before the current chairman was appointed we also took a moment and held a conference to discuss ways to refresh in the sec and we think the fcc structurally and some sort of regulatory reform general principles and it's always important after having an event like that to be about to come back and look at what you were thinking then and see what looks now and the great strides the fcc has taken since then and some of the places the concerns that existed now two years ago are still there. and i'd like to focus on two of those things in the opening remarks. the first is in the s fecund fcc's decision making progress. one of the greatest challenges that face is the fcc especially

since the united states act was passed was that the way that the information age and the internet has changed what happens at the fcc is many more small companies who are not used to dealing with the fcc playing in washington and may not have often do not have a washington presence and don't spend a lot of time thinking about what is happening in washington that are significantly impacted by the decisions made by the fcc. when we think about reforming the regulatory process, one of the primary goals and primary questions that need to be asked is not does this work for the people that we know. but does it work for those companies, those people, doesn't it was and communities that we don't know that weren't used to coming in and filing comments and monitoring dockets and using for many of those companies they think that filing comments is a

huge step for them in those communities, filing the comment to the huge debt for them and what they don't realize necessarily is that there is a whole nother level of meetings come face-to-face meetings and of the things going on. and so, what we hope and we hope now is the fcc did recently announced some changes to the process. we hope they would consider going further because a lot of the time the meeting is incredibly beneficial for everyone to have their conversations and flush out ideas and other times it is an opportunity to just repeat arguments over and over and give a structural advantage to those used to dealing with the fcc and understand that process and not necessarily an opening for the new communities and the new companies, the innovators we talk about to influence the policy and make their voices

heard. the other thing is sometimes the fcc seems to see its role as a mediator, reradiation commission. to line up every one needs and concerns and try and it's commendable. a lot of the time that is a very intelligent and reasonable way to go forward with policy. but sometimes that's not. sometimes the right answer isn't the answer that pleases everyone or another as everyone the same amount. instead, the right answer is one where having listened to the argument and taking an independent analysis and investigation of the issue you come forward to and know as an agency that this is something some people are going to like and some people aren't going to like but at least you are confident that having analyzed the issue it seems that the time to you your best and analysis is the best way forward. and so, getting away sometimes

from that balancing of interests and more towards sort of independent affirmative decision making is something that as someone in the public interest sometimes there will be horrible for us and sometimes a will be great for us but it will be it will help us understand what the guiding principles of our at the commission what's important and what's not important, what to focus on and what not to focus on. the last thing and i will try to stay to the five minute limit, i don't want to be cut off my first line is the issue of the revolving door. and the revolving door i think that people were outside of washington they think of the revolving door in this incredibly pejorative way. it's true but i think that inside washington many people have a much more nuanced understanding. the revolving door, the agency capture isn't something where people with cigars and back rooms with boxes and money being passed around and plotting the

demise of the public interest. it simply is not that. it said it is just a natural result of the fact that the fcc and any agency isn't that big of an agency. the communications are is not that big of a bar. the larger communications policy world is not that big of a world. and so over time you will develop personal relationships because you are a civil human being. one of the things you need to be aware of is that can influence decision making in a way that is not necessarily directly connected to policy. so one of the things we had proposed in our original meeting ban on lobbying coming and going from the fcc if you leave the fcc or banned for five years from lobbying the fcc on issues for your company. if you come to the fcc you have

to recuse yourself for five years and i understand it is a long time and it's a lot of discussion that benefits but i think also that will inevitably screen people and reduce some people's ability to come into government there are enough people out there who are very talented and passionate about these issues that on balance it will benefit both the agency and the public to feel like there are people at the commission who are not mrs. allin -- what do they are or are not an appearance in been tied to a specific agenda. thank you. >> thank you very much. when you talked about the communications are - to suggested that maybe it's not that large. just to show you the gap i hate to do this but between the ages you and i when i started in the communications policy i.e. alluded to this in the paper last week the fcba -- you've

probably been to one of those that are held a fan of some stadium in d.c. -- when i started and went to the fcba they fit in a room just about this size have a communications far has grown but i guess more importantly, when i started in the mid 70's doing communications on policy one thing i'm sure of is the landscape in the marketplace of course was dramatically different than it is today it is difficult for you to imagine, but walter mccormick isn't, thankfully for him is as old as i am but he's been doing the communications for a long time in the policy on the hill and with the u.s. ta said he's

probably witnessed a lot of those changes and an interested in hearing how they might suggest the reforms and regulatory reforms. >> i just changed those comments about the civil war and got your a reminiscing. [laughter] >> i really want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and i think the question that you asked, regulatory reform, why not now, presupposes the question of whether or not give the jury reform is important and i would submit regulatory reform is not important unless it has a core purpose that regulatory reform is only important if it is aimed at helping to achieve some significant public interest, societal benefit. and so in this regard, we think that the fcc has gotten it

exactly right. the goal of the commission clearly articulate it has been to expand broadband, broadband investment from abroad and deployment, broadband adoption and regulatory reform is being viewed in the context of those that help contribute as a mean of the broadband expansion. we applaud chairman genachowski for the focus on broadband. the national broadband plan articulated the importance of broadband to the national competitiveness, job creation and quality-of-life. in the chairman's the five recent broadband exploration initiative is in our view right on the market terms of establishing the three key priorities to broadband expansion being spectrum, and your carrier, and regulatory reform. we believe there is nothing more important right now and reform of universal service center

carrier compensation. these are the financial fundamentals of the industry. they are critical to the broadband deployment of the rural areas. we commend the commission for recognizing this and taking it on. with regard to regulatory reform, we believe that the reason the recent commission actions have been very promising. we applaud the commission for facilitating access to the polls and assuring just and reasonable rates. this is going to have a direct impact on broadband investment, on deployment and cost to consumers. for the commission resisting calls to regulate and dynamic markets as it has done in the case appearing to the speech and usage pricing models for paying attention to the importance of gathering the relevant facts before acting as it is doing regarding the competition to serve our some businesses with high-capacity services and for reaching out and for inviting

everyone in the industry to the broad index of the region initiative to share new ideas colin could the commission's goal list of advanced broadband, but the statute under which it derives its authority is a narrow statute and the commission's internal structure largely mirrors the statute. a policy-making structure that is built upon distinct and a lot narrow band technology better than the comfort digital platform of today. for our industry as many of you know the commissions with the statute and the structure is built upon a framework that treats from the standpoint of being dominant providers of voice service. never mind that james told us a minute ago the cable industry now serves 20 more telephone services, you can get your service in your cable company

from a wireless phone, you can get it over the top from magic check or vonage or skype or google voice. they said it now accounts for about 25% of the voice market. ours is the lawyer line competition bureau as distinct from the wireless bureau and as distinct from the cable media bureau. as a result we have a host of the requirements that apply only to us as a police service providers. equal access long distance requirements, think in cia. our companies we sign up for services we have to read a litany of choices you have with regard to long-distance providers never mind the fact that by choosing any one of them you have to pay more money. cost allocation rules, again, he eliminated four the operating companies, cable companies but not for the midsized small

companies. open network architecture on bundling requirements, tariffs and continuing property records reports the state carrier last resort requirements even the idea of title too but not similar services offered by. and what comes to the merger to refuse, the fcc is in a situation where it's been told review mergers and determined whether it is in the public interest that is a pretty open-ended question. this is not something that applies to other industries when google recently did a merger on the travel software the justice department looks of the competition and asked is this consistent with transportation policy, is this consistent with travel policy, is this consistent with the internet policy and with what we think of is in the public interest? those were not asked and as a result when those are asked in our industry it leads to greater business on 70 and greater delay

that provides the fcc with no guidance as to what the questions are that it's poised to answer. and it slows the kind of move towards broadband deployment and the scale that we should have. these are remnants of economic regulation and the need to be reformed now because if you look at a recent report which is a leading standard setting organization its observation i think is sobering. i will quote the u.s. government goal of universal access to broadband may not be met in a timely or efficient manner of the providers are forced to continue to provide pots in compliance with legacy regimes. as with regard to the question why not now, i would suggest to you now is very important in this critically related to the reform of the statute as well. >> thank you very much, walter.

i'm not in to take his the debt of the civil war mike and my experience. [laughter] it's too early except to note this, it is that a the war started, i think it is the day that the shot was fired at fort sumter, and having nothing to do with it in the fcc regulatory reform, but when i was growing up in wilmington, north carolina as a kid come up periodically there were notices in the newspaper that another civil war veteran had died, there were still a few of those that as i think back on that now it makes me realize, you know, because i'm not that old pal young this country is that at that time and there were civil war veterans are not. okay there was a to get a little more time. i'm not going to ask you this question to tell us how much time and effort went into this decision to change the name in the wireless telecommunications

bureau from the spectrum management resources and technology division to the technology system and innovation decision i'm not going to ask you that what. >> i think there is a record in my office. [laughter] kidding aside, you use that as an example of the status quo at the fcc and actually in the viet cong and grateful to my fellow panelist who fairly dramatically indicated that it isn't the status quo with the fcc. it's remotely focused on the things it was focused on in 1999 when the chairman made his remarks we also focused on the issues of broadband deployment adoption and bringing those benefits of growth and to all americans so walter i think you

for recognizing we have an agenda that is forward-looking focus on creating the right environment for innovation for economic growth and foster the kind of conversion you are seeing and that is true that the organization and chart at the fcc is antiquated. it doesn't recognize fully the conversion that we see. but inside of the fcc and the way that we do business it has changed a lot notwithstanding the categories we see from the outside. we all kind of task forces that work precisely to reflect the comfort nature of the environment in which we operate. for the presentations on the open meetings the ones on poles and data roaming just this month, they wouldn't represent

from one bureau or even to bureaus but usually three or four bureaus because they all work together collaborating with in the agency to reflect the fact that when it comes to broadband. >> i'd also like to thank steve for recognizing that we are in line with the obama executive order and the principles in that order are very important. the one thing i will say is while the executive order came this year, the chairman has been focused on what i think we would call the regulatory reform from the very first day that he got into the agency. from that day it was a philosophical matter and based on his experience in the private sector he's been focused on having open, fair david church in process these and whenever we are considering any new obligations on the industry we have to be clear why we are

doing it and what the relative costs for doing it are and that's how we approach everything we do. there are going to be disagreement to the agency and other german and industry about how that calculus comes out. that's the nature of what we do. those are the dates that are important to be had, but we are focused on doing that in a furrow and fact based open and fair way, and i know because i've been enacted with at least three or four of the table and gigi on many occasions that we have those discussions in the most constructive possible way and i think you frankly for being our partners in trying to get this right but i'd like to go through some of the things we've done to give you a feeling for one do with the processes are getting better? when i listen to congressman

stearns who gave a very important and provocative talk this one and i think to myself well, aren't we doing that? and i think we are. we do as a general matter publish all of our proposed rules when we initiate in noticed proposed rulemaking. we do allow ample time for comments in reply comments and when necessary we grant extensions so the parties can participate. we get all of the commissioners ample time to review and discuss the draft orders within the agency. we've radically improved the opportunity to the public comment by both small and large by holding dozens of public workshops on important rulemakings and using a host of media tools to reach the public and allow them to interact. these include most recently the complete revamping of the web site which is now on the trajectory from the one of the worst in the government to be the absolute best.

we increase the transparency of the interaction by revamping our rules in order to provide a greater disclosure of the meetings that occurred at the agency. we've also taken a real concrete steps to start lowering the burdens are imposed. take data collections which is a traditional source of consternation in the industry. we are in the process of eliminating 20 data collections we've identified as not being data that we really need and simply the influx of the past and we are open to further suggestions. we are engaged in a retrospective review of the regulations to look at the ones that may be outmoded. and it turns out there are easy pickings when it comes to that. i think we discovered we still have regulations related to the telegraph services which i don't actually think exist anymore but we are actively working on this and welcome the ideas and we've

been over to u.s. telecom to talk about this and we have this initiative that is high on the chairman's priority list for reducing the barriers to broadband deployment and bill out and as with the pool item that we just adopted, we are going to be looking for good ideas in that area every day. so, i guess what i would say is when it comes to reform we are open for business. we want to get this right. it's not returned to the perfect and i want to pretend it is but we shouldn't kid when we talk about the reform sometimes it is the code for disagreement over issues of policy and law. disagreement over whether a particular segment of the industry is as competitive as the industrial players would like us to think. but regardless of whether the market is competitive, consumers are getting the protection they need. whether the statute under which

we operate which i agree with walter is one where congress could be looking to update letter the statute provides the authority we think it does. these are good faith disagreements and important disagreements but not the same as regulatory reform and we shouldn't mistake to. >> thank you very much and for being here. it obviously enhances the discussions to someone of your statute on the condition here so we appreciate that. very much. now we want to have questions from the audience. we've got people here that will listen to you. i'm going to again ask a first question possibly two quick ones while you are thinking. the first one is only part of the one i asked the chairman stearns.

again, it's my view people can have different views of but i think the forbearance provision put into the communications act has been underutilized and i think that it was intended to be a tool that could be used to achieve the reduced regulation and frankly i'm familiar with institutes where it has been but i think it's been an underutilization and unless we have someone from question their front row of say a central link, absolutely. >> one of the mergers we did approve timely for the party. but what i have in mind is the forbearance proceedings. here is my question though. because - perhaps without changing the criteria that there be competition that exists that consumers not be harmed and the public interest to be served

richard the substantive prongs of the provision that would be useful if the congress could amend the statute to just establish some sort of an evidentiary presumption that would shift the burden of proof for the burden of going forward to different ways to do it but that's not unique in american law and i think it might make a difference and the devotee to use that statute so i'm going to ask -- mabey i am completely off base but i'm going to ask -- mabey of alaska walter first what he thinks of that because he is familiar with a lot of the proceedings and then maybe eddy if he wishes could react to my suggestion. walter? >> yes, i think melissa would be a good one to talk to on this, too but when the conference enacted the law we with the

forbearance provision it was meant to be taken advantage of streamlining. there was the understanding is going to be a lot of reform in the 96 act, a lot of proceedings are going to be implemented, and i think that it was sort of intended to give the commissioner the option to either run on to the institutions feingold and you can make a decision on that issue or if it didn't really worries to the level of having making the decision you just sort of let it go. it was also on the commissions of things wouldn't flee their for a long time. the problem is that in recent years it was viewed as a way of trying to get around having the commission make a decision and i think that, you know, there is sort of a basic american feeling when you go to really get free agency to get approval that you are paying those officials to make the decision. one way or the other to make the

decisions as a result that is tended to kind of emasculate the purpose of the forbearance section. i think that it's made the agency and fairness it's made the agency a little that reluctant to not go ahead and grab on to these things and actually come to the conclusion to do a full proceeding because of the fear of being criticized if they don't actually review it. so to me this is another area where it really is important for the congress to kind of redefine the mission because a lot of these things we saw forbearance on are areas where in our view it is clear. does the congress continue to want to have one provider of the voice telephone service regulated pervasively and not have the other providers regulated? that was the issue and unfortunately the commission's have given this little area to look at, the wide airline

competition bureau is the why airline competition but it's up to the congress to say if there is competition over the top from the lawyer less and cable providers come from the incumbent, let's get out of the business of regulating that particular offer. some of this does come back to the congress. >> i guess in nomani view and then on and will step back, a lot of things come back the the congress just doesn't do with that was intended to take the case of these decisions that you referred to with than request. they have to do with how you evaluate evidence to some extent and weigh evidence and wireless and that's what i mean when i talk about evidentiary resumptions the night shift the burden in a way the would need for parents and for the c-span audience when we refer to the forbearance, the fcc has the authority not to apply a regulatory provision for if it makes certain findings. but anyway, the want to add

anything on this particular for parents subject. the only question i put prospect he was on the issue of a resumption. they ought to decide on the evidence, it ought to be a jump ball but i've also say based on my years as a litigator that after the jury presumptions are pretty easy to get around if that is the result you want to reach. and what really matters is having a fair and impartial decision makers more than it is sitting at a particular set of in the cheery presumptions. if people are calling on the facts you're going to generally speaking get good decisions and if they're calling on the predisposed notions of where they want to come out regardless of the facts crop and to get as good of a decision and so, in theory i anderson to the point you're trying to make and wonder what impact this it would make a difference. >> okay let chollet i appreciate

that you understand it and finally i would just say to wrap up it is one of the fury of the types of things is that if things are very close the evidence and you sort of our getting close to the jump ball where things can go either way in light of everything that's happened in the marketplace and the developments in the cases that the presumption sort of shift into the ring dillinger direction. but that's just not you. >> i want to pose this question to you and then we are going to the audience because both chairman stearns and myself mentioned the sunshine act and of course the sunshine act requires no more than two members of the commission of the five member commission can meet together in private to discuss issues so when the commissioners do want to communicate there's a lot of circular meetings around them and their staff and we are

familiar with that. i know commissioner copps has for many years advocate changing the sunshine act, and i did a report on that for the conference about 15 years ago suggesting some changes, and i know michael powell did and other commissioners, but i thought the -- i might be wrong but chairman genachowski has spoken to this issue -- what is -- if he has a few media can tell us what it is or if not what your view is for changing the sunshine act. >> he's not on the subject and is happy to be a resource to congress if they want to take that up. i would say this is entirely based on my own personal experience. i've been into institutions as a staffer that involve group decision making. the fcc and the supreme court where i was a clerk. the supreme court doesn't have the restriction on how the justices can communicate with each other.

i wouldn't say based on my personal observation that having the rule against more than two people meeting or not having the rule has ultimately net one institution has better internal deliberations and the other. they both have advantages and disadvantages but a lot of it is just who the personalities are, how hard they are willing to work at it, with the chairman does is he lives of frequency that the other commissioners to make sure they have the opportunity to talk about these issues and the others arranged through meetings with each other that is a cumbersome system, but i'm not sure that it's preventing effective deliberation and discussion within the commission. and i seen situations where not him having the rule doesn't miss a silly foster great collegiality. sometimes creating clicks or other things that might not actually foster good decision

making. so there's one way a good discussion on both sides and as i said speaking for myself the chairman hasn't expressed the view and i'm sure he would welcome the opportunity to talk to chairman stearns or others about the proposal. >> okay do any other panel members on either of these two subjects we just discussed or anything else until panelist said before we turned to any of you have any reactions you want to state? >> i would add one thing to the forbearance and the question you posed as a good one and it's responsive to win the war years of litigation that we have lived under and i think it's entirely appropriate for congress to consider whether as a result of that litigation way the statute operates is in conformance with with the intent was i would add

one other point which used for some reason we focused a lot on the outdated regulations it makes little sense to me that it be restricted to one particular type of service or another. we have a number of provisions in title vi of the act whether it's access or her obligations that date back when the internet was just the song ends project, so we have a chance i think should congress want to address that directly or through ensuring that the tools available through the forbearance process declared we

shouldn't pick and choose between services when we are talking about regulations. >> that's a great point and as you know we come here is another example of which will i guess and how without perhaps the tide of presumptions i'm talking about if things go the other way in section 229 the navigation device authority and now has a proceeding in which it is proposing to do that, again, even as we describe the competitive environment in the video with. the point i would make is there is a sunset act provision right in the statute fairly unique. he don't find it in the other place in the act or other statutes so that was obviously put there as a tool. there's been no sunset of the authority also arguably there has been competitive developments mitigated the me for the commission to be

designing devices but maybe the point i would like to leave you to think about is that is another example where you have to accompany those tools perhaps with just the type of evidenciary presumption that isn't -- it can be a rebuttal and you can show that you don't have a sufficient competition or public interest is and served, but when things are close it shift said one way. >> i just want to get back to the idea about the sunshine law weaver second because i think that is the 96 act. >> that's the 76 act. >> just to be clear about it's just not only applicable to the fcc but it is a government wide requirement. i would just say that i think it's something the fcc needs to look at, and i think it goes to the fact of the kind of commissioner that you would see

nominated to those positions. if you were able to meet with, even commissioners appointed under government under republican or democrat presidency and i just think that we if it doesn't work then they don't have to meet, but if it does work the have the opportunity to meet that commissioner copps idea of having if it is a bipartisan group that's leading. at the end of the day with a would do is what we would find commissioners will -- who are more in tune with a policy that the fcc's has responsibility for as opposed to politics, and i think at the end of today because i know working in the wireless communications aspect

it really is not a partisan issue. we don't talk about partisan ideas. this is about moving businesses forward and competing operating services so we can talk to democrats about it and republicans. we don't care. we want good policy, and i think just making it available they have to meet but making it available maybe what reshaped the tide of candidates that would be looked at for the fcc commissioners. >> that's an excellent point. >> i want to make one point which is on the bipartisanship. i think it's important for the audience to know that well over 90% of the orders that we've adopted the commission are adopted unanimously and i think it is one of the great things about the telecom was base is that most of what we do is something you can build consensus around. now of course there are

hot-button issues where that's not true or just very strong disagreement between the industry segments and things like that, but i do think when you talk about this collaboration with in the commission that it's important to note more than 90% of what we do as well as eddy's commissioner copps wrote when, three weeks ago perhaps after there is a bill that's been introduced on the hill hits and i and others one to change the sunshine act provision along the lines that steve mentioned if you had a bipartisan group and commissioner copps were right out of the gate issued a statement praising that we and praising commissioner with copps and the fact he jump on this issue and to be honest with you

i don't have a chance to praise the commissioner copps that much we don't agree 100 per cent of the time or considerably less than a commissioner, called me later that day as he does on the rare occasions when i raised him, but no the sunshine act is important in his view and we've got to try to keep, figure out a way to get it done, and i assured him i wanted to do that as well. ..

the. >> is the merger review process. and then go there are different views about it but my own view is it is an area ripe for reform and for no reason that there is quite a bit of duplication of. it operates under the public interest and the sec nevertheless ms. everyone knows with today's environment that that might

to be eliminated is worth looking at. and i think there are a lot of people the process that leads to the voluntary concessions are late in the day of the yearlong process that coming so late even the commission operating under the broad interest which means whatever three commissioners means that it is essentially no condition perhaps of the three commissioners but there seems to be growing momentum

and for a very thoughtful speech of the shot clock anybody what to talk over to reform? >> i strongly supported. if you look historical a at the communications model and the transportation model of historical a head at close jurisdiction with the justice department over at -- airline verges but not any more and probably our industry or the communication this year the only too better left where the inquiry is not competitive harm. it this is something else whereas we find no

competitive car but hong was that consistent with communications policy? what is that? we don't really know going forward with these things will be. and now they're very good. but the increase should be narrow and read to competitive arms and frankly i don't think there should be duplicative merger reviews. and i think the scenario where i hope the fcc would exercise restraint but we also need to clarify the rules of the agency we don't need industrial policy calls

upon the breakaway to engage with industrial policy. >> as a representative of the organization i would defend the public interest and available that.

>> what i would say reviewing the mergers under the public interests standard that is enough there is room for self restraint maybe there will be more self restraint they and used in the past.

>> with the statutory think tank, it appears to be the statutory mandate talk about these decisions but what probes the fcc to determine with the consulting did and and we should do this because the market dictates it is necessary as time would not allow a full answer to that question by will refer you to our website where they have page after page of data and analysis to support what are basically the status quo to

amount to one pages of rules and basically with a wide swath of the industry as well as tech and with data roaming, think about it if you look at the record today, you will find everyone with the largest incumbent's asked to do the data roaming for the justification. i would welcome attention to those themselves they have the justifications. >> but with the position last year how they determine that again? >> and also explaining the legal authority and expecting the data roaming

at the same time. we are challenged on authority almost every time we issue the order and the agency is the vast majority of the times. >> one more question because the panel has been indulgent if there is a question. so to put together my hope the start to the extent it has been started we carry on and provoke further discussion on regulatory reform with the fcc so with that hope i could say it too was with votes the expectations i want to think c-span for being here and i hope you will join me in

thanking our panelists. [applause] we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> because both parties were to their differences and found common ground. now the same cooperation move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. >> watched the debate about next year's budget from capitol hill and the house and the senate floor on line with the video library. since 1987 it is what you 12 win new want.

>> hi everybody here we go again federal election debate among the four leaders of the party the leader of the conservative party stephen harper and beside him jack clayton and the leader of the liberal party and also from bloc quebecois we have giles duceppe the leaders know the rules they have agreed to follow the rules and agree that i should enforce the rules so it is a one-on-one debate followed by the four man debate on each of six questions. the questions came from you and to send more than 6,000 demand questions to the cbc and global television and producers went through the

mall to pick which ones will be asked. we were given a broad themes but not the specific questions. they will see them at the same time you will. the first two debaters will be mr. harper and giles duceppe and mr. harper goes first. the first is on the economy. >> my name is robert from ontario. how can the conservative party justify the $6 billion tax-cut to corporations when families are struggling to make ends meet? is this policy not putting more money into the pockets of wealthy corporations to fail to share their wealth in the past? >> mr. harper we don't you for the first response. >> there is no corporate tax reductions we cut taxes several years ago across the board not just for businesses big and small but consumers, individuals and families.

but the question is whether taxes should be raised back up. our position is clear the canadian economy is performing well, coming not of the rat recession stronger and faster than others and if you raise taxes you will just put the economy costing jobs we do not be in favor of raising taxes. >> first i'd like to congratulate mr. harper from his question but having said that we have to know all the facts and figures and there is something we still don't know what happened to this g8 and g20 summits. but the $50 billion what is it allocated incorrectly. we all agree to release the reports. read that report.

will you release the report? >> first of all, i don't have the report the auditor general did say the document that was released today should not be relied on. but i can tell canadians this. all the projects in that fund were all in advance by municipalities, approved by the government and every single dollars accounted for and all those projects have been publicly disclosed and will serve those communities for many years to come. that is so we have with the economic action plan across the country creating jobs to build good legacies for our community. >> said during the election use a new recession was coming and the economy statement on november 14. it was not the economy statement the theology statement was no plan at at all. if we had followed you you would cover a lot of

expenses during a recession. force you to cut. and not enough but do you realize that with the plan the helper that you gave ontario giving $10 million during the same time you give only only 70 million for the pharmacies sector that is a double standard. people have nothing against that but why help the people of the pharmacy sector? >> the reality is quite different. november 2008 to be met and we all agreed we would have stimulus plans that we rolled out across the world. canada was among the the largest and most quickly rolled out and successfully executed which is why we have superior job creation in this country. in terms of support for the automobile sector i make no apologies we have provided billions of dollars also to the forestry sector in terms

of helping businesses modernize with new technology in terms of opening markets and financial services and billions of dollars for this industry all across the country and it begins to turn the corner but we have more work to do. >> are you telling me tonight in a statement made on november 142008? are you telling me that? >> this statement from november was of fiscal and economic updated is not the budget. >> there was a stimulus plan . >> we said that all g20 countries had agreed. >> but. >> hours came out faster and rolled out more quickly. >> you were forced to do that because there is no stimulus plan at all. >> unfortunately you and the

other parties decided to oppose the measures over the past couple of years that they have been good for the canadian community and the economy we are proud of that. >> is not good for those people working in the private sector. people will tell you instead of refusing to answer the question. >> recently weaver and quebec with a major investment in the paper industry and that part of quebec and it was very well received. these are programs that was decided to be voted against in the house of commons. recognize there are major challenges but we will continue to work with the industry to advance their interests and continue to make them strong competitive in the future because it is a sector that canadians depend on. >> and now unionists me and -- unanimously support

giving how many billions of dollars to build electricity although not one single penny from ottawa but now you cut. [inaudible] >> we have said we're prepared to support the project for this has the capacity to radically reducing greenhouse gases and climate change with a major shift to clean energy in that part of the country. we're clear real treat all provinces equitably with the budget and you can handzus gaston we'll continue to support projects that are good for that. >> host: that is the end of the one on one now to the floor of view. >> back to the question about why you too possibly make sense of $6 billion of

corporate tax breaks in the middle of the largest deficit in canadian history. high spending government in the history of the country and some of it has been sheer waste that is what the auditor general report is all about. this was a stimulus but scattering money around to build gazebos and fake flakes sam the canadians don't have confidence in your management of the economy because you waste public money that is why the auditor general's report not only that he wasted money but did not tell the truth. it was supposed to be spent on the border but it was spent 300 kilometers away. that deception undermines confidence in your leadership. >> you're sightseeing a report the general's office said should not be relied upon. we're clear these projects were supported by the local community just as the other 26,000 projects across the

country. look at the issue of taxes they were reduced four years ago. the question is not reducing them now. there is no corporate tax cuts proposed but what is proposed is to raise taxes on 100,000 canadian businesses. they will not a bad. they will pass that on to consumers and employees. one expert says that that that kind of policy will cost the canadian economy $40 billion of investment. >> robert ast a very straightforward question. why would you be reducing corporate taxes come with the biggest and most profitable companies right now when so many people are suffering? you try to claim there is no corporate tax cuts going on right now with that is not true.

you know, it is not true you did get it through with support from those that oppose they now do not support a but those cuts are coming and they are very costly. i remember stephen harper wants upon a time to would stick up for the of the divide the you have become what you used to oppose did you have changed for use to care about the environment now where we are back of the pack and to clean of scandals now we have the most close to secretive government we ever had with the scandals and people in the senate and charged with fraud and the health care system and now people with no family doctor. >> mr. leighton, there are no corporate tax cuts right now. >> we can continue to create jobs but we do this

for ordinary canadian families that is why in the most recent budget we maintained transfers for health care why we want to eliminate the cap on medical expenses for ordinary people and why we want incentives for doctors and nurses. these are the things that the old jack clayton would have supported these instead of the election nobody wanted. i hope the old jack clayton will come back to focus. >> i may be a grant by. [laughter] >> he said he has to commit enough dollars to certain programs and says that very clearly. so the population comment

what is on the list? >> first of all, be clear. our plan to reduce the deficit does not depend on and program cuts brokerages very clear the imf says it is a realistic plan. but we said we believe we can continue to find the efficiencies and we look at trying to find 5% savings over the next three years. >> you cannot find those deficiencies. >> mr. harper we're having an election because you could not tell the truth to the parliament of canada about the money would spend on jets come a jlo's, a corporate tax giveaways but of that is what this viewer cannot understand. we're under the biggest

deficit of canadian history your the first prime minister found in contempt now you tried to persuade canadians are not cutting corporate tax. it goes from 16.five and nobody can understand why that make sense of we are in the middle of the deficit because of your mismanagement some effect contempt motion that you voted against us. i do not agree with better think it is based on realistic facts the urie determined to have an election whether the public wanted did not. what we think they should be focused on is the economy. we are creating jobs that is working and are far superior to any other advanced country in making investments in training to make sure canadians can participate in the economy of the future and these are fundamental things to keep

the country strong to make sure we can deliver -- . >> this is the economy you have to tell the truth. why are you spending $30 billion on fighter jets and 6 billion of corporate tax giveaways in the middle of a serious deficit? the numbers don't add up. you cannot pay for health care or tell the truth. and is about the economy and telling the truth. >> let's tell the truth and the current chance that we have won't reach their life at the end of this decade all the other parties say they replace those jets and we will not be spending one dime on the jets' and then

buy them for a period of over 20 years. the leaders want you to believe that somehow by canceling the jeht purchase five years of the road they can finance the election cost today. you cannot do that. >> you don't know what the jets will cost for you have no idea. >> what we know mr. harper is the billions of dollars you want to spend on the jets down the road have to come from health care and education and child care and the things that people need today. but is where the money will have to come from broker you may reject it if i may finish my point* please. >> we cannot speak the over each other's deny the conservative

government is the problem with the right wing proposals of deregulation and the approach to reckless policies that got us into this mess and white people cannot make ends meet and retirement security up in the air and 200,000 jobs lost that you have not recovered and your policies don't address them. >> reject the choices mr. leavitt paisley to try to present saying we have to make a choice between men and women in uniform and health care or east and west lowered employees or employers berkeley have balanced policies to move us lowered together. of that is why canada is the emerging from a global recession. that is why we are e merging faster than others because we have a balanced approach that makes investments in people when we can afford a by keeping taxes low. >> but how much time?

he said $75 million. >> american expert said $150 million. >> could you come with baxter figures to make the population that we will stand on that and for what? >> we have been very clear of the budget numbers but remember, these are five or 10 years down the road why do they make the opposition of that now? >> they need money today to pay for promises they cannot afford. >> if we pay good corporate tax rate we can invest in canadian learning give every single person who wants to attend university a learning passport that is $1 billion

less tricky spend that and 72 hours and said she h photo often as with the dealer can understand with poor economic management. >> you do not do that by raising taxes but growing the economy. >> that is fully competitive >> and the tax rates to evade not by liberal conformance to make sure they have the they sent and negative signal. costing 200,000 jobs at a time when we create jobs costing $40 billion of investment when it comes into this country. >> rather than the big

corporate tax cut to the bank for the royal companies to give away with bonuses what we should do is follow the plan giving $4,500 to any company that creates a new job right now. reduce small business tax rate from 11% down at 9%. that is what used to be about is helping the small business and we would create jobs all across this country right now. we cut rates for business is big and small that is why the canadian chamber of commerce does not support the tax hike. >> i beg your pardon read your press release mr. harper. i will bring good gaveled down. this is about candidate and the world stage mr. layton you get the second chance

this is one on one between the two of view. >> >> i would like to know what is your vision for canada on the world stage? do you believe our country should have a more prominent an active role internationally? if so what will you if elected prime minister do to regain canada's positive influence on the international arena? >> restart this with one-on-one. >> canada lost the seat on the security council of united nations. we made a fiasco of the gh and g27 so we have lost prestige and of the things that we need to do janet 10 days to stand for great values abroad and a particular democracy and you

cannot do that abroad unless it is at home. mr. harper has betrayed our democracy and homing cannot stand up for free them of fraud. >> raising a very important question committee is just reason you watch the conservative dominated senate blocked off a bill to get affordable drug medication to africa from canada. can you believe that? no wonder the rest of the world looks that canada to say what the heck is going on? we have two parties running in this election who have fought lined hour foreign aid budget. that is wrong for quote we're doing so well economically as a clay animation redoing something about the poorest parts of the world to bring our troops home from afghanistan and canadians were expecting that to happen this summer

but instead with aid deal cooked up we will be there another three years. >> brave men and women fought and died in afghanistan. you cannot have it both ways we will bring the combat troops home this summer perkin-elmer combat four canadian soldiers but the one thing that the afghans need is security so it is right to stay in a training mission to help them defend themselves. you say you want to engage and stay there for humanitarian reasons but what they needed security and i want to make sure they can stand on their own feet to defend their own country, women get to school that you cannot do that unless you have helped them to defend themselves. >> these are the arguments mr. harper makes. i don't agree i do not believe this is the way forward.

canada's voice for peace and aid and development is being lost with the focus of the military aspect. of course, we support our troops and i wish the conservatives would provide more to our veterans but i have another issue. >> before you do, what are you saying mr. layton? the brave men and women gave their lives that we walk away to pretend that it didn't happen? we are where we are. responsible leadership needs to say help the afghans defense themselves off for three more years. that is the possibility for us to do any humanitarian could then we need to focus on other parts but you cannot walk away and pretend it didn't have been spent medicis same argument over years recalled for the troops to be called back for a new approach in greece still think a new approach is needed.

>> what do say to our allies? i have been listening to proposals in this campaign and i ask myself how can people trust what you say today when your actions are so contrary to what you offer canadians? there you were supporting mr. herbert on the massive program of tax cuts now suddenly you are against them? in the bill other session you help him ram through on the backs of the people of british columbia and ontario the worst thing you could have done and then you support him 100 times about getting anything in return? you are mr. "harper's" best friend you of yourself as an alternative? it causes people to wonder can we trust him? >> i am thinking why they wonder why you change the

subject we're talking about canada's place in the world. we have lost our years establishing in china because mr. harper missed his opportunities. >> i might ask you that. >> if we sustain our international engagement, mr. harper walked away from africa i want to deal with the hiv/aids crisis. last friday this is the canada i love. i get on my bus i said would you doing fort easter? she said i'm going to teach school this is the internationalism if we do 150 hours of service overseas we will knock off $1,500 of the student debt. >> unfortunately your

priority and causes our reputation to be in trouble because of the massive increases of greenhouse gas emissions and then five more years from mr. harper where the rest of the robo executive to say in terms of climate change grace's come a one of the most important issues we're a pariah and to know where we're not seen as contributors are moving the agenda ahead because of these two it ministrations of place far too long. >> reopen the discussion to all four of view. >> what canada is doing in world obviously this training mission in afghanistan is important to build on the sacrifices are uniforms have made. also haiti needs our hope and canada and the president of tanzania and cheer the who panel on maternal house

where we get billions of dollars invested toward helping the health of the most needy people on this planet. canadians leading the united nations mission in libya. the copenhagen accord and canada said all had to be included now have one moving in that direction. issue after issue candidate is engaged, all parties should support a strong role for canada of. >> although the policy in the past we had to listen and it covers to their principal the of the quebec society. when i look at the foreign

policy it has links with the organization and to the financing because they are not responding to your straight and narrow ideology. could you realize? >> what we do with child and maternal health is to make sure foreign aid dollars go to actual services to the poor people of the world. not just a conference that is why we make changes to foreign aid to make it more effective. if you talk about our values, let me just say right now in libya we have the international force protecting the civilian population that is being commanded by a canadian they are as good as as you are. >> remember you want to go to iraq? >> the fact remains you are

the first prime minister in the history of canada to lose the seat we were eligible to occupy on the security council on the teetwenty summit in we had an opportunity to lead with $1 billion of 72 hours there's anybody who could remember and talking about the ad agencies, and muzzle them and shot them down and anything you cannot control you want to shut down. that is no way to build international prestige percolates church organizations working africa 30 years, for ideological reasons you shut them down. when one independent organization represented human rights the neutral we basically destroyed the organization. you cannot read if you show so little respect for democracy you have to let

the different voices flourish. >> recently i was at an international meeting of ngos dealing with foreign aid. that is what the government of canada does. coming of time and time again a recession came to the country no fault of their own because of the global economy. to a global response to make sure we do not have a global depression now we come out of the recovery we set important goals in this day and age in a global economy have to be a part of a global conference is and you have to the those and the world thinks canada it is leading global recovery spirit but they also ask what happened to canada? why is the government side to with contempt and why

can't we have opened debate about foreign policy decisions like wheat to go through the list. that is the most closed and administration but will you support my suggestion that we meet and arranger the auditor general to be released now it has been made to various versions? will you go along with that? >> would be happy to see their real report. >> bring that out. >> what are you afraid of? >> we encourage the auditor general to release the report the auditor general herself it says it cannot be relied on.

>> imagine to get a government document. >> but how the world was looking at the situation right now, it has the strongest recovery and then plunged into the fourth selection in seven years and canadians do not know why but i tell you what we do have to do we have to get parliament back to work we can afford a that raising taxes. >> to know why we have the election? because you did not tell parliament the truth about your budget coster any of the numbers. ave became unbelievable including on the international aid, the minister inserted into a document and falsified its misled the house of commons and eventually that was

lost. you do not tell canadians the truth you abuse democracy that is the rehab the election. >> the members of the budget have been verified by private sector experts and have not been challenged. and some opportunity i don't think 88 days canadians agree on parliamentary squabbling we should be focused on the economy. that is what we're doing. we have good things in the budget to help families, pensions, unemploy ed workers, a manufacturing sector, this is what parliament should be dealing with the. >> use a credit to times that's a prime minister especially of the government should always respect those

from the house of commons? it was tomorrow not to respect the house of commons. >> how come now since you are president every single time? you don't remember where you are preaching at the time? i'd like an explanation. >> we have run the longest minority government in canadian history and got a lot of things done we don't always agree. that is the reality. the government attempts to listen and a recent budget had elements that they ask for what will we all agree? and no. with the deaf man has to take responsibility for the decisions to be accountable that is what we're running on with the strong economic record. >> you do not walk the talk

on medical. >> we have so many instances where the house of commons put forward ideas that you have turned around and rejected and sometimes thinking particularly of the climate change bill went to the house of commons twice but you use the senate which you packed with your friends and defeated candidates and fund-raisers some of whom are up on fraud charges now and use the senate to defeat the bill that calls for accountability no matter which party so that we could have a climate change pratt to move a sword this disrespect is not acceptable. >> we have been strongly opposed to the bill and it has no measures to achieve the objectives you can medicis of them by setting a target just declaring it to be 2% the

has call working internationally with the framework we are working with the obama administration on a continental approach this is something the opposition asked for and continuing to invest billions of dollars in grain energy and energy efficiency that is what the canadians wanted us to do. >> you will never there you don't want a strong stance on climate change you prefer to subsidize your friends with the big oil companies you have to be fair with the times. >> your vision, you fail to win a seat on the security council and achieve nothing at the g20 and shut down every independent organization trying to do good enough for cut if it

disagrees with your ideology. if we have a foreign policy ask to be based on democratic values and respect for canadians when they go overseas what they tried to do and not shut people down. let some flowers bloom and let democracy breathe. if you promote it abroad you have to respect it at home. you are a man who will shut down anything you cannot control the core of your vision of government and hostile to the values of democracy in which this country is based. >> this is simply not true. canada was one of the most forceful promoters of the rollout lot at home and abroad and human rights but with foreign aid is delivered largely through private organization and international partners. that is largely how we do it. the a.d. we're shutting down is simply not based on any fact.

>> [inaudible] >> we have attracted billions of dollars with the health problems of the most vulnerable on the planet and international organizations working with us. that is what canada is really doing in the world although we are bickering back and forth we are making a difference. >> looking at the budget of 2008 to 6,000 now 14 billion what is the explanation price. >> i am not sure what figures you are quoting but i can tell you this that canada was the first country to fulfill its commitments to double aid to africa and we have made sure during this recession we have not reduced foreign aid.

>> you are wrong with the explanation that is the 6.$6 billion check to detroit. >> we now going to question number 3-d broad scheme is covered is this is where the one on one has stephen harper. >> i am sam diamond whoever wins the next election hide you turn the minority parliaments into the institution we can be proud of? >> i hope that canadians do elective maturity government but this election after election is starting to put the country's interest in serious jeopardy but we will do what we have done we have been elected twice as the minority government if you

look at the platform in the programs reflect the ideas coming from outside our party but in the end the government must take responsibility and be accountable and that is what we will continue to do. >> we're having an election because mr. harper did not tell the truth about his economic policies $30 billion on jets and 13 billion on prisons on the and affordable tax cut. the speaker of the house of commons held and the governor and 10 time to shutting down part of it twice come of we need to rebuild our democracy after mr. harper he cannot be trusted with the institutions of our country. it is as simple as that and this is a man who was shut down anything he cannot control and shut down parliament choice. how do we rebuild democracy?

working with other parties and listening to other ideas and letting democracy flourish making sure we listen to the canadians and instead of replacing the system of continuous and constant control. >> you can go at it. >> they appreciate the opportunity. the contempt motion is not a ruling of the court or a speaker but the other is three parties. we do not agree that is what parliament should be focused it had a budget that contained the next phase ssese action plan outlining important benefits for seniors, workers and entrepreneurs and that budget was well received. and even in the canadian labour progress it is unfortunate we're at that stage but that is where

we're at today if we have the minority government my fear is the go through a fifth and sixth election and we believe we're on the right track and asking canadians for a clear majority so we can give on with the nation's business to focus on the economy. >> you have not earned the majority. when you earn the trust of the canadian people. you have not done that because you don't trust the canadian people. two weeks ago in london users somebody out because you did not like what was on the facebook page. there is a veteran who wanted to get in and do kicked him out because you thought he might ask you a difficult question. this is not strong leadership mr. harper it is weak leadership. where you afraid of wire you afraid of the canadian people? we need a leader who respects the people and will use canadian democracy answer tough questions when put to it.

what are you afraid of why do display this resistance controlling what you cannot shut down? >> i have gone across the country not just with the campaigns to me was canadians from all walks of life that is one of the reasons we can stay in office because we stay connected with the real challenges and their needs. i don't think this kind of political bickering and personal attacks back-and-forth will do anything for canadians we need to layout where we take the economy that is what this government has done so let's move forward. i trust the canadian people they elect us twice if they do not electives i accept that but we ask them to take a look to say are a could these things affordable to want to stay on the low tax track or the high tax track? >> if you trust them so

little when you do not like something on somebody's facebook you toss them out of the meeting when a veteran was to ask a question you make sure he does not get into the hall what type of respect is that? you have to walk the walk can-do shut down parliament joyce and have been found in contempt twice by the iowa queue jouquin out parliament as it is a middle debating society that is a pesky interference it is the parliament of the people of canada and they found you in contempt the first prime minister in the history for that to happen. you explain that would you? provide that is why we have the election they will make a judgment if that action was valid or what we should have been doing was focusing on the economy. the fact is this government has had more consultations with canadians than any other governmental in history.