right way to handle this case is by analogy new york against the united states, in which the court read the shallow provision.

>> why don't we get started again. >> in mr. chief justice, may i please the court. the mandate represents an unprecedented effort by congress to compel individuals to enter commerce in order to better regulate commerce. the commerce clause gives congress the power to regulate the existing commerce. it doesn't give the far greater power to compel people to enter commerce to create the commerce essentially in the first place. congress when it passed the

statute did make findings about why it thought it could regulate the congress, and justified the mandate of the regulation for the economic decision to forgo the purpose of health insurance. that is a theory without any limiting principles. >> do you accept the general's position that you have conceded that congress could say if you're going to consume health services you have to pay by way of insurance? >> that's right. we stay consistent with 220 years of the courts of jurisprudence that if he regulates the point of sale you regulate commerce that is within the power. >> so what do you do with the impossibility of bodying insurance of a point of consumption? >> virtually force insurance companies to sell it to you? >> there are two points to make on that. one is the discussion this morning so far has been on the discussion that the only thing

that is at issue here is an emergency room visits and the only thing being imposed is catastrophic care coverage but if the chief justice indicated earlier a lot of the insurance covered is for ordinary preventive care, ordinary office visits and those are the kind of things one can predict. so there's a big part of the market that's regulated here that wouldn't pose a problem that you are suggesting. but even emergency room visits it certainly would be possible to regulate at that point you could simply say there's some sort of mandate on the insurance company you have to provide people to come in this would be a high risk pool and share it among yourself for something that people simply have to sign up at that point and the would be regulating the point of sale. >> it seems like you were talking about a matter of timing the congress can regulate the transaction, and the question is when does it make the best sense to regulate that transaction? and congress surely has it within its authority to decide rather than at the point of sale given an insurance based

mechanism it makes sense to regulate earlier. it's just a matter of timing. >> justice kagan, we don't think it's a matter of timing alone, and we think it has a significant substantive effect because of congress to regulate the point of sale the wouldn't carpet with and capture of all are the people who don't want to purchase health insurance and also have no plans of using health care services in the near term. congress very much wanted to capture those people. those people are essentially the golden keys that pay for the entire lowering of the premium. >> it is true that the non-measured young adults are in fact an actuarial reality insofar as allocation of health services in so far as the way that health insurance companies risk that a person who's sitting at home and his or her living

room doing nothing is an actuarial reality can and must be measured for the purpose. is that fair? >> i don't know, justice kennedy but if there is there are two problems with it. one is as justice alito's question suggested earlier, somebody that's not in the insurance market is irrelevant as an actuarial risk. we could look at people not in the insurance market and what we would find as they are relatively young and healthy and they would have a certain pool of the actuarial risk that would lead to lower premiums. the people captured by the guaranteed ratings would presumably have a higher risk profile and there would be higher premiums. one of the things the contras sought to accomplish here is to force individuals into the insurance market to subsidize those that are already in it to lower their rates that is that 43 of the government's brief that has a statute clear finding.

>> does that work, the way that social security does and let me put it this way. congress saw people needing to have old age and survivors insurance. and yet, they did it to attack as they said everybody's got to be in it, because if we don't have a healthy and it it's not going to be the money to pay for the ones who become old or disabled or widowed. so they require everyone to continue. it was a that in the beginning because a lot of people said, and maybe some people still do today, i could do much better if the government left me alone. i going to the private market and make a great investment and that forces me to pay for this social security that i don't want.

if congress could see this as a problem when we need to have a group that would subsidize the ones who are going to get the benefits. it seems to me you are saying the only way they could be done as of the government does it itself can't involve the private market, can't involve the private insurance. if it wants to do this, social security models the government has to the government takeover. we can't have the insurance industry in it. is that your position? >> i don't think it is, justice ginsburg. there are other options available. the straightforward one would be what amount of subsidy to the insurance industry is necessary to pay for a guaranteed issuing community rating and once we calculate that amount, we could have at tax that spread generally through everybody to raise the revenue to pay for that subsidy. that's the way we pay for most subsidies. >> is there an exception, could

the government say everybody pays share healthcare responsibility payment to offset all of the money we're supposed to spend on health care. but everybody that has an insurance policy is exempt from that. could the government do that? >> the government might be able to do that. i think it might raise issues whether or not would be valid exercise of the taxing power. >> under what theory wouldn't it be? the tax credits for having solar power homes we get tax credit for using fuel efficient cars. why couldn't we get a tax credit for having health insurance and saving the government from caring for us? >> i think it would depend on how web was formulated, but my concern with the, the constitutional concern would be that would just be a disguised in permissible direct pass.

i don't want to suggest we get to the taxing power to soon but i think it is worth realizing that the taxing power is limited in the power to impose taxes, and the one thing i think the framers would clearly identify as a direct tax is the tax on not having something. the freeman generation was divided whether a tax on carriages was a direct tax or not. he thought was a direct tax and madison thought was a direct tax. i have no doubt both of them were degrees the tax on not having a carriage with have been a direct tax and i think they would have thought it wasn't a valid regulation. if you look at hilton -- >> can i go back for a step? i don't want to get into a discussion with this is a good bill or not. some people think it is going to save a lot of money, some people think it won't so i'm just focusing on the commerce clause, not the due process but the

commerce clause. i look back into history. i think if we look back in history, we see sometimes congress can create commerce out of nothing. that's the national bank which is created out of nothing to create other commerce out of nothing. i look back into history, and i see that it seems pretty clear that if there are substantial facts on interstate commerce, congress can act. and i looked at the person who's growing marijuana in their house or the farmer that is growing wheat for consumption and this seems to have more substantial affect is this commerce. what seems to me more commerce than marijuana. i mean, is it in fact a regulation? why not. if creating the bank is, why isn't this? and then you say one thing out of all those is different and

that is you are making somebody do something. can't congress make people drive faster than 35, 40 miles an hour on the road? didn't they make that man go out into the market and by week for his cows? didn't they make -- if she married somebody that had marijuana in her basement, wouldn't she have to go and get rid of it? affirmative action. where does this distinction come from? it sounds like sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. so what is are doing here is there is a large group of -- what about the person that we discovered there are a disease sweeping the united states and 40 million people are susceptible of 10 million will die. can the federal government say all 40 million get inoculation? here we get a group of 40 million, and 50% of those

people that visit emergency care or other care which we are paying for coming and 22% of those pay more than $100,000 for that and congress says they are in the midst of this. we just want to rationalize the system they are already in. i would like you to tell me looking at those questions in reverse order. [laughter] >> no commits one question. it's looking back at history. the thing i can see the you say to some people to go by, why does that make a difference in terms of the commerce clause? >> let me start at the beginning of your question. mccaul wasn't a commerce power case. the bank wasn't justified in the corporation wasn't justified as an exercise of commerce power so that is not a case that says it's okay to conjure up the bank as an exercise of the commerce

power. and of course with the court didn't say and i think the court would have had a different reaction is we are not just going to have the bank because the would be necessary and proper. we are great for the citizenry to put the money in the bank because if we do that we know the bank of the united states will be secure. i think the framers would identify the difference between the scenarios, and i don't think the great chief justice would have said that forcing people to put the deposits in the bank of the united states was necessary and proper. if you look through the cases mentioned i don't think you will find a case like this and i think it's telling that you won't. the regulation of the market come all this effort to address the supply side what producers can do with the congress is trying to do is support the price of wheat but much more efficient to make everybody in america by ten loaves of bread that would have a much more direct approach in the prevailing market but we didn't do that. we didn't say when we had

problems in the automobile industry we are going to actually have everybody over $100,000 house to buy a new car. >> the key to the government's argument to the contrary is that everybody is in this market. it's all right to regulate its a particular market in which the market had been participating. everybody is in that market, so that makes it very different than the market for cars or other type of the buckles you came up with an all deregulating is how you came up with that. >> i suppose the first thing you to say is what markets are we talking about? because the government, the statute undeniably operates in the health care insurance market and the government can see the devotees of that market. the whole problem is a variety is and they want to make everybody get into that. >> it doesn't that seem putting the bologna thin.

it's for the purpose of financing health care. the two are inextricably interlinked. we don't get insurance so that we can stare at our insurance significant. we get it so that we can go and access health care. spot justice , not sure that is right what all insurance does is allows you to diversify risk so it's not a matter of paying now. it guarantees you an up front locked in payment and you won't have to pay more than that even if you enter a greater expense. every other market that i know for insurance we let people basically make the decision whether they are relatively risk adverse or relatively non-risk averse and they can make the judgment. >> we tell people not be the states to.

it some states decided not to impose the requirement the government would be without power to legislate and required every individual to buy car insurance. which is to say you are right in the first point to say the states to put which makes it different right there. only the states can do this even though it affects commerce indisputably because the states have done it all along the federal government is no longer permitted to legislate in this area? >> i think you might make a different argument than he would make about health insurance unless you try to say -- >> i've never gotten into an accident and i hope never. the vast majority of people have never gotten into an accident where the injured others.

