access like over here. i know this is hard to see with the light, the unite the will to use our copies that we have been back afterwards. ..

they also would benefit from having their revenue source to do a lot more, so this is a wonderful that you can use. let's see, this is another prop that shows carbon energy efficiency spending relative to the carbon intensity that would show you might be spending a bit of money on energy efficiency but you have the carbon intensive energy sources in your state. what are the spaces that fall into that particular squadron, and that might be other candidates for energy efficiency programs. all right with. moving along. this is an example of how you

have the comparison interface that the tool allows you to do. this is an interactive feature. so, for example, you hear that the epa is moving forward on greenhouse gases and that it's very receptive to the alternative means of achieving compliance. what would you want to do? with the market base things that you want to do? this particular tool would allow you to look at for example the benefits of rggi? we have minnesota and illinois and that you can sort of compare if they did what kind of benefits would flow from it? also you get to have some choices.

so, in this little box, we have some potential asset allocations but in the residential, commercial, industrial. the values that you see our default. maybe you want to spend all of your money on residential or 80% on commercial. you can set that to what you want and see what kind of benefits flow from that particular state. okay. here is another example where energy, another tool you would be looking at the potential energy and consumption data. that is a sort of interesting one because it's not all states have the electricity is very high and they also have a consumption data energy

efficiency would tell you how you might be able to benefit from that and allow you to have different interactions to change that around. okay. this is a feature that actually allows you to link the state's, and this is a sorting model and and this one can allow you to sort of more customized when you are interested in, so it has five different criteria. you can't read them all right up here at the top. but the one criteria is rggi impact this would be if you had a revenue source from an auction program when you could do with it, energy efficiency spending, carbon intensity, state electricity spending and energy production versus consumption. it allows you to set different percentages that you might be interested in, and to see how in

the nation that ranks out if you are looking at energy efficiency as the most important or any of these, and, how does it rank. so for this particular one where we have authority, 25, 15 and ten allocation, you can see the ranking down here of who would benefit the most in that ranking order. so you can do that for any one of the criteria that you can look at for example on the plot comparing one and two you can combine all of these in the criteria and rank it for the entire nation. this last piece that we are able to do we call deep dive information for a particular state. this is in the prototype stage

right now this allows you to take a more specific deep dive into a state not only using the information that is available on the interface, but also with isham information that is available on states and this is particularly more helpful it has these different sheets and this is basically enlarging this particular one. >> this also gives you a profile by sector. how is the state regulating? or the regulated, are they d regulated? what kind of programs to they have in place? you can look at the compensation

of their dpu, see what kind of things they are doing, see the legislative energy committee on both the senate and house of representatives cited, and so if you are talking about a program with a state official or a state official is explaining it, you can develop a really deep level of information, not a substitute to working there and having the conversation, but you can have a lot of deep profile the information available for you to have those conversations. there's one more here that gives even more information. there are several of our data sources. it's also publicly available on the web sites. the puc are usually by statute to have to have a balance. it still gives you the background to the commissioners

are and who we is there and what kind of legislation they have on the books. so this is a quick preview of the kind of things this tool can do. it has captured the imagination of many advocacy groups, state officials, federal officials and something that would be very, very useful. this platform is looking at some of the rggi comparisons, but many people have said, and it doesn't take much imagination, what this could do on the program level it is intended to be an information tool that empowers those conversations. so the status is we did a request for the proposal. the family fund, i did it for them. and we are reviewing a really robust and out of responses.

so some very good and ingenious competitive responses and we expect in the next couple of weeks where the host site will be and we will be working with that host and analysis groups to finalize and be able to have that launched with a program that will have a wide distribution and you will all be able to use it. thank you very much for your time. if you want to ask more questions, please do and thank you very much for this opportunity. [applause] to >> thank you. as another example how we are highlighting in the back of the room and the computer different tools that are useful to the state audiences. i haven't gotten to say the name yet. so it shows the plug in the electric vehicles that they have developed this morning associated with the electric vehicle panel that was so terrific. this one fits in with the discussion that we've had about