yet we pay for it dutifully every year on the possibility that at some point we might give in to that accident. >> there's lots of people in manhattan that don't have car insurance because they don't have cars so they have the option of withdrawing. it's not a direct position from the government. so even the car market is different from this market where there's no way to get outside of the regulatory web and that is i think one of the real problems with this because -- >> the given is that virtually everyone absent some intervention from above meeting someone's life will be cut short in a fatal way virtually everyone will use health care. sprigg that's right but all sorts of people will not say use health care in the next year which is the period for the

insurance. >> can you for the actuaries better than the member of congress the work addict look at the 40 million people who are not insured and say which ones next year will or will not use emergency care and can do that any better than if we do that 40 million people are suffering the contagious disease and 10 million would get sick we don't know which? >> of course not, but the point is once the congress decides it's going to regulate its going to get all sorts of latitude to make the right judgment which at a realtor rely and which one ought to rely. the question that is a proper question for this court is the first time ever in our history the converse also has the power to compel people into commerce because it turns out would be very efficient thing for the purpose of congress optimal

regulation of the market. >> this goes back to the chief justice question that the theory behind not just the government's case but the law is people were in this market right now and they are in the market because people do get sick and when people get sick we provide them with care without making them pay and would be different. if he would appear saying i represent a class of christian scientists, then you might be able to say look, why are they bothering me? but absent that, you are in this market and you are an economic actor. >> justice kagan, once again it depends which market we are talking about. if we are talking about the health care insurance market -- >> we are talking about the health insurance market designed to access the healthcare market. >> the health insurance market designed to have payment market everybody's not in the market and that's the premise of the statute and the problem the congress is trying to solve through incentives we wouldn't

be here what it's trying to solve it in a way no one's ever tried to solve an economic problem before to say it would be so much more efficient if you were just in this market -- >> in the sense that they are creating a risk the market must attempt for. >> i don't think that is right certainly in any way that distinguishes this for many of the context. when i'm in my house deciding i'm not going to buy a car and causing the labour market in detroit to go down south to avoid causing somebody to lose their job and for everybody to have to pay for it under welfare so the cost shifting that the government tries to uniquely associated with this market is everywhere. and even more to the point the rationale they think ultimately supports the legislation that it's an economic decision once you make the economic decision the aggregate the decision. there's a substantial effect on commerce. the argument works here in every single industry. >> of course we do know that there are a few people more in new york city and then there are

in wyoming that never will buy a car. we also know here and we don't like to admit because we are human beings we suffer from the risk of getting sick and we also know that we will get seriously sick and we also know we can't predict when when we do it will be our fellow taxpayers through the federal government who will pay for this if we don't buy insurance we will pay nothing and that happens with a large number of people in this group of 40 million none of whom can be picked out in advance. that is quite different from the car situation and its different and only this respect. it shows that there is a national problem that involves money come cost of insurance. so if congress could do this,

should there be a disease that strikes the united states? and they want everyone and not too late even though 10 million would be hurt. it's hard for me to decide why that isn't interstate commerce even more so where we know it affects everybody. >> there are other markets that affect everyone. transportation, food, burial services the we don't like to talk about that either. there are situations if i could talk about the difference between the health insurance market i don't want you to leave you with the impression that everything turns on that because of the government decided tomorrow that they would come up with a great wonder drug that would be great for everybody to take and have huge benefits for everybody, everybody had to buy it would facilitate economies of scale and the production would be greeted price would be cheaper and everybody in the health care market the actual

health care market to buy the wonder drug i would be using the same argument and i would say that's not a cover that is within the commerce power of the federal government it is something much greater and would have been much more controversial. that is really important federalist 45 that is a new power and not want anyone has apprehension about. people are already in commerce to see that from the text of the calls the first commerce gets to regulate. did anybody think that the republic had the power to compel some other nation to commerce with us? of course not and in the same way i think of the framers understood the commerce power to include the power to compel people to engage -- once again who is in congress and when are they in commerce if the effect of all of these uninsured people is to raise everybody's premium

not just when they get sick if they get sick but right now in the aggregate and in we should look at the aggregate of all these people are increasing the normal premium congress says by a thousand dollars a year those people are in commerce making decisions that are affecting the price that everybody pays for the service. >> with all due respect i don't think that's a limiting principle. my unwillingness to buy is forcing up the price of an electric car if only more people demanded electric cars could the economy of scale -- >> it's different because the nature of the health care service you are in title of the health care when you go to an emergency room and go to a doctor even if you can't pay for its salad is the problem of

uncompensated care. >> justice kagan it's not the only place there is uncompensated care. somebody goes on welfare i'm going to end up paying for that as well but let me also say that there is a disconnect the in between the focus on what makes this different and the statute the congress past. if all we were concerned about is the cost sharing that took place because uncompensated care in emergency rooms, presumably we have before us the statute that only addresses the emergency care and catastrophic insurance coverage. but it covers everything all sorts of other things and that gets up the idea that there's two kinds of cost shifting going on. one is the concern about the emergency care and that somehow somebody that gets sick is going to shift cost back to other policy areas but there's a bigger cost shifting going on and that is the cost shifting that goes on when you force healthy people into an insurance market precisely because they are healthy and they are not

likely to go to the emergency room to use the injured and they're forced to buy in the health care insurance. that creates a huge windfall and lowers the price of premiums and again this isn't just a lawyer appeared dillinger that's what it does trying to second-guess the conventional economic decisions this is the congress findings on page 43 of the appendix -- >> that sounds like you are debating the merits of the bill. you ask for limiting principles so we don't get into a matter that i think has nothing to do with this case broadly. first the solicitor general can up with a couple joined very narrow. you have seen this court say that we cannot congress cannot get into a purely local affairs particularly where there noncommercial and of course the greatest limiting principle fall which not many accept so i'm not going to emphasize that is the

limiting principal drive the fact that members of congress are elected from state and 95% of all of the united states is state law that is a principal and forced by the legislature. the other our principles when written into lopez and one you just heard. it seems to me all of those eliminate the possibility and none of them eliminate the possibility that we are trying to take the 40 million people who have medical cost we do affect interstate commerce and provide a system you may like or not liked. >> to simply say that it's up to congress so i don't think that is a limiting principle. second of all -- >> that is what justice marshall said to our regularly like all in congress is completed a self

may be exercised to its utmost extent and acknowledges no limitations rather than those prescribed in the constitution but there is no conscription and the set for the constitution. i agree it's back to regulating commerce. >> i agree 100% and that is the chief justice point when you open the door to compelling people went to commerce based on the narrow rationale what exists in this industry you're not going to be able to stop that process. >> republic to hear you read just justice breyer. spread the of their principles or lopez, and lopez is a limit on the affirmative exercise of people already in commerce. the question is there any of the limit to people who are not in commerce and so i think this is the case that asks that question and in the first point which i take to be the solicitor general's point, it is with all

due respect the description of the insurance market it's not a limiting principle because the justification for why this is a valid regulation of commerce is in no way limited to the market it simply says these are economic decisions they have on other people might feel a year to purchase has a direct effect on others in the market. that's true of virtually every other market. >> turning to the justice's question. >> i would be delighted to. you are right. once you are in the commerce power it's not going to police that except maybe to the lopez leavitt and that's why i think it's important for the court to think seriously about taking an unprecedented step of saying the congress probably includes the power to regulate and prescribe the rule by which commerce is governed, but to go further and say it's not just prescribing the rule for the commerce that exists but it's the power to compel people to enter into commerce in the first place.

.. that would've been unlawful unlawful under state law. the assistant special federal license for britain by state law. the court of the gun a label in order to preserve federal. the solicitor general asking to do years exactly the opposite, to the past labels in order to

out then basic federalist system. >> do you think the states but cash for spending quite >> represent 26 states. the states could pass this mandate. >> any other area of commerce business where we have held that there isn't concurrent power between the states and the federal government to protect the welfare of commerce quite >> justice sotomayor, i didn't answer yes if states can do it because it be a valid regulation of intrastate commerce. i said yes the states can do it because they have the police power and they were fundamental in a limited and enumerated on the other. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court.

with the solicitor general's main premise they compare the health insurance in order to promote commerce because it will reduce some calm and say they care. if you affect the argument you fundamentally offer the text of the constitution and gave plenty to repower. it simply doesn't founder whether the regulation will promote health care commerce by reducing a common jdk or. all that matters is whether the dvd unregulated by the act negatively affects commerce or negatively affects commerce regulation so that is within the commerce power. if you agree with us to succeed commerce power, the law somehow was rooting because it is beneficial effects in the health care market. in other words, congress does not have the power to promote commerce. congress has the power to regulate commerce. if the power exceeds permissible

regulatory authority, it is invalid. >> regulation in goods the power to promote. since the new deal but said regulation as a market of agricultural products. congress has the power to subsidize, to limit production and all sorts of things. >> absolutely, chief justice. when they act within the room and mary power, the solicitor general was to turn it into a different power. he wants to have the power to regulate anything. if they have the power to promote commerce, they have the power to regulate anything. >> i don't think you address the main point, which is they are not creating commerce. it's already there. >> i would like to address that in two ways that i could, mr. chief justice. they keep playing miss the

match. 95% of them in the house care is not a relevant statistic. no one in congress this illicit or general argues going to the dark turn fully paying creates a problem. the problem is uncompensated care. they say the uncompensated care arises if you have some kind of catastrophe. hit by a bus, some prolonged illness. the uninsured have that sort of catastrophe. it's got to be a relatively small fracture. we don't know but it changes the basic principle that she read nonetheless foreseen for paternalistic reasons to go into the insurance market to insure against risk risk-based meet the voluntary decision they decided not to. >> the problem is that they are making the rest of us pay for

it. as much as they say we don't know when that time they will be end of figures, how much more families are paying for insurance when people get sick and i have intended to ensure they have a been able to meet the bills and the rest of us are paying because people are getting cost free health care. the only way to prevent that is to have them pay sooner rather than later. >> yes, that with respect to justice ginsburg from friends to people who resold them a free rise. those are people who default on health care payments. that is an entirely different group of people, entirely different that dvd and being uninsured. the question is whether or not you can regulate activity because it has statistical

connection to enact dvd. it only gives congress the power to regulate things that negatively affect commerce regulation. it doesn't give them the power to regulate things statistically connect to. >> i was just going to say if they have that power they obviously have the power to regulate every thing because everything in the aggregate is statistically commensurate that negatively affects commerce and compels congress. >> in your review ratepayer -- i am just picking on something. and it turned out there was some terrible epidemic sweeping the united states and we couldn't say the more than 40% or 50% -- i can make the number as high as i want, but he would say the federal government is not the power to get people inoculated to require to be inoculated because that's just statistic.

>> in all candor, people who commit violence -- >> is the answer yes or no quite >> my answer is they could do it. >> they cannot require people even if the disease is sweeping the country to be inoculated to the federal government. please turn to justice kagan. >> violence against women obviously creates the same negative impression of fellow citizens as this clinical disease. and it has huge effects on the health care of our country. congress on increased health care costs. >> i agree with you that a majority thought of as a local matter. [laughter] >> i don't know i have any diseases in a more local than beating up a woman. but the basic point is notwithstanding the very profound effect on the health care market, this court says the

activity being regulated, i.e. violence against women is that i have the power. regardless of whether it has bounciness facsimile must say no, congress has not the power. why not? everything has balancing effects on commerce and every compelled purchase permit concept and by definition helps the seller. >> is made the difference between justice breyer's hypothetical and the love we have before us here? the hypothetical harms other people from the communicable disease as a result of the disease. it is not the result is something the government has done. whereas here the reason why this cost shifting is the government has mandated that. it has required half of those for emergency treatment. instead of paying not with attacks by everybody, it has required a system in which the cost is surreptitiously shifted

to people with health insurance and pay their bills when they go to the hospital. >> justice alito, that is exactly the argument. >> if that is so, then we just change makes it under pressure and say that in fact it turns out that 90% of automobile is striving interstate without certain equipment, not 100% come in nearly 60%. does the epa have the power then say you have to have an anti-pollution device? it is statistical. >> if you have a car they can require you. >> then you're not going on statistics. you're going on something else and i'd like to know what it is. >> they can't require you to buy a car with an anti-pollution device. once you've been to the market and make a decision committed regular terms and conditions of

the car you do for a series of reasons. but they can't do is compel you to enter the market. >> you change the ground of argument which accept is totally legitimate. the question is when you are born and you don't have insurance and you will in fact get sick and you will in fact impose cost, how do perhaps involuntarily because you are a human being, entered this particular market, which is a market for help here? >> is being born is entering the market, i can't think of a more power congress cannot because that literally means they can regulate human activity from cradle to grave. i thought i would extinguish the police power from the limited commerce power. i don't disagree that giving the congress plenary power to mandate transfers from a to b. would be a very efficient way of help and a com shim the object

is. >> go back to justice kagan and don't forget her question. >> i forgot my question. [laughter] >> i was facing the same dilemma. [laughter] >> what it means to be the junior justice. it just seems very strange to me as he can in the social security system. i am being forced to pay for something i don't want. and this, which seems to me she tried to get care for the ones who need it by having everyone in the pool, but also trying to preserve the rule for the deer come in private insurers is something very odd about that. the government can take over the whole thing and we'll say yeah, that's fine.

the government wants to preserve private insurers. >> well, i don't think the test of a lot the constitutionality is whether he did years of libertarian libertarian principles of the cato institute or the status principles of someone else. ii think the test of the last constitutionally not a policy question. it's whether it is regulating things that negatively affects commerce don't. since obviously the failure to purchase an item doesn't create the kind of effect on supply and demand the market participate in wicker and great state come it doesn't in any way have feared with regulation companies. i don't think it can pass -- >> i thought they would not let she is the home-grown wheat. you have to go out in the market and by the wheat you don't want. let's be careful with what they regulating.

we didn't in any way reply to every american to go out and buy these. one of the consequences of the participants for the project. that's why you can regulate them because they're the same effect on the interstate market but a black recognize on the legal market. in other words you can regulate the lakers. that doesn't suggest you can regulate people who stay out because they don't have any negative effect on the existing market participants are on regulation. >> that is why he suggested that it may be different if you are racing an average sized challenge and a class of people whom you could say it clearly would not be in the health care market. but you're raising an official challenge and we can't really know which of the many, many people this addresses. in fact will not dissipate in the health care market and in

fact will not impose cost on all the of us. can congress respond to those that have a crystal ball and who is and isn't going to be in the health insurance market and say most of these people will be at most of these people will thereby impose cost on the rest of asinine is a problem we can deal with on a classified basis. >> you can come and people impose on the rest of us are people engage in different activities which is defaulting on their evening. under your theory, you can regulate the problem. since we could regulate people enter into the mortgage market and impose mortgage insurance on them, we can simply impose requirements by private mortgage insurance on everybody before they sent the market because we do it in this prophylactic way before it develops.

>> i don't think that's fair because not everyone is going to enter the mortgage market. government's position is almost equivalent to the health care market. >> two points. one is the health care market. and we take on full stride. that doesn't suggest the government compels to buy five gallons of meet for five bushels of wheat because they are not regulating congress. they are still requiring you to make a purchase you don't want to do. to get back to the examples. >> it is true of almost every product, directly or indirectly by government regulation. the government says borrowing by colleagues example. you can't buy a car emissions control.

in terms of the horsepower. i am forced to do something i don't want to do by government regulation. >> you are not forced by a private you don't want. i agree with you since the regulates all markets, there is no limiting print to pull on that compelled purchase. when they put these controls -- >> pasteurize goods, goods that don't have certain pesticide that others come in various government compulsion because the government regulates so much. the conditions of life that some may rail against. >> with you about it this way. the marketplace can impose all sorts of restrictions on you. they can impose restrictions on state after they've been active us. they could wipe out an condition them. what can't they do? they can't compel states to enact laws.

they cannot compel states to carry out federal law. i am on precisely the same distinction because everyone intuitively understands the regulating participants after a and b. have entered contract is fundamentally less intrusive. >> we want the government to regulate the process of the goods to enter into interstate commerce. merely because they might statistically. there's all-stars of government regulation of plans and agricultural farms and that to the defense. interesting because it might affect interstate dvd. >> i fully agree with you. >> you are self insuring. why isn't that a predecessor to

the need you are going to have quite >> the cases you refer to effectively eliminated distinction between participants and interstate market vis-à-vis the interstate market. outside of the market on both the level -- >> the simplest example for me to suggest as you've undoubtedly have about two pages that seem to me by the examples with the fact that under these regulations can't compel people to buy things that are otherwise one to buy. for example, even in the farm case, the farmer was being forced to go out and buy grain to feed to his animals because

he couldn't raise it at all. he goes to one example after another. what is your response to that was cheaper at? >> in each and every sample there is no compulsion for him to buy wheat. he could've gotten the 60s are not sold them, which is actually what he was doing. there is a huge difference between his regulation. i.e. conditioning access in saying you match via product and force you to buy a product. >> it was common ground that the environment that the insurers can't refuse to create distinct condition. the government tells us in congress determines that those

those that don't work that you have the approval to improve veteran know-how to you. did you agree with your colleagues that the community-based and what's the name day you said the other? the guaranteed issue. the legitimate commerce club legislation. >> sure. we don't have anywhere to an p..regulation. the discriminations for pete to justice congress intended to agree by insurance. >> they can't possibly work. if people don't have to buy insurance until the health status is such the insurance company just out with dan at

will. you say i want to because you already fixed. >> it will work just fine. but when you do that -- >> by what they ensure early if they were project did insurance site. >> this is the government's logical argument. that would be no good. we created the problem. we've given up up the health insurance premiums to give this authority we wouldn't otherwise have. >> what percentage of the american people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because they are so large percentage of the american population for that child?

they had an allergic reaction and that would save the child? >> the government is somehow advocating that people get thrown out of emergency room or the alternative they hypothesized to be enforced by throwing people out of emergency rooms. the alternative access to health care on buying health insurance is enforced in precisely the same way the act does, either by health insurance or pay a penalty of $695. in one of doctors turned people on the street. >> if you say the penalty is okay but not the mandate? i'm sorry, maybe i misheard you. >> no, they create a stronger sense like the only alternative to doing the way we've done it if we condition access to health care or buying health insurance, the only reinforces by making six on transit people not to care. there's a perfectly legitimate

way they can enforce alternative, i.e. requiring health insurance when you access health care, which is the same penalty structure in the act. there is no real dilemma between having people have insurance and denying them emergency. congress has made it perfectly legitimate value judgment. whenever congress has imposed a public responsibility and private act areas, they subsidize from the federal treasury. it is not constricted a subset of the citizenry and make them subsidize the actors being heard, which is what they are doing here. they make young healthy people subsidize insurance premiums but the nondiscrimination provisions with all insurance companies. >> to understand the sections you are taking, congress can't

tax everybody and said a public health care system. that would be okay quite >> congress can be taken the same decision as your colleague. congress can't say we're going to set up a public health system, but she can put it a tax credit if your pipe lake health insurance because you won't access the public decision. >> i fully agree with my brother that it would be unconstitutional. i don't think he needs to suggest, nor do i think a tax credit that exemplifies all kinds of activities. if they give a tax credit for buying insurance,.

>> how different is it when the taxpayer fails to meet the requirement of having minimum coverage, then they are responsible for paying the shared responsibility payment quick >> differences taxpayers are not given a choice. it's the difference between banning cigarettes and saying i'm going to enforce the legal bid to $5 a pack penalty in saying that if you are so, fine. i will charge you a tax of $5 a pack. >> i thought everybody was paying, $10 a pack -- i don't even know what it is. it's pretty high. i think everyone recognizes it's all taxation for the purpose of persuading you to buy it. >> precisely my point. everyone understands the system is semantically different than understanding cigarettes are different. >> is different. i agree with that. you pointed out and i agree with you on this. the government set up medicaid.

the government set up medicare. the government said it should and therefore people who have the private insurance in that while the government has said it commerce. it's all over the united states. and now burrowed of course the decision by the 40 million not to buy the insurance effects that commerce and substantially so. so i thought it's not a violation of some basic right for someone to buy things they don't want, but simply whether those decisions of that group of 40 million people substantially affects interstate commerce that has been set up in part to these other programs. so that is the part of your argument i am not hearing. please, it is clear that the failure to buy health insurance doesn't affect anyone.

defaulting on your payments to health care provider does. congress shows for whatever reason not to regulate the conflict activity of defaulting on health care provider. they use a 20% or whoever among the uninsured as a beverage to regulate the 100%. >> i agree that is what happening. that's because insurance is unique and the next market is unique. it is true that most questions agree. in the insurance and health care were, both markets, stipulate to markets. the young person who is uninsured is uniquely approximately very close to affecting the race of insurance and the cost of providing medical care and a way that is not true in other industries. that is my concern in the case. >> i made the this understanding

you. i hope i am not. it would be perfectly fine if they have a -- you do actuarially of brisk on the basis that be a real risk for disease, just like you judge flood insurance on the homeowners risk of flood. one of the riskier it not only compelling us to enter the marketplace. they are prohibiting you from buying the economical product you want. catastrophic insurance. everyone agrees the only potential problem is that dirty road from the healthy 70% of the population to the unhealthy 5%. yet congress prohibits anyone over 30 from buying any kind of catastrophic health insurance. the reason is because they need the massive subsidy. justice alito, cbs said injecting my clients into the risk pool lowers premiums by 15% to 20%.

justice kennedy, even if we create a set of congress who has had, as we do a closer in access and say we are really addressing this problem. we want 30 euros to get catastrophic health insurance. not only today. they deprive that option. that illustrates dangers of giving plenary powers because they can always leverage them and, for some public policy rationale to regulate commerce into the power to promote congress, which as i was saying before is the one we think is plenary. ..

spearman the problem you identify is exactly the problem you would brigade if you brought the government principles. he would have to draw distinctions between the industry, the car industry and all that. the commerce clause to this prudence was in the court in the 1930's when they were trying all these kinds of distinctions among industries where as our task is really very simple. are you buying the product or as congress compelling you to buy the product? and again, if congress has the power to compel you to buy this product, then obviously they have the power to compel you to buy any product because any purchases and the benefit congress and this isn't krin to second-guess the policy judgments on how important it is

in this product verses that product. semidey and join in line between commerce and everything so it's of commerce is drawing an artificial line between commerce and manufacturing? >> the activity commerce and non-commerce is a distinction that comes indirectly from the constitution. the framers consciously gave the ability to regulate commerce because that's not a particularly threatening activity of individual freedom. if you would require the transfer property coming you have as the early case but it a monster legislation which is against the injustice because everyone intuitively understand that regulating people who voluntarily enter the contract does not create the possibility of congress compelling wealth transfers among the citizenry and that is precisely what the framers deny the power to compel the commerce and precisely why they didn't give them plenary

power. >> thank you. general, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice. >> conagra's confronted a great problem when it enacted the affordable care act. 40 million americans who can't get health insurance and suffered often very terrible consequences. now we agree i think everyone arguing the case agrees congress could remedy that by enclosing the entrance requirement of the planned sale. that won't work. the reasonable work is because people will still show up at the hospital or at the physician's office seeking care without insurance causing the cost shifting problem and mr. clement's suggestion they can be signed up for a high risk pool is utterly realistic. think how much of the cost to get the insurance when you are at the hospital or of the doctor it would be unfathomable lehigh yet there will never work. congress understood that. it shows a means the will work

in the means that is all work in the state's and in the state of massachusetts and had everything reason to work on a national basis. that is the kind of trace of means that the constitution leads the democratically branch of government. there is no limitation in the commerce clause. everyone subject to regulation the health care market they are just being regulated in advance and it's exactly the kind of thing to look to be left in the judgment of congress. i think this is a paradigm example of the kind of situation chief justice marshall and vision and the provisions of the constitution needed to be interpreted in a manner that would allow them to be effective in addressing the great crises of human affairs that the

framers couldn't even envision. but if there's any doubt about that of the commerce clause i would urge the court to uphold the profession as an exercise of the taxing power. under new york against united states this is precisely parallel situation. the court thinks there's any doubt about the ability to impose the requirement it can be treated as simply the predicate to which the tax incentive of 5,000 sikhs accomplishment. as the court said in new york to respect the judgment of the democratically accountable government and because the statute can be construed in a manner that allows it to be upheld in that way and respectfully submit that it's the court's duty to do so. thank you. >> council, we will see you

tomorrow.

this is probably our most famous book. this is the one we like to show the visitors when they come to the archives here at the book about harriet tubman. it's called the moses of her

people come in and of a special thing about this book was written in 1866. the special thing about this book is that harriet tubman made her mark on their come and that's really the most famous autograph if you want to call it that of where we have had here in the library. obviously she couldn't read or write so she left her myrick at the side of the cross. >> the middle east institute on wednesday hosted its annual conference on turkey focusing on domestic and regional challenges for turkey and syria and turkey's relationship with the european union and the united states. the group heard from the turkish ambassador to the u.s. for 40 minutes.

>> next the middle east institute is honored to welcome other insightful and important voice on turkey, turkish ambassador. he's a friend of the middle east institute, and of the united states. he has been turkey's on voyan the guided states since 2010 but he's no stranger to the u.s.. this is actually his third diplomatic assignment. he has risen quickly in the turkish foreign ministry since his first step in washington and that is a reflection of his outstanding diplomatic talent and intellect. when he left washington last time in 2001 he served as the head of the department of the americas. he was named the head of the information department, then he went on to serve as the spokesman for the ministry of

foreign affairs. he served as ambassador to israel, and before coming back here as ambassador to the night it states to use the the under secretary for political affairs and public diplomacy at the turkish ministry of foreign affairs. one factor that is contributed to the ambassador's effectiveness is his own personal multi-cultural background. his ancestors are from turkey, greece, bulgaria, syria and in that sense he shares many qualities of america multi-cultural and fierce belief in the entrepreneurship. i would like to give a warm welcome to the investor and respect to his team at the embassy and welcome him to the podium.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> i believe everybody looks of the program that doesn't seem to get my name. so, ladies and gentlemen, guests, it is a distinct pleasure for me to address the gathering on the occasion of the middle east institute annual conference on turkey. i would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the institute of turkish studies for the organizations of this conference. ladies and gentlemen, it has become a cliche to say this but

never at least in my lifetime has it been more true. we are witnessing a time of great global change. the speed at which events are unfolding is dizzying. there are so many moving parts to the puzzle so many unknowns in the equation that they have an easy time being diplomats or foreign policy analysts. the only accurate forecast we can make like with the men who want to be on the safe side is that we are in together. this trend is on selling in many ways. we who has practitioners of

foreign policy are generally good at working and structures and we must now november iced truth of yesteryear and we will go with law. when all is in flux better to not resist the prevailing trend, but as one saying goes let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater because as a mother old saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. the fact is today while the international order as we know it is shaking with economically, politically or socially as it is and foundations there is one

constant that i for one am proud to say remains unchanged. that is the ever-increasing breath of the turkish relationships. fence, the relationship based on the lines partnership and friendship between turkey and the u.s. is not new. this year we're celebrating the 50th to the to 16th anniversary of the membership. what is new is just how pivotal relationship has become. for both turkey and the u.s.. indeed i can easily say that while the skeptics still argue about the future direction of turkish u.s. relations, and when the next downturn will occur,

the u.s. press seems to have gotten the drift. hardly a day goes by without an item related to turkey appearing on the front pages of american newspapers. the truth is that we are caught right in the middle of all of the major a people's that are occupying the international agenda at the moment. as any student will attest command is destiny, and turkey has been blessed with a very volatile one. future historians will pass judgment on whether this is ultimately a good thing or not. but we know the truism that flies in the saying. if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger.

indeed, the state of our economy and our emerging international political standing are testament to the fact that despite this we are not doing bad at all. but i will not digress on turkey. i will let others do that. my job is to focus on the u.s. relations and the most crucial issues on the agenda. obviously the u.s. invested in all these major upheavals that i am talking about whether it is the economic crisis in europe and its ramifications for all of us, or whether it is our transition that is unfolding before our eyes in the middle east. today based on the common universal values of democracy,

respect for human rights rule of law and free market economy are the great nations working on a daily basis to strive to further our interests and achieve our common objectives. in that regard and as i like to repeat turkey u.s. relations continue to be robust, relevant and resilient. robust because turkey and the u.s. are using their comparative advantages to work together to address challenges on a wide spectrum. relevant because we have overcome the security defense paradigm in their relationship and remodeled this partnership into something new, something bigger that serves our mutual interest today. and resilience because while we

have our serious ups and downs over the past, we have time and again transcend that are different this as important as they were to keep the bigger picture in focus and work to solve the many challenges we are up against. all in all, turkish and the u.s. cooperation and partnership has become the vehicle for meaningful change in various demands. and i would assure you that both my in the sea and our american colleagues work 24 hours, seven days a week online and in real time to further enhance turkish american partnership and to effect positive change. the truth is that the only way is up and that is where we intend to take his relationship. ladies and gentlemen, the

historic transformation that is painfully unfolding day-by-day in the middle east and north africa met its ongoing involvement of turkey and the united states. today the language or democracy is becoming more and more dominant this and global affairs. the state cannot be credible or legitimate partners in the international arena as unless it provides its citizens with some level of liberty from pluralism, equality and dignity. for many years people try to understand why there is no dhaka see in the world. some people blame islam as the region and civilization. others negate this pushing the example of turkey. some blame colonialism from the cold war for supporting the oppressive government.

lack of middle class and leadership missing institutions were also cited as reasons for autocracy in the middle east. some of these analysis racked the school orientalism. other specter and inevitable inescapable and ultimately vicious cycle of casualty but where there was a backdrop and the jury is still out, is ostensibly infinite group was broken of the young men to nisha. over the next few months the demonstrations led in search of fundamental rights and freedoms across the arab world. they didn't burn american flags. they just demanded to live their lives in the same way that you and i do.

and the authoritarian regime can be toppled in one night but it takes years if not decades to build a strong government institutions and cultural democracy. and lest we forget many have successfully been hijacked throughout history. the forces of change in the middle least attempt to once again the power and a disregard of the expectation of social religious and ethnic minorities they will not be in the summer to follow the arab spring. we should keep in mind that the creation of an inclusive dialogue and cultural consensus is necessary for a successful transition. we have to be extremely careful and vigilant against those challenges and accountable, transparent to overcome such

danger where we stand in these developments in? since the inception of the recent events turkey has adopted the principle value based approach. the primm investor was the first leader to call upon the president of egypt to meet the demands of the people lordstown. there is a transition that answer the prime minister made the case in cairo the secular as some was central to the functioning democracy. we very much welcome the competition of the presidential elections in egypt. we wish that the results of these elections which are of great importance for the progress of the transition process and space transformation in egypt will be beneficial for people will reject and for the

region. we believe our egyptian brothers will emerge even stronger from the process. it is essential that the dejection people's free will is represented by all sides and that the transition process is completed in a successful timely manner with the legitimate demands and aspirations. it's equally essential for the egyptian authorities to maintain a constructive inclusive approach to the efforts to overcome the challenges had. on the other hand, during the position regarding libya has also been unambiguous we extended our support to the operation recognize the council and had been continuing our engagement in the current government of libya.

when it comes to our immediate neighbor, syria, we have been consistent from the very beginning even before the tidal wave of the democratization reached the shores we continued the consistency in our policies. in our message to the syrian government, we emphasize the need for freedom and equality, justice and democracy. we made it clear that the proposed delay to the bill of the people would lead to chaos. we exerted enormous efforts in public and behind closed doors to convince the syrian leadership to lead the transition. of the neighboring syria failed miserably in the developments in

the region and to reacting. the regime continues to use oppression and violence on its own people and in response to that we continue to be actively engaged in the efforts to increase the pressure on the syrian government and to find an appropriate solution for the tragedy. while the president continues to fool himself that there can be a realist exit from this health he and his cronies have created, the situation has come to a mass following the shooting in the international aerospace by last week. although the aircraft which was on the test and training mission displayed latitude when flying

to see the forces did not hesitate to shoot out our aircraft without warning. after receiving, the aircraft diverted to the syrian coast and crashed into the sea at eight nautical miles off the coast. now they are engaged in an additional information. on the matter to the facts and to evade responsibility. they even claim they aircraft was shot in the aerospace despite the existence of a full providence indicating the opposite. both records prove that it was shot at the international space.

the illegal and unacceptable attack on the aircraft flying so low and unarmed at the international air space is a hostile act against our national security. it runs against all principles of good faith and good label and is agreed violation of international law. therefore as we step into the state of affairs with syria i must underline our perception from the regime has changed this incident. we regard it as a visible threat to our national security and the rule of the deutsch with a turkish armed forces have been modified accordingly. we've acted in restraint so far, yet we will not hesitate to take the necessary steps within international law and reserve

our rights to respond to this attack. however, would be crystal clear on the point the measure to be taken by turkey will offer the defense of nation. we had consultations yesterday with our allies under the framework article for of the martha atlantic treaty. we have asked for solidarity from our allies, and they have declared that they will stand together with us in the spirits. the 911-kilometer long border between turkey and syria is also the border of the alliance. we welcome our allies having stated that they will remain in the development of the southeast border of nato.

guests, the people of syria are brothers determined to maintain its support to the people of syria until they are free from this brutal dictatorship. turning to iraq, ladies and gentlemen, let me say that the developments are also of critical importance in regional affairs. the final departure of the u.s. troops at the end of the last year iraq has regained its place in the community of nations as a fully sovereign state. as a friend and neighbor which extended the systems it puts to the stabilization and security of person iraq, turkey warmly welcomed this historical development. today iraq is the second-largest export market with a bilateral

trade of 12 billion u.s. dollars to read turkey has a representation throughout the country. the turkish business communities operations are no longer limited but the business and are increasingly engaged in the southern regions and the bill every day after decades of conflict and the war and oppression, our iraqi brothers are now in charge of their own destiny. if managed well, this new era in the history of iraq can bring peace, prosperity and security for all iraq. its neighbors and beyond.

in that regard, iraq is at a very critical juncture. the relative security and stability that iraq achieved in that high price is still fragile. in order to meet the challenges it's facing, iraq needs to make meaningful progress in the main the areas. power sharing and revenue sharing. our iraqi brothers have suffered dramatically from sectarian agenda as well as the centrist policies in the past. no other country in the region has done a humanitarian and natural wealth that iraq has come and this can only be beneficial if all the iraqis have an equal and fair say in the way their country is to be run. turkey will continue to engage

actively with all the segments of the society to hold iraq successfully navigate. in our eyes there is only one and regardless of the background our policy toward iraq is driven by principals such as inclusiveness, power-sharing and the functioning free market economy that is integrated in the region and its national markets. we stand ready to support any leader and a political group that will work for the realization of the principles because the only way to enhance the unity of iraq is to honor these principles. our profound concern is that unless the principles are upheld, the future may be

awaiting iraq and as a neighbor who paid a very high price for the instability in iraq over many decades we will do our utmost to prevent that even sure devotee. as always, the strategic partnership has been on the united states. turkey's ever increasing cooperation is the linchpin of stability in iraq. our cooperation encompasses a wide range of sectors and is geared to words serving the interest of both. we are convinced that if the system was forced which allows the meaningful participation of all iraqi troops, then the increasing moment in the central government will inevitably constitute though country.

dear friends, the rising tension in iran's nuclear program is another significant issue. on turkey's doorstep and in a little way against which we cannot afford to remain indifferent we do not want iran to acquire nuclear weapons. we do not want any other country in the region acquiring nuclear weapons. turkey is probably the only country most concerned about the possibility of iran acquiring nuclear weapons. such a development would threaten the peace security in the region by triggering a nuclear armament race. that is completely against turkey's vision, and we have said so at every opportunity in new york, brussels and tehran.

similarly, we are against any intervention the would have an effect on the region. diplomacy is the only viable option in resolving the issue of iran's nuclear program. likewise, continued engagement and dialogue even at the point it seems to fail is important to prevent iran from going further restraint. therefore, we are committed to facilitating a diplomatic dialogue among the parties. in this regard, we hope that the technical experts meeting to be held in istanbul next week on the third of july would find enough common ground to reserve the talks between the five plus one and iran which had initially commanded and another meeting

last april. there are issues we don't see eye to eye with iran. however, we see to sort are a hour differences through dialogue luke, trying to avoid public. here again the consider the dialogue to achieve results. ladies and gentlemen the fight against terror continues to be one of the issues on the trade agenda in the united states. there aren't for turkey and the united states. for that reason, the ministers of the two countries have been cochairing the global

counterterrorism form which is the second administrative meeting in istanbul three weeks ago. the global counterterrorism for an assist on testament to our continued determination to work together encounter in a violent extremism and all the forms and manifestations. furthermore, i can honestly tell you that the u.s. is the strongest supporter of turkey in its fight against the organizations. in that regard, i would like to take this opportunity to give our sincere thanks and gratitude to senator mccain and senator lieberman in their leadership introducing the senate resolution expressing solidarity with turkey. this is a significant statement that reaffirms our united commitment to address in the

ongoing threat. unfortunately, the pkk conduct outrageous attacks targeting our civilian population and more law enforcement personnel alike. just last weekend for the attack against the military claimed the lives of eight soldiers. i would like to express once again my heartfelt condolences and to the family members of the fallen and to all of our citizens. we continue to fight against terrorism and its full determination. we expect full support in this fight from the international community in line with their international obligations. a distinguished guests usually the middle east is regarded as unanimous with tension, conflict

and underdevelopment. but our region has been the center of civilization from millennia leading to strong traditions of order in which the multicultural environment approach. in addition to this heritage, we have sufficient economic resources to make the region a global center of gravity. it is now time to make the historic reassessment in order to transform our region into one of stability to free them prosperity and peaceful coexistence. in this new regional order, that should be less violence and fewer barriers between the countries societies regions, ethnicities and sectors. the road ahead is full of major challenges, therefore the international community must do its utmost helping the people achieve their aspirations. this will make a hugely positive

impact of the global level and security terms. will also require turkey and the u.s. to cooperate as closely as ever before to tackle all these challenges and many more that i haven't even had the chance to approach where we also stand shoulder to shoulder like afghanistan. today as a turkish citizen, we are proud to be secular. however, we no longer want to be an exception. the people of the middle deserve a dignified life and the lasting dividends of democracy and

peace. to the extent we work together to meet these challenges, we will not only strengthen our bilateral partnership but also maintain an advanced peace and security illegal will level along with the united states turkey will continue to uphold the a democracy principles. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for ten minutes of questions are there any questions? the lady in red, please. >> could you wait for the

microphone. [inaudible] >> with the congressional study group program on the former member of congress, i realized in your speech you didn't mention about israel and i was wondering if the current situation with syria continues to escalate and given last week's event, the shooting it seems like it well. how do you foresee that the turkish relations may change given the further escalation of the crisis. >> will the severing of ties continue against the crisis with israel.

but me address this question [inaudible] [laughter] >> you got me there. it scared me throughout this whole speech. thank you for the question. i want to go into details of how we see the situation and evaluate our relations with israel as a person that served in israel as an ambassador. i have been deeply involved in this process but i will just tell you need a brief remarks

saying the conditions for us to mend the fences if we can just raise this as such are there on the table and our leaders they know what they are. so, i think today israel has a strong government in the last few decades therefore we expect them to honor all of those conditions and if they do so we are ready to move on.

islamic last question because you do deserve a break. >> thank you very much ambassador from the atlantic council. i would be interested in your government evaluation of the current strength of the opposition forces within syria. we have seen unprecedented attacks yesterday and today on the installation near the damascus i believe a republican guard facility and also a television stations. do you think that the conflict is going to reach a tipping point? and what more is turkey prepared to do to help? >> i think first we should all know there is no quick solution.

it is a big challenge to the there are no magical formulas unfortunately we keep this in mind and then work together come altogether for the opposition to have a legitimate and reliable opposition the opposition to be including it should represent all segments of society because it is a secretary in country, so i think we should be very careful when working with the opposition and should advise them to take every necessary step in order to diversify the basis of the opposition, and

again we are helping the opposition structure themselves in the best possible way and i believe as you can imagine the institutional things in some of the structural changes in any country is not easy especially if you go and get the democracy race it's not easy. it takes time. we need help and a unified giant work altogether, the international community should be available in helping them. it is not a matter that only interests turkey.

it is of course and the adjacent country, so we have to engage this problem, but we need the support and solidarity from all of our international friends and partners and allies and in that sense, we are very happy that we witnessed this meeting for the consultations on this issue and they have givfor the consultations on this issue and they have given us i think ironclad support, so we appreciate that. but we should continue this. together we can find a solution i believe to this problem, and we should also understand it has

a dead end. i think he should step down immediately and pave the way pretty peaceful transition and give the opportunity to its people to enjoy the freedoms that we all cherish. [applause]

>> if we can take our seats for the second panel. >> second panel of the day turkey's domestic -- sorry, the e.u. and u.s. involving partnerships and i can tell you formulating the names of the panel's was quite a task of the colleagues here. like last time i will briefly introduce the moderator that will then introduce to you the topics of the panelist. the doctor is the representative and adviser to the president and a stumble. prior to his arm in the current position, she is a u.s. diplomat for more than 30 years. the most recent assignment was a

u.s. consul general and principal officer from 2007 to 2010. earlier included paris, moscow and cairo. in washington, she served in australia as the director of jordan, syria and lebanon in the debt to the canaries the bureau is the director of their operations center and is the chairman of the foreign commission board. from 1975 to '78, she was an instructor for the university of maryland overseas division in turkey. >> thank you very much. i would like to start not dr. lee by congratulating both the middle east institute and the institute for turkish studies for hosting the conference, and two thank in advance our esteemed panelists over here today to discuss this important subject. but mr. mumbai of lining the procedure we will be falling because very strict in terms of

the rules we moderator's need to follow. and i will try to stick to the rules. i will make some brief comments to set the stage and then i will ask each of the four panelists and the order in which they appear in the program to speak for 12 minutes each to review will have biographee information in your programs. i've been asked not to go through them in detail but i would like to know we won four panelists today, de schietere from the commission here in washington, ambassador robert pearson who also served as the u.s. ambassador to turkey. ambassador ross wilson of the atlantic council and also a former ambassador. finally, the minister, foreign

minister of tricky and currently with the center for strategic communications. we are here to discuss the subject turkey, the e.u. and the u.s.. they've all been post arab spring and by slow topic for just over a little over an hour of discussion. we also have the disadvantage of being the panel that comes after lunch and after a wonderful part on cohen. it is therefore a little difficult to come up with anything new and different to say by way of introduction on the subject. it is true as people have reiterated since first thing this morning that turkey has very much arrived on the world stage. the recent council on foreign relations task force report stated clearly one of the most

important developments in international affairs in the past decade is the emergence of turkey as a rising regional and global power. the tricky reflects the changes in turkey and changes in the international arena. these developments have significant implications for both the u.s. and europe. even more so given both historically significant development of the arab spring and the economic challenges that the e.u. is facing right now. in terms of relations in the u.s., commentators frequently refer these days to a golden era in relations. this is true particularly in contrast with the situation to years ago which i remember vividly because i was still on

the coast and turkey at the time, but there has definitely been on the official government to government lawful, bna very definite improvement of relations between turkey and the united states. i would not so that the situation on the economic commercial diplomacy and public opinion front, still leaves much more to be desired and leaves the government to government relationship much more vulnerable to volatility than would be the case if the relationship has reflected the same goal in relationship that exists currently on the government to government level. there was a meeting at the strategic and commercial meeting and turkey. this effort is in fact one of

the many steps that is being taken to address the imbalance between the strategic political relationship between the two countries and other aspects of the relationship. on the front everybody knows the challenges in turkey's membership process and collins has just reviewed that quite six hinckley. but the membership is only one dimension of turkey's relationships with europe. perhaps it can also be helpful to look at turkey's european process of its membership as distinct from the end point of membership in itself. there is no detour obviously no talk these days of turkey turning its back on the west as was the case several years ago. in large measure, turkey is seeking a greater international and regional role has responded to the challenges of the

developments in its neighborhood and elsewhere largely by cooperating more closely with the u.s. and europe. we saw that just this week one of the first things -- or last week one of the first steps turkey took in response to the crisis with the shootdown of its plan was to approach nado. but me stop here and turn to our panelists to make their presentations on the panel topic they have been asked to speak from the podium to make sure everyone can hear them. they will have 12 minutes apiece and that should give us time at the end for some questions and answers. so, first i would like to ask brice de schietere of the delegation to address that.

>> thank you very much, madam and very much to the organizers for having given me the opportunity of speaking today and good afternoon everyone. it's a good occasion to be speaking from the perspective since we have had quite a number of political development in the past months and our relationships and the would be the main aim of my presentation to highlight the developments. perhaps stating the obvious turkey has been an economy i think it is mentioned within a role and continues obviously to be a conflict for the european union and one with which we have an importance strategic partnership. there are three points i would like to mention. first something that as everybody knows we are negotiating turkey to the european union and i think you will know as well in the process even those that believe it is the relationship with turkey has gone through a slow period recently.

the second point i would like to highlight is that the renewed purpose was given with the dialogue which is the next question. a month ago after the 17th of may the commissioner for the policy was an estimable to launch this content and more in line perhaps with the topic that of the panelists will raise i want to say on the third point something that not every would be perhaps those in foreign policy dialogue has never been so intense and the european union and turkey as recently and in the history of the relationship. in the events in the region's it is due to progress on the security on the part of the e.u. and particular important institutional changes we've recently representing now the european union here with a case a year and a half ago.

and obviously the intensity of the dialogue has a lot to do with growing into the common neighborhood between the u.n. and turkey. so the first point on the negotiations, perhaps a quick set. i know it's already been mentioned by the previous. three criteria were defined in copenhagen. political, economic and also the key negotiations respond to a mix of the assessment at each stage of the process, where they are dealt with and when their clothes. at the present time i would have 35 negotiations with turkey have been done on 13 chapters and closed on one. ..

until we can resolve with turkey and the questioner the air force from cyprus in accordance with the customs you've been enjoying the together. i have to say here that if we believe in progress towards full implementation of the additional protocol with tears in their

boost to send negotiations with chapters that could be open and perhaps even an about chapter chapter that could be resource. now, the question is that we have been researching. the question raised u.s. was the process of turkey a lake there this hack and defense today, which is positive agenda commission father and his agreed in may. a positive agenda concept took pains to dawn closed positions in several areas between turkey and the european union. the idea there is to achieve concrete steps forward and a number of areas of joint interests were progress exists

and we tried the same time to help turkey get better aligned and prepared for annexation. the areas where he numbers of ventures have argued that identified and are part of the dialogue for the agenda. if their political reforms in turkey, one of the first in relation to the criteria is a general question with the feeds that do not come back later with the good news. the energy, trade, foreign policy dialogue is one i will for later and the e.u. programs. now it is important to say the policy agenda is not a substitution for, but a sword and complement to the process. essentially based on the approach on the joint and defending the true constraints between turkey and the e.u.

so it offers an avenue that we hope will allow us to go ahead. probably if we strongly believe it can on both sides will certainly follow to the benefit forward. completely speaking working groups reformed between turkish and e.u. officials and the working group looking at how to achieve further progress on alignment in the areas identified. the first one actually started with commissary to be does tactical combat in chapter 23 with three main areas in the chapter covering the three elements when fundamentalist judiciary and the first that i mentioned. i want to say here in particular that within the momentum created with the dialogue we could achieve quite substantial programs last week. on june 21st the council

decided that areas in particular for the opening commission to negotiate with the organization agreement. that is major support in the e.u. subsequent media agreement with turkey. so the elements of new movie relationship in the past month is development of offering policy dialogue. perhaps i was quoting my thoughts because she said recently when she was at one of his meetings of positive dialogue in turkey and seven at june, same time when it took place in syria, she said there's no question we have an excellent relationship and foreign policy and i believe it is vital that we do give an interest in our common neighborhood. we do have a lot of issues for

discussion and to see a corporation in syria, and ran on anything happening in the middle east region. it's on the western balkans in areas that you forget. another important focus on issues in here if i can refer to the ongoing situation in syria to mention the e.u. is wishing to support the making and we have 160 billion here is to thing. nevertheless, i think this high representative ashton that if i can quote her again, even if we don't always agree on everything, we are absolutely going to work together. the policy dialogue is taking shape. there've been various meetings at different levels. we have two in the past six

months. also service means of political directors. not necessarily some thing new because it existed philistine city but not with the same intensity. there's also reflection for what is going on and i'd like to see how we can intensify confiding coordination and potential cooperation. we are both active in north darfur town with agreement spare penny to see more progress with society. in egypt we show concern for economic development in the region and on the importance of jobs but people we are working together on syria. beside the necessity they came in the region, and institutional changes and responsibility in the e.u. site has a key element and notably put in place and site of the created election in

a turkey team responsible for matching the relationship of turkey and our political dialogue in the team is working of course in close court nation with all the other departments. i say with the european commission remain in the church being offered the leadership. so as a conclusion and i hope i'm keeping within the ticking clock, i think we can say to the european union and turkey have much to gain for the common challenges in the neighborhood together. especially context of the changes we have witnessed in the neighborhood and probably we can say we are getting closer to not only improve joint work and i'm not sure how much hiv will assess because the golden relation between the u.s. and turkey as an shareware of of the

metal ring and i would like to get back to you answer the question actually for discussion later. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. i would now like to ask ambassador robert pearson and previously ambassador to august to speak. >> thank you very much for moderating our panel. i'm very grateful to the middle east institute for turkish studies who we have an excellent relationship and a fellow panelist, including my colleague teriyaki shoes the foreign minister of church unity or be in the american ambassador there. happy to appear here today. i have the impression there were only two really perilous moments in turkish-american relations and that is to assume everyone

thinks nothing is going right and there's nothing that can be done about it whenever we links everything is going just great and there's no need to do anything about it. so maybe today we can talk about some of the nuances of those kinds of issues. if i look at the macro trends over the last decade among these three at yours here are the interesting observations that at least occurred to me. despite a sharp downturn in relations during the iraq war and lingering concerns after the work on the list is reached out to turkey more affirmatively and enjoyed greater success. i appreciate very much my colleague's explanation of the excellent process in which the e.u. and turkey are engaged, but i do feel perhaps france and germany together have given the impression the european union doesn't really want turkey and this may confirm a turkish conclusion that it's better off without the european union for some time to come.

i hope it's not true, but it's an observation. thirdly, the u.s. must again as it did during the cold war. seems to feel more comfortable dealing with turkey on questions of regional security cannot economic, political or human rights issues. you may recall that the end of the cold war, many turks monitored by the united states had not been more forceful on the issues including human rights issues during the time of the cold war with respect to turkey and this is an issue that may come back to be on the table in the future. firstly, turkey's foreign policy has grown more sophisticated demonstrated more flexibility as turkey balances the regional and global relationships. i think what has been of particular interest to me is the way turkish u.s. relations have reshaped themselves since december 2010 in this nation

revolution. at the beginning miss you may recall to review in the u.s.a. and to be far apart. as the revolutions progressed, turkey and the u.s. found themselves drawing closer together. nato is in the indecisive and libya. u.s. and turkey lined up together on egyptian democracy. turkey sought a new reality in syria and reacted courageously and turkey in the u.s. seem to share or similar outlooks regarding iran. we don't hear the rhetoric anymore that seems to imply an iranian right to nuclear arms that israel has such weapons. i think all these examples demonstrate both countries have shown they can focus on what is of value in a club or give relationship in both countries of shown to some extent the ability to pursue a separate and shared interest in a well-managed framework. both flexibility and minor changes circumstances in pursuing the respect of national interest.

the question for us today as we resist taking us? are the u.s. and turkey react ad hoc to events in the region, which seemed to be the case originally quite or is there some consensus now for me between acre and washington. for purposes of illustrating the point will focus on syria. so far, turkey has totally offered political sanctuary to the syrian opposition leadership safety for refugees, clear intent or purpose to see bishara al-assad replaced. from the latest reports, turkey and the u.s. may be cooperating and providing aid, including arms to the opposition groups. both appear to accept the non-process has failed and are moving to build in some form an international coalition. despite the collapse of the approach however up until the

most recent events at least, both countries seem to be working to gradually bring the russians and the chinese on if that is possible. it's clear there's some missing gods. the "washington post" reported yesterday courted an unidentified senior turkish diplomat to the fact that the article for discussion in brussels was called for by turkey in order to pressure the u.s. to do more. since turkey says it is only used to tighten sanctions on syria were on syria and nato secretary general has repeatedly stated that nato has no plans to intervene in syria, it is not clear just what it was the turkey wanted the u.s. to do. it is also not entirely clear how turkey has analyzed the u.s. options. the u.s. now has fought either 2.5 or three words in the middle east in the last 10 years. conservatives in this country

are pressing the u.s. to prepare for war with syria and iran for a possible total of five years. u.s. is in the midst of a very tight presidential election in any armed conflict initiated now will be used of course by governor romney and his eyes there is to criticize and critique every move of the president for signs of bad choices and trying to divert public opinion away from the economy. with the american people tired of boring the president trying to focus on domestic issues, one wonders if this is a good time for turkey to be urging the u.s. to move closer to our conflict with syria. it's interesting mr. collins repeated twice that turkey does not seek armed conflict, does not want a war in the region and that is extremely helpful. if our conflict is not the goal, aren't the measures already public large the agreed-upon and

move in the right direction? so the question remains for us, does turkey have a plan that which the u.s. lack of action is frustrating? to the two countries a common plan in the u.s. is not moving fast enough or discolored in the u.s. to do more play well with turkish domestic audiences and relieve pressure on the turkish government. his turkey planning to escalate towards a conflict including nato despite earlier nato statements clicks it is not clear which of these questions is accurate or if there is some other explanation that is accurate. but i do think this scenario clearly and neatly illustrates the difficulty of trying to answer the question of whether the u.s. needs turkey more or whether turkey meets the u.s.

more. effective security and diplomatic efforts by the u.s. in the region required turkish support. affect is turkish approaches to gradually stabilize the region while allowing democracy to advance require active u.s. cooperation. whatever the plan, and not to be based on anyone's analysis about who needs to more or who has more leverage over home in managing the crisis. interestingly the current u.s. and turkey talks to open the door for the closest military to military cooperation between the two countries in the last decade. while cooperation has gradually increased, they are still lingering tension and resentments from the iraq war and the american military side and perhaps i'm turkey still need to be addressed. the reconciliation of leadership that these two militaries would

itself be a positive step in stabilizing the region for a long term democratic progress. as you know, reconciliation is not often and announced school between sides with strongly held views. i will note, however there are developments now that might be worth considering. first it seems clear without the regime change iran will be a strategic competitor. turkey's creative efforts to bring tehran along have certainly done no harm for turkey alone is unlikely to bring around around. sacca might come in the military counterrevolution in egypt egypt last week executed through dictate a constitutional change remind any turks are there and experience with military and political competition that can last for decades. thirdly, it is impossible to

predict short-term or long-term how the revolutions will evolve now in tunisia, libya and egypt. the ultimate outcomes also in syria, yemen and bahrain will have an influence and somewhere along the line to pressure for greater democracy and future of the monarchy's in the region also will need. turkey's role in managing this process, already a parent will likely grow in the coming years and decades. in the long run, having a lasting difference with israel will weaken both countries plans for the region and will be a strategic distraction. there is no doubt that israel should find the foresight and high-mindedness to apologize to turkey for the mahdi marmara and sin. for the two countries to remain

bladder had as an encouragement for syria and more importantly for a rant. for turkey to achieve the regional leadership role that seeks, i very much hope that it can find a way to take the higher road to move ahead towards improved relations with israel. in conclusion, these two great combinations of forces in the middle east for decades to come that directly involve turkey, and this experience in the political realm. first come the secular versus religious and secondly, elected governments versus the military. as other components of course, but these are the ones where turkey is directly relevant. with prime ministerminister aired on speech, turkey is already on record with this view

of the constituency and a secular constitutional state. on the second issue promoted government versus military, turkey is the opportunity to re-examine the issue in light of its external national interest and ability to influence the future political developments of the region. turkey could see an whale could see decades of bitterness and struggle between militaries of countries and new democratic forces. we just saw in syria this last week in tension between civilian committees and military fighters inside the country. this is an issue that is quite apart from the role of religion. turkey has very good reasons to have an very important money to be seen to have a first rate military force only capable of defending turkey's national interests in the region.

in the present circumstance, if this seems true, there is no present danger of an internal military threat to the state or to the government of turkey and i listened to mr. collins remarks about the good relationship between the turkish government and the turkish military than resolving in a positive way the issue military officers being home for trial in turkey could provide and next an example to the region about the primacy of democracy and the healing power of reconciliation within a society. if egypt or libya or some other middle east neighbor needs an example of how it can be done the right way, turkey is the only state president with the relevant experience on these two transformative issues. secular governments and a religious constituency. on the one hand, elected

government and rule of the military on the other. the long-term stability of democratic progress is the region explodes, turkey will be forced to make very difficult choices. for turkey to take the higher vote on a regional strategic difference is in approaches and for washing 10 to practice collaborative and realistic diplomacy will be two key components of an effective plan for the region. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, bob. ambassador ross wilson and ambassador crocker a. >> thank you, sharon.

and thanks and congratulations to the middle east institute and turkish studies. another hat that i wear for collaborating in this important conference. my remarks will cover a little bit of the same ground and i will comment in a slightly different way and illustrate what i hope are slightly different points although not substantively that different in terms of conclusions. i was struck during ambassador tans remarks by a for easy use. he reflected on how pivotal u.s. relations have become for the united states and for turkey in a very troubled part of the world. and i'm sure ambassador pearson would agree to meet that is certainly didn't look that way in 2003 to 2005 at 2,522,007 or two dozen nine and 10 arguably

even in 2011. each of these periods with some pretty serious dissonances if not disagreements or worse. of course the disagreement over iraq in 2003 was an important watershed in the region we dominated u.s. turkish relations from march 2003 or even arguably some of before then. at least until the end of the bush administration to some extent beyond that. sharp disagreements. although obviously the disagreement of the invasion of iraq has not gone away there's still plenty of raw bits that remain in u.s. turkish relations that are related one way or another to the iraq problem and the pkk presence in northern iraq being one of them. sharp disagreements over iran.

i was struck when i arrived in 2005 by the limited extent of our discussions about the iran nuclear problem, bilateral discussions. for it. the ticket ourselves reasonably instinct, but seems really fell apart in 2010. huge disconnect. however it happened, whatever was the sequence of events, a huge and profound distance between our two countries and disagreements on a range of other issues. in 2005, prior to going to turkey, a big stink between the united states center be over then president -- i think was 2005, 2004, president caesars plans to visit damascus as part of turkey's outreach to president assad, who so many people from both the united

states and turkey vilified extensively this morning. disagreements about the caucus is obviously issues relating to armenia, serious set of difficulty differences on the palestinian issue on the black sea and people talking about the black sea, is the main accentuation tearout -- that didn't flow throughout these periods combined accentuation at differences and grievances. a little popular mythology that became associated with this, aggravated american dissent and the united states somehow supports the pkk and we had a hidden agenda floating out of our efforts in iraq to dismember the country, that the bush administration's broader middle east africa initiative was somehow aimed and would be part of a bigger plot to remake turkey and an american image of moderate islam.

i kind of want to go back over those things because that was not long ago. it was the world i had to deal with, the world to some extent ambassador pearson had to do with and between the two of us. and vestiges of these things continue even today. and i would not even on syria, in the early part -- in the early part of 2011, pretty sharp disagreements between washington on how to do that. then president erato on tv political reform, the first reform that turkey had called in istanbul, a fiery speech really coming up quite stridently against the idea of any nato involvement in libya. so what changed and what can go wrong today?

this again will review some of the teams that ambassador pearson has touched on. one important and obvious thing the whole conference is perfect enough of is the arab awakening and the opportunities that that rep is then for turkey. the opportunities and complications for american policymakers and after this course correction and turkish foreign policy with respect to the airport wakening in march, april 2011 a real sense of if not exactly identical goals, certainly pretty similar interests and actors to try to collaborate more decisively dared to substantively the policy change was to shift jerky much more decisively in favor of support for democracy and democracy movement as opposed to

continuing relations with autocrats who had been convenient for turkey, just as the united states and europe another says autocrat in egypt and libya and syria and elsewhere. suppose that this made that shift in both of us have found ways to work together in an increasingly complicated region. a corollary is the u.s. withdraw from iraq. that does simplify certain things in u.s. turkish relations and especially added to the state, the turkish leaders felt and involving turkey directly and more directly in the iraq project, involved more directly and bag.in baghdad politics have involved more in intercommunal combinations between the sunni and shia and the kurds in particular. the stakes are not for cherokee

and finding ways to work better with the united states on matters related to iraq. a corollary to that is the pkk and initiation of amber, december 2007 at the u.s. intelligence and assistance to turkey in going after in campaigns. that allowed a different kind of behavior by the united states on matters related to iraq and also facilitated turkey's relationships with kurds, iraqi kurds that man also had some beneficial effects in terms of the u.s. turkish relations. but there's a fair piece afield. i'm not sure at 100% by the argument, but i could actually entertain the argument that the difficulties between turkey and the european union may actually have held to foster a better

u.s. turkish relationship. certainly the dramatic slowdown of turkish tea session that we could say this stalling bid in an increasingly brittle dialogue on other things that culminates in my mind and the french call a meeting on the craze phase and the arab awakening reached in and libya at that point and by the way forgets to invite turkey. and you know, the feeling in turkey they needed to shore up the relations with the one western ally on whom they thought they could count a little bit more. and i want to at least entertain the idea that the slowdown has helped us. development on a whole set of economic dialogue from the earlier sessions. but that is quite new and a

whole range of economic issues that are now on the table that were in part because i relations previously was so dominated by military security matters or a nighttime by iraq on a more or less 24/7 aces. but there's a couple of other pieces i want to refer to. one is a big change in the way washington and turkey to you another. and nighttime, turkey and the united states -- the turkey u.s. relations is basically run through the indices. i was a somewhat more largely the american sea, but also played a very big role. today is the proliferation of tires that communications and things going on throughout kinds of channels on the phone, e-mails, meetings and their countries.

from talking to my counterparts, former colleagues spend a significant amount of time finding out what is going on but they don't know about because in exchange they're not part of. part of what the ambassador is to do is piece together what is happening so it sort of fits. secretary gates came to turkey while i was -- i deleted 2007 he was shocked when i told them he was the first secretary of state to visit in six years. i just found this astonishing. gates and pineda have repeatedly visited turkey. secretary clinton. secretary rice. secretary clinton has come a number of times. ustr ron curt and acting commerce secretary blank are there now. a lower range of other things. assistant secretary for the east and counterterrorism matters for economic and business. so on and so one is selected things going on but i think it's a different kind of fabric to

our relationship. last, turkish leaders came to value some of more than they did earlier in this decade were in previous decades the value of a close relationship with the united states that their success in here would apply this, that their success regionally dependent insensate epic adventure on having a good relationship with the united states. what can go wrong? the response. i'm sure some of that has been talked about in portions that i missed. just to identify a few things. one is whatever happens in our presidential election is so almost may be significant personnel changes throughout the hierarchy of people, particularly civilian officials who deal with turkey. i say that even a president to's reelect bid -- a whole series of

complainants undersecretaries come assistant secretaries can the secretary of state and the likelihood. that will introduce the least personal discontinuities that will have to be stitched back together at least a much more the case of governor romney -- if governor romney wins election. second, the second thing that can go wrong -- there's a whole series of things that can blow up. what had been set if armenia and azerbaijan goes to war? which could have been. i wouldn't exclude it. would have been somewhat less diary if russia invades georgia? 2008, its half-year in u.s. turkish relations. turkey all of a sudden looking like it was on the front lines are reemerging or redeveloping cold war and not very comfortable with that.

several scenarios you can imagine that are difficult or complicated. what happens if israel or israel in the united states with the united states alone striker ran? bid problem. a conference a year from now or hereafter that takes that takes place talking about u.s. turkish relations will have a whole different i would submit. differences may well emerge a very syria. differences may well marriage with israel. a whole series of things that can go really very, very wrong. the e.u. peace may come back together and that may change at some point calculations of turkish leaders about where they need to make investments. we all work 24 hours a day, but there's only 24. if you spend more time with the

e.u., by definition no spend my lifetime and other matters and may think that can be a factor. and that is a proper ambassador pearce and implicitly referred to come a problem expectations. there is an expectation now the relations are great and continue to be great, go on. relations only got to be better because of concerted efforts by a whole lot of senior people in the united states and turkish governments to put a brave. what takes a long time to get ray can be broken very quickly. either intentionally or unintentionally. i think for our relationship to succeed it will require a sustained effort whose nature and sustainability make it to be complicated after november 2012. thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you very much, rise. i would like to ask for an prime minister yasar yak to address us. >> thank you very much. i have the advantage of being the last speaker, so almost everything has been said. i may perhaps tell in a certain question that was not properly covered are aware further definition be needed. on the turkish american relations, the international relations of america always buy the right thing, but after having tested all the other options. the distinguished ambassadors who are here in certain periods of the tenure of their comments

united states were trying the other options. is it difficult task, but being very deviant and thoughtful, and they served turkish-american relations and excellent manners. and the turkish-american relations continued to prove and arrive at that point, the level at this reach so far thanks to the efforts that they have done during their service in ankara. i am very grateful to them. i work with both of them come with ambassador pearce and when i was minister and ambassador wilson went now is chairman of the e.u. committee and the turkish parliament. so our friendship continued.

is there anything less to be done in the turkish-american relations clicks yes, of course. in between two countries, which have so many diverse interests. on the bilateral level, economic political cultural and other levels and also the regional level. i will not see international level because turkey is not yet at the point where it could assume global rules, global act tuberose. i regard turkey is a country which is striving to assume the regional responsibilities and pat has covered the long distance in this direction. but it of course has to compete with countries like iran, which

is actually poised when you look at the ring inside to become a nuclear power. in egypt now having come through this turmoil is also gaining its own identity that the military maintaining certain roles. egypt is going to maintain the region, so turkey has to compete with the ran in a jet to the common import an actor in their region and it has advantages. it has disadvantages. so turkey perhaps can cooperate with the united states for the regional roles, for the american vested interests in the middle east, in the caucuses, in certain parts of the balkans,

where turkey has presence. on the six subject of iran, turkey thought that it would be -- it would be a contribution if he tries to take an initiative regarding slowing down or regarding taking under control of the nuclear program in iran by volunteering the iranians should stop or suspend the rain and programs at the level of 3.5% and they were going to stop this. they were going to enrich

uranium roads should the country, turkey or other countries and were going to provide uranium round and reached out to 18 to 20% which is necessary for scientific purposes and medical purposes. and turkey in cooperation with the united states, when turkey achieved to persuade -- was able to persuade iran to do it, then america at the time thought it would be more appropriate not to go along with this program for this initiative and to enforce sanctions on iran and to pass a

resolution in the united nation security council, so turkey was left out in the middle of nowhere. the time that turkey's initiative could have been utilized, how did we see you later on, several years later came to the agenda again. by that time, iran had already reached 21%. so at that time would've is that the level of 3% or 4%, the west has something to offer to iran. now that iran has 30 reach 21% enrichment, the west is surprised now if any can fashion

that is good to iran. so the proposal that was made by turkey was the good fortune. of course we should not assess divisions between two countries like turkey and the united states on specific issues like this. this is only one example which has not elaborated in this form, so i wanted to get my perception of it. there may be details where i may be wrong perhaps during the discussions and the question-and-answer period if there are questions on this set jag. those who are more noticeable to me may perhaps contribute with their knowledge. this is regarding iran. turkey is of course the last country to see a benefit in iran becoming a nuclear power.

five? because it will upset the balance in the middle east today -- a vintage turkey and in favor of the ran, the balance which was established since 1920 when the ottomans with truth in the middle east. there was the balance of power between iran, turkey and other countries. now, especially after the withdraw of the united states and the iranian in iraq strack the nuclear program continues like this and iran becoming a nuclear power, then the balance

will not continue to be there any longer. and if the regime in syria is named cain and thanks to the russian and iranian support, then of course this will be changed more and deeper tyrannic in because irani and political influence will expand all the way from the ran. at present, the only missing link for a rant to expand the influence this area. they have other presence in iraq and lebanon. hezbollah. so for the missing sand lake this area and to maintain the decision regime is very much important for iran.

if a specific goal. same thing applies to russia of course because russia wants to come back to the middle east. and it's had to withdraw or perhaps bring down the stability in the middle east since the dismemberment of the soviet union. then, now that russia has achieved its control, it wants to go back to the middle east in the country that it could use as the best setting in the middle east in syria because of his relations from the time of the soviet union in syria is in dire need of this part of the country like russia. so russia wouldn't like to miss the opportunity and the book is the utmost support to the syrian

regime to maintain, to continue. of course this brings us to the question of what type of solution should turkey and the united states be looking for for syria? military intervention? if there is no international resident pete, issued for each international rules. international legitimacy means security council resolution. means that russia should not use its veto under the present circumstances, i cannot figure out how russia will give up this

idea of preventing any resolution, which will allow the outside military action in syria. therefore, one version of the six-point plan -- it may not be six-point plan, but another version of the come of the international community will accept will have to be used is a solution for syria. and then, when you look at it, and when you peer from the details is aiming at a negotiated settlement. negotiated settlement, what does it mean?

negotiated from the fraction of the opposition? it was not a negotiation but the regime. so it resumes that the regime will have been made part of the solution, not part of the problem. if this is the only exit, then of course turkey and the united states will have to cooperate to act with the international community. in this case i will say a few words regarding turkey's relations with the european union. distinguished representative of the e.u. mentioned the problem. one thing that is perhaps certainly important it is the council suspended negotiations

or blocked the opening of the chapters in negotiations with turkey, tying it to the opening of the turkish airport ships and aircraft. turkeys that yes i will do it. it is my commitment, that the european union has also commit them. but is this commitment? in the year it 2004, when the greeks began on a plan, the council has been meeting and to punish the greeks, adopted the decision to extend economic aid to the turkish and to enter into direct trade with the turkish.

this is on the 24th of april april 2005. five days later they returned to the european union and blocked implementation of this decision. if the country joins the european union has the obligation to adopt all accumulated without any discussion purpose of this discussion to enter into direct trade was a decision binding. so turkey said i will open the harbors in the airport combat at the same time you implement your own decision and this proposal is on the tivo since the beginning of the year 2006 and we are waiting with her european

union but one day seek the sufferer. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. minister. that may take the moderators prerogative to ask the first question and then we will open up to questions. we will be coming just for you all to know, we will have until 3:20 until 3:15 on the schedule. they've given us an extra five minutes. play to ask each of you the same question. if you had a golden bullet as an face. if you could get a bit of advice that would be followed to either the e.u. or to turkey or the united states, as you look at turkish relations with the u.s. and europe, what would you consider to be the most important piece of advice you

could give if that were implemented would make progress on this overall subject we've been discussing? let's go in reverse order from the original presentation. mr. minister. >> and the european unioncurse the present circumstance does not allow to revise, despite this positive agenda, which is being implemented nowadays. i don't see that the accession process will change in nature in the days to come because the european union has its own problems and perhaps it is better for turkey to put more of it in tears when i was sharing the communication the turkish parliament for the last eight

years i always said that turkey should put aside all of the sarkozy said yesterday and should try to years the access and process in order to put more into his interiors, to make turkey a first-class democracy, to make turkey for fundamental rights and freedom are enjoyed better, to make turkey more transparent market economy. and when turkey achieves all these things, perhaps it will not be that much of porton through their joint european or not. we are still there. in turkey is performing very well in the economic field. and turkey believes rather than pushing in the membership today,

but it's really too later days for turkey's bargaining position will be stronger. in the future, turkey will be in a better position. today it may be forced to make certain concessions in the future. and the turkish e.u. relations, i think that we talk with you before the meeting. there was an opportunity in the public opinion dimension of the relation, rather than in the official level, it is more or less fair zigzags, but more or less at the certain level depending upon the circumstances in the region and that the national landscape. so if we can add to the present relations, not the political one, not a military one, but the

economic relations and relations of the public opinion that will come in the people's democracy, the people to people relations, then we may perhaps achieve a more stable set of relations between the countries. >> thank you very much. ambassador wilson. >> i have two silver bullets, but hopefully i'll be brief. one is for the united states to continue to get sustained high-level constant attention to u.s. turkish relations into dialogue turkish leaders on important issues. it's a big change taken place the last couple years. got to sustain that and the model needs to let mike nature of the u.s. consultations with the u.k., france, germany, japan, other major allies that

we deal it than a quite regular basis. for turkey and 80 you they both need to work hard to enrich the foreign policy dialogue preferred to earlier. the process needs to go forward. hopefully it will at some point. but if that's all there is that won't work. and u.s. are turkish relations and interests they think will suffer as a result. so both sides need to work harder to enrich the foreign policy dialogue outside the accession process and make that heard. >> mr. pearson. >> thank you. i would be really process focused and that is to say what is often missing is what i would call back to listening to the other side. often in these dialogues i see people quite anxious to clarify what it is they want and they