the state and regional programs this afternoon and tomorrow you will be seeing the adaptation clearing house with the 1,000 resources that you can sort by sector, in pact, where you are from and find all kind of resources at your disposal. it's been a long day that i think it's been a great day. i want to start by thanking the wonderful speakers and kate for moderating and the staff here who made this possible and keep me sane and the funders, stewart hudson and michael barr for chris -- michael northrup whose comeback today which has been a homecoming for us all and the other founders that make all this work possible. before we break for the reception, i just want to give you a reminder we're going to start bright and early at 8:30 tomorrow because we have the governor of delaware right at 8:30 as a start time we will hear from the energetic andrew,

author of the book and we are going to go straight into a panel of terrific experts at 10 a.m. on what state and locals and others that the federal level and more in the private sector, the insurance industry are doing to help us adapt to the consequences of climate change. more on adaptation planning from the federal government for the white house counsel and environmental quality at noon and then we are going to have a strong keynote at the end with the governor of connecticut talking about resilience and of course in the space of all the man-made and climate that they've had in connecticut in recent years. i think unfortunately for him he's quite the expert at this point, but we look forward to hearing his inspiring message. thank you. please join me at the reception. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

earlier today agriculture secretary tom vilsack told those attending the outlook that sequestration budget cuts will affect his department and the culture industry. here is a look. >> thinking to myself what is joke worried about, why we have to manage risk, things seem to be going in the right direction and then i began to make a list of all the things we should be concerned about. when dawn on me is normally when you talk about agriculture and risk as joe did, you talk about the weather, talk about the drought, things you may not have a lot of control over. but the uncertainty and the risk

in agriculture today in many cases are man made. let me give you a few examples. there is risk in the uncertainty with reference to budgets and the impending sequestered to agriculture. you all know that march 1st will come and if it comes before the congress is active, the sequester will be triggered and what that will mean for the usda is every line item, virtually every line item of our budget will have to be reduced by a certain percentage. and that percentage could be somewhere in the neighborhood of five to 6% and that is an annual percentage which means we have to implement this reduction in the remaining portion of the fiscal year which will be approximately six months. that means it's really the impact of the effect of the ten to 12% reduction of the remaining resources. and unlike the normal circumstances where the congress will direct you to reduce funding that give you the flexibility to choose where and

how, this is a direct prescription from congress to reduce every line-item by the same percentage. now if you're fortunate to be in an agency and part of the department that has lots of lines you have some degree of flexibility but if you happen to be in an agency like food safety where you have very few lines and where most of the lines involved people and labor, you have very little recourse. and that is a risk that we now face because the only way that we cannot absorb a cut of this magnitude is by impacting the people that work in the safety area of the usda. we all know that when we do that it doesn't just impact those workers, it impacts all of the processing facilities and plants and production facilities across the country. now there is a way to resolve this. the congress can give us

flexibility and say we didn't really mean every line-item across the board with no flexibility in six months. or they can come up with a larger deficit reduction package that would avoid sequester. but if they fail to act, that we are required by law to invoke the sequestered and we will do what we have to do because if, as you all know, the usda is guilty of spending money that it doesn't have under the antideficiency law, there are so full and possible criminal penalties associated with that. so, we take our job very seriously at the usda. it's something we don't want to do. but it may be something we have to do. and this is a risk that is man-made. >> those comments came earlier today at the usda and water cultural work form. you can see all of what he said

the national governors' association is holding its winter meeting on saturday here in washington. delaware governor from the very start when told the board the approach we were going to take, which was pretty straightforward. and remember we were sent there to sort of fix gm the was the mission is to go make this thing a viable company again. so we were all focused and brought the message we're going to design and sell the world's best vehicles and we are going to move quickly we need your

input and we change a few things about the board meeting we shortened them considerably and we stayed away from the details or get into the weeds and how you build a car and the bigger question of financing morrell, positioning marketing, that sort of thing. the board was very supportive of that and then we kept them informed and we took off. >> now the fcc needs to discuss congestion on the networks in hot spots to the unlicensed devices. this is one hour and 15 minutes.

-- the commission to order. before we start, i want to welcome some very important guest today. we have staff participating in our education week for the staff. we do this every year. i think we do this more than once a year and it's been a terrific program that brought together the staff generally of the congressional committees responsible for fcc in these areas together with our staff, and there are representatives of so many members i'm not going to single out any specific member but we really do appreciate you coming. some of you know this.

my first job out of college was a congressional staffer, which broke my mother's dream that i would become a doctor. the good news at least for my mom to a certain extent is i did spend time working as an emergency medical technician which turned out to be great training for the job that i eventually got with chuck schumer. i know all of your jobs can be incredibly exciting and we are very pleased you are here. in addition being in the meeting today you were going to have a session for our chief technologist it really is terrific and you will enjoy that. i know you are doing the option's cost to tomorrow morning. thank you for coming and we value the relationship with congress and congressional staff and this is a great program that we will continue. with that, madam secretary, would you please introduce the

agenda for this morning. >> good morning to you. today's agenda includes two items for your consideration. first you will consider an order to significantly enhance what your less coverage for consumers while protecting wireless networks from interference by adopting new technical and operational requirements for signal boosters. second to will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking to substantially increase the amount of unlicensed spectrum available to accelerate the growth and expansion of new wi-fi technology offering consumers faster speeds and less network congestion at wi-fi hot spots. this is your agenda for today. the first item will be presented by the wireless telecommunications bureau. the chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank very much madame secretary. whenever you are ready. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. it's my great pleasure to

introduce this draft report order to improve the quality of ability and effectiveness of signal boosters for consumers and small businesses. this report represents a significant step forward in the commission's efforts to promote deployment of mobile, voice and broadband services. especially in the areas with little or no wireless coverage. it also furthers the important goal of improving public safety communication while protecting the wireless networks from interference by ensuring that available signal boosters meet detailed consensus based technical specifications read the draft notice before you with significant input in the public safety and homeland security bureau as well as from the office of engineering and technology and the wireless bureau we thank them for their contributions. joining me a table are john, roger of the mobility division,

and joyce julius an attorney and an ability division of the wireless bureau. joyce will present the item. >> good morning. good morning mr. term and commissioners. this order furthers the commission's ongoing effort to promote deployment of mobile, voice and broadband services in the united states. the new rules will enhance coverage for consumers particularly in rural, underserved and difficult to serve areas by broadening the availability of signal boosters. signal boosters amplify signals between wireless devices and networks which can bridge the gaps in the service areas and extend coverage of the fringe of those areas. malfunctioning poorly designed or improperly installed signal boosters however can cause interference to networks. the draft report in order therefore includes stringent industry consensus based technical rules for consumers boosters which incorporate sufficient safeguards to interference to wireless

networks. the draft report order creates two classes of boosters, consumer and industrial with regulatory requirements for each. consumers boosters are designed to be used out of the box by individuals to improve their wireless coverage in their homeland vehicle. these devices must incorporate specific technical safeguards, what we call the network protection standard. designed to protect wireless networks from harmful interference. that work protection standard is the product of close collaboration between wireless providers and device manufacturers and represent a substantial improvement in the signal booster designs. consumers may use the signal boosters under the wireless provider license, subject to certain requirements including licensee consent and registration. all nationwide wireless providers, verizon wireless, t-mobile, sprint and at&t as well as 90 rural providers have stated they will allow their subscribers to use signal boosters that meet the network

protection standard. the new rules also require consumer signal boosters to be labeled. in order to inform consumers about which devices are appropriate for their use and how to comply with the rules. in addition, any signal booster that causes interference must be shut down. even if it complies with the network protection standard. industrial signal boosters include a wide variety of devices installed for installation by licensees and professional installers. the devices are typically designed to serve most users and cover larger areas such as stadiums, airports, hospitals tunnels and educational campuses. industrial signal boosters require an fcc license or expressed licensee consent to operate and must be appropriately labeled to prevent the misuse by consumers. this draft report to the order also provides technical and operational requirements for the duly licensed part 90 mobile on consumer signal boosters.

the report in order creating a framework for the manufacturer, operation and regulation that signal boosters with clear rules of the road for all stakeholders the new world should promote further investment in and usage of this promising technology. the staff recommends that the commission adopt this report of order and request editorial privileges. thank excellent work. let's proceed to comments from the bench. commissioner mccaul? >> thank mr. chairman. i would like to welcome the overseer's from congress representing the directly elected american people, so welcome, and i've always ascribed to the notion principle that we tell congress what to do, congress tells us what to do. so, if you see something today that you don't like, please, speak up now. this is a good opportunity. but in the meantime, this is an example of a deliberative body in washington that can act with

unanimity. so, take that back up the hill a little bit. >> the consumer benefits of signal boosters are unquestioned pitted they are important components of a comprehensive private sector effort to maximize spectral efficiency. brewster's allow americans in the rural areas and those that live on the fringe of a provider service area to receive stronger signal strength and improve wireless broadband coverage. they are also used to improve safety public communications and services and buildings, tunnels and other areas where the service can be sometimes unreliable. these benefits and improvements can be accomplished rapidly and affordable leave out commercial radio service providers also known as the wireless companies building additional infrastructure. although it is estimated that over 2 million consumers, signal boosters are currently deployed, there were no rules regarding

the obligation until today. while the majority of the boosters have been improving the consumer experience without incident, the wireless service providers have experienced some instances of harmful interference from boosters interacting with their networks. and as we all know, the primary objective of the fcc's wireless policy is to prevent harmful interference of the licensees. for these reasons among other orders it for the authorized operation of consumer signal boosters and requires that consumer and industrial boosters are clearly labeled. today's actions should help american consumers benefit from boosters while ensuring that their neighbors continue to enjoy reliable service in that wireless service providers to not experience degradation of their networks. as background is proceeding has been far from simple or easy.

since 2007 when the wireless association filed a petition for the declaratory ruling regarding the use of boosters, the commission analyzed the debate regarding the operation of the signal boosters. i would like to acknowledge and thank the wireless industry and the signal booster manufacturers for coming together with a joint proposal for technical standards that would result in affordable and reliable boosters that are unlikely to cause interference. private sector solutions are always preferable over government mandates which is the key reason why i'm supporting today's action. although the parties were able to reach consensus over a technical standard, the commission was left to resolve remaining issues. a debate has ensued the signal boosters registration and enforcement mechanisms and the timeframe for implementing the

new standards. in creating a framework for the of christ consumer signal boost the strongest way the cost and benefits of the wireless industry, signal booster manufacturers and ultimately consumers. for instance in adopting a similar licensing model to consumer handsets to operate on a wireless networks, signal booster authorization will require the provider consent and consumer device registration. such requirements may be considered to be burdened by some of the largest wireless providers however have indicated that they will consent to the use of the fcc signal boosters meeting the network standards. so not only will live requirements assist the providers and collecting harmful interference should it occur but also ensure that wireless providers remain in control of the networks as required by the congress intent as embodied in the communications act i hope that we achieve the correct

about that today. the commissioner however has committed to review the technical standard registration and enforcement rules after two years to see if they should be modified or if there is room for improvement. finally i think the german for incorporating all of these edits and my fellow commissioners for their thoughtful input and edits and engaging collegial on this matter as we always do. and of course for our team of careers of civil servants, engineers, economists and other professionals who've done an incredible job. thank. i look forward to working with everyone on implementation of this. >> i went to join in welcoming our colleagues from the hill. i must say selfishly it's better to be on this campus and your campus but don't let your boss know that i say that. most of us have experienced an occasional dropped call or

slower than normal broadband data speed. but for millions from a service interruption or delays are more than american a trivial alliances. these american consumers including businesses have found it necessary to purchase wireless signal boosters in order to bridge gaps in communication service. robust quality signal boosters have been properly narrowing service gaps without adverse consequences to wireless networks for many years. unfortunately, they're have been instances where technically deficient or improperly solved installed signal boosters have hollered to the cost harmful interference to save the networks. in some cases, wireless companies have been forced to spend significant time and resources locating and eliminating booster related interference. the balancing the needs of consumers who need a single signal boosters in the interest

of wireless carriers responsible for protecting the technical integrity of the network has been very difficult. some of the engineering and other technical issues have been challenging. and many party stood rather adversarial positions on the legal and technical issues. but at the end of the day, a signal booster manufacturer and a licensed wireless service provider share the same goal. improving the availability of consumers to receive uninterrupted quality service from a licensed wireless network. i am pleased the two sides were able to work past their differences and arrive at a solution that would benefit millions of americans who clearly need signal enhancements to read some of the procedural and technical rules we adopt for the consumer signal boosters are based on a consolidated proposal agreed to buy several signal booster manufacturers before the nationwide wireless service

providers and over 90 small rebels wireless service providers. they are designed to facilitate the development of safe and economical signal boosters, reduce consumer confusion and encourage innovation in the markets. those who closely followed the proceeding note that we began with a notice of proposed rulemaking that preferred what is known as a licensed by rule approach. consumer advocates continue to assert that this approach would provide greater clarity to consumers and that going forward, they can purchase any use signal booster that meets the new network protection standards. i am voting to approve this item today because the order contains strong language the we would reconsider the license by rule approach of the wireless carriers are on a reasonably withholding their blanket authorizations. i wish to thank am i chairman

and colleagues for working cooperatively to find common ground on this language. we also adopted different but sensible rules for industrial signal boosters. these devices are typically designed to serve multiple users simultaneously and cover larger areas such as stadiums, airports, office a buildings and hospitals. they are high-powered and may use a greater number of antennas, amplifiers and other components. given the characteristics of industrial boosters. this reasonably requires great coordination of the installer with the wireless service providers of like to thank my friend, john leibowitz, maria, robert, joyce julius, tom dortch and the other staff members in the wireless bureau, the public safety bureau, the enforcement bureau, and my colleagues of

course for their patience and persistence in finding and mutually beneficial workable solution. thank, mr. chairman. >> commissioner rosenworcel? >> let me start by welcoming guests from up on the hill. it wasn't long ago i served there in some capacity as a weather eye and a cautionary tale or success story, i don't know, but i am very much what you are here today and paying attention to the important work we do. according to the centers for disease control, 41% of children live in households and served only wireless phones. one and three adults relies exclusively on wireless service at home. when a call was made to the doctor to the workplace to the child's school and to 911 they trust that the call will go through, and they generally do that is because the carriers are working hard to improve the

wireless customer experience and expand the edges of their network coverage. the networks cover it isn't yet ubiquitous in the experience and fun network to the to experience isn't. the pure research centers internet in american life project tells us that 72% of sulfone owners experience a drop calls at least occasionally but we know from our own experienced. i know for instance which parts of my home get only a single barham iphone and which parts enjoy multiple bars. getting a better signal is as simple as traversing from the kitchen to the living room there are others here and even on the bias that have had the same experience. we live in the metropolitan area where coverages generally excellent. many rural consumers are not so lucky.

those on the network may lose their signal when they stroll indoors or drive to the edge of their farm but if they spend hundreds of dollars each year for wireless service, they should get full value for their hard-earned money. but that solution by far is encouraging carriers to continue to build out and upgrade networks but that takes time and that takes capital if one is on the signal boosters that we adopt today. signal boosters have helped consumers extend their coverage of networks inside buildings and to the world underserved and hard to serve areas signal boosters have helped first responders maintain connections in their vehicles. unfortunately, however, the shoddy devices can create more problems than they solved by causing harmful interference

from destructive service to nearby wireless customers come and impeding the use of public safety networks. this is not acceptable. so, today we put in place strict technical standards. they are designed to create immediate opportunities for extending service troop quality signal boosters while curbing the use of those who got cost network harm. this means consumers to buy devices meeting our standards will be able to enjoy better wireless access without disrupting the service of their neighbors or the communication needs of first responders. a wireless carriers will also benefit as they extend the reach of their networks and reduce the number dropped calls due to the weak signals. this outcome is the byproduct of the cooperative work of the carriers and the booster manufacturers. we commend their efforts and thank them for their input. as a result, the commission has

been able to establish a process that obviates the need for the license by rule regime. but going forward, this agency must monitor the system that we put in place. we should be on the lookout for from other opportunities to streamline and improve this process. especially if an anticipated with the harmful interference occurred as a team effort so thank you to the wireless telecommunications our efforts with engineering and technology, the public safety of homeland security bureau and enforcement bureau for all of their work on this item. and i also want to think the consumer and government affairs bureau and anticipation of the berkeley will need to do as a result of this order. thank mr. chairman i would like to join you in my fellow commissioners in welcoming our colleagues from capitol hill. like the commissioner rosenworcel of is a staff for many moons ago.

the complexity of the issues and also the benefits of the problem service brings to this country 74 everything you do and today for your interest in the fcc if we can ever be of assistance please feel free to call the chairman any time. in november of 2007 wireless companies asked the fcc to address the use of the single booster's -- signal boosters. consumers have purchased millions of posters to improve wireless coverage particularly the rural areas and indoor environments. but sometimes these boosters also hardly interfere with commercial and public safety networks. it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. wheat to focus on ensuring the new booster is entering the market cannot cause harmful

interference and mitigating as best as we can the problems caused now in use. today's item is the product of compromise like every single aspect of the rules but i commend the carriers and the booster manufacturers to come to the negotiating table in good faith and him are not proposals and the basis of this morning's order. because the rules it out today represent a plausible path forward, voting to improve this item. whether the rules ultimately work, however, will depend on how they are implemented. as they say, the proof will be in the pudding. i want to set forth my expectations for what will happen following today's order. first, the carrier consent requirement should be implemented in a consumer friendly manner. some carriers have signaled that they will give blanket consent to all boosters.

that comply with our rules. others may provide a consensus on a model by model basis. either of these options i believe should work well. on the other hand, i don't expect the carriers to require customers purchasing boosters to submit individual consent requests the would be evaluated on an individualized basis. such a process would be inefficient for carriers and unnecessarily burdensome for consumers. second, the commission should keep close tabs on how well the registration mechanism works. our boosters that were sold are actually being a registered. the registration system is collecting enough information to make it easier for both the commission and carriers to resolve an interference issues. these are just a few of the questions that we will need to ask and i pleased my colleagues agree to the suggestion made with commissioner mcdowell to review the requirements and a couple of years.

the commission to enforce the rules in a firm but fair manner if the booster manufacturers but technically deficient devices into the marketplace we must act swiftly and impose tough penalties we can expect every american who currently uses a booster will know that he or she must register that mr. west individuals learn about these requirements in the foreseeable future. for some reason unbeknownst to me most americans don't watch the fcc open meetings and they don't read the orders so i therefore appreciate my colleagues will miss to incorporate my suggestion that the enforcement bureau provide consumers who failed to register and to obtain consent for the use of a booster with a warning and an opportunity to shut down the booster before any forfeiture is imposed. this will help insure that unsuspecting americans won't be sanctioned as a result of our

action today. finally, like my colleagues i would like to thank the staff of the wireless telecommunications bureau for all of their hard work on this item in collaboration with staff and the public safety and homeland security, the engineering and technology, the office of general counsel, and the enforcement bureau. the good news is that today's order is a significant accomplishment of which all of you deserve great credit. the bad news is that today's order creates even more work for you. especially for the engineers at the lab in colombia i have the privilege of visiting two weeks ago and will soon be establishing a testing protocols and testing many boosters. i look forward to working with all of you in the months ahead. thank mr. chairman. >> thank. so, while the duke as population is served by one or more wireless carriers, we have coverage gaps, dead spots, within and at the edge of service areas. this can lead to drop calls to reduce data speeds or loss of

service. and it's a particularly serious problem as the percentage that rely on a wireless costs one-third of the american population as we've heard. now, signal boosters do what the name implies, the amplify signals between wireless devices and wireless networks. there are a cost effective means of expanding the reach of the nation's wireless infrastructure. individual consumers with no technical experience and expertise can install signal boosters in their home and cars. this helps in both world and urban areas. the problems are slightly different. in the rural areas the challenges that that are worse tend to be further apart, and so at the edges of the networks or in the gaps in the network's you can have this problem of dead spots and dropped calls.

in our urban areas, the problems are different. deep inside buildings, underground, the balls and the buildings act as a barrier. now, signal boosters can help address problems in both of these areas. and we know that because they are already doing so in new york city the transit authority is using the signal boosters to enhance coverage of the subway system. in north dakota emergency personnel use signal boosters to facilitate communications and search and rescue operations and areas of challenging terrain and in arizona, signal boosters argue is to improve wireless service on the navajo reservation and in small towns in southwestern virginia, signal boosters increase signal strength by treat times. the promise of signal boosters is clear, and as we've heard from some of the challenges of consumer driven signal boosters are real and interference public

safety challenges and so, as we did some of the order that we approve today, we all recognize it is critical to ensure the signal boosters do not interfere with commercial networks cannot interfere with public safety networks, and to make sure that as we move forward and provide a one way for the signal boosters that we do it in a way that guards against harmful interference. i am pleased as we all are that thanks to the terrific work of the bureau, we've developed an approach that i believe it's the balance right, that gets signal boosters out there while also protecting against interference. the rules of the road that we about today will enhance wireless coverage general and urban areas and enhance public safety communications for consumers. they are a big part of our answer to the challenge of dead

spots. succumb thank to everyone on our staff that has worked on this. as many of these things do, it seems simple as we explain it now, but we know that as you are working through the details of how to do this, it is an incredibly complex from an engineering and business perspective and so i really thank you for writing this to simplicity and grateful to my colleagues where we've had a terrific input and collaboration from each of the commissioners. this is another of example of something that as we have all worked to develop an approach that meets the common sense test the attention this gets may be less than if we found a way to disagree that the benefits to the consumers and effectively and efficiently rolling out a signal boosters and improving coverage and the benefits to our

networks, carriers and public safety community to do it in a way to guard against harmful interference are very real and will make a positive difference in the lives of americans every day. with that, thank. let's proceed to a vote. all of those in favor, aye, those opposed, nay, the ayes have it and it is granted. thank. a very excellent work. with that, madam secretary, will you announce our second agenda item? >> next item on your agenda will be submitted by the office of engineering and technology. it is entitled the revision of part 15 of the commission's rules to permit unlicensed national information and infrastructure devices and the five gigahertz. >> terrific. thank. julie, whenever you are ready.

>> commissioners before you propose to increase the amount of the spectrum for the unlicensed wireless devices in the five gigahertz band and to improve access to the existing five gigahertz spectrum the provisions for the unlicensed device has been a success working the innovative technologies and creating jobs. this would accelerate the growth and expansion of wi-fi technology and introduce a new generation of wide bandwidth and hi data that will lot first faster speeds and reduce congestion at wi-fi hot spots nprm provides an opportunity for the commission to work foley, study technologies and techniques that allow one licensed devices to share spectrum with incumbent federal and on federal services. i would like to thank the following staff assisted in the preparation of today's nprm.

geraldine, mark, ross, karen [inaudible] i'd also like to thank the wireless telecommunications bureau, the international bureau, the enforcement bureau and office of general counsel for their assistance in preparing the item. with me at the table is marked, the deputy chief of the policy and rules division. and the electronics engineer who will be presenting the on them. it's his inaugural presentation. we anticipate there will be many more to come >> des moines mr. chairman and commissioners. today proposed to streamline the commission's part 15 rules for the unlicensed national information infrastructure devices referred to in the frequency band. the devices are unlicensed that currently offer it over 555 megahertz of spectrum.

they are used for short range high-speed wireless connections including wi-fi eight networks and outdoor receivers used by wireless internet service providers to connect smart phones, tablets and laptops to the broadband network. existing devices share the spectrum on the non-interference bases with federal operations by using advanced techniques to avoid causing interference. for example, if the device detects a federal reserve system is using the spectrum, the device automatically shift to another part of the spectrum that is not occupied at that location. the fcc is working with the national telecommunications and information administration and stakeholders including federal agencies and the private sector to determine the availability of these or other similar events to provide access to additional spectrum for the devices in the

ban it would increase the amount of the five gigahertz spectrum available by 195 megahertz or 35%. the additional spectrum is significant because would allow the devices to employ a wide band that at faster speeds of 21 gigabit percent and it would allow more users to access the hot spots simultaneously releasing the congestion in places as the air force interventions and expand opportunities for the innovation and new broadband applications. the existing rules >> at the spectrum into several blocks. each with its own federal requirements. the npr and proposes to make the rules more consistent so that new technology that is employed in wide bandwidth have greater flexibility to operate across all parts of the spectrum. the proposed rules would also provide a simpler the streamlined certification process than it exists today. this would reduce the administrative burdens on cost

associated with the device edification as evaluations and testing procedures are needed. it also proposes measures to improve compliance. for example, the nprm would require reasonable measures to ensure third parties cannot easily disable or modify the software that controls the device which is the key to avoiding interference. and last but certainly not least, the nprm satisfies the requirements of the middle class, tax relief and job creation act of 2012 which charges the commission to begin proceedings to allow the devices to operate on additional spectrum and the five gigahertz span. the office recommends the proposed rulemaking and editorial privileges. thank. >> excellent work on this. thank very much. commissioner macdonald. >> thank mr. chairman. last night i had the privilege

of attending the national academy of engineering award ceremony. there is no nobel prize for engineering, so these awards are intended to fill that gap. included in the amazing array of honorees was my friend mardy cooper, the inventor of a cell phone. also in attendance was dr. robert conn who live also gotten to know over the years. he's the coinventor of ttp ip the protocol that allows the internet to work. it ends up that mardy cooper and bob khan were fans of each other but had never met. so last night i had the incredible honor of being able to introduce them to each other of and i still haven't recovered from the moment where internet pioneer was met the father of the cell phone quite literally the personification of the internet meeting mobility i was

able to ask each of them at one sweater at the time of their interventions had a date foreseen the incredible fact their work would have on the human condition and was characteristic, honesty and humility, they both said no. the point for all of us to hear from these great minds is none of us can guess what innovations may be coming over the horizon eddy intention to improve the lives of human beings. liberal arts majors to make public policy such as myself should learn to exercise regulatory humility and allow engineers to have the freedom to experiment. i'm hopeful this proceeding does that.

of their inventions by the way are doing just fine. in fact in 2012, u.s. global data traffic reached 207 bytes per month. a 62% increase over the previous year to the growth in the context processing to wonder seven bytes per month is the equivalent of watching 52 million dvds per month or sending 570 million text messages each second over our wireless networks and mobile usage will only continue to surge well into the future. its estimate of the mobile data tracking will grown ninefold in the next five years. furthermore, wireless devices are proliferating at an unprecedented rate. 51 million new devices are connected to the mobile networks in the last year alone bringing

the total of american mobile enabled devices to 424 million roughly. it is estimated that 775 million wirelessly connected devices will be used by americans by the year 2017. to relieve the congested networks there to move wireless data to the unlicensed systems. last year 96% of the u.s. traffic associated with the devices was carried on the wi-fi network's at some point. not only does this percentage included the data that originated on the wi-fi systems, but also the 47% of the mobile data the was offloaded from the cellular over to the wi-fi networks. so what do those mean? the spectrum that is used for the unlicensed wi-fi is also experiencing congestion which will only increase in the coming years if we do not make

appropriate plans like the five gigahertz band more attractive for investment and innovation. i'm pleased to vote and support this notice which initiates the review of the current requirements and take steps to increase the amount of spectrum available for the unlicensed use in the five gigahertz band. our proposal to harmonize the rules and requirements across the five gigahertz band will make the spectrum more attractive to investors and innovators providing certainty and consistency across a wide swath of the spectrum. ..

we look into opening certain gigahertz frequencies. although we protect us from harmful interference, the commission, effective government agencies, a wifi providers and others, they will have to work together to make sure the successful deployment in the spectrum.

although allowing this in an additional 100 megahertz of spectrum will promote innovation in wireless broadband systems, it doesn't mean we can't be complacent and stop advocating for additional federal spectrum to be auctioned for exclusive use of licenses. the federal government, the executive branch, needs to examine this with a goal of relinquishing bandwidth for private sector usage. spectrum sharing and the auctioning of exclusives exclusive licensing is not exclusive. it is a very important proceeding, and also the amazing engineers that we have today at the fcc. you are among the finest in the world, and you also deserve some

recognition. but there is not much i can do about it. last night really refreshed my sense that we need to do more to recognize engineers of our great nation, while entertainers and sports figures make life fun, engineers actually improve the human condition in so many ways. thank you for all of your work to make that happen. >> in the state of the union address, president obama smoke of spoke of a smarter government. our priorities should be making progress with manufacturing. the wireless sector is one that

can promote tremendous growth. in 2011, this industry was responsible for creating 3.8 million jobs, or 2.6% of all domestic employment. according to other reports, this relatively young sector now contributes more to the nation's gdp than the agriculture, air transportation, and motor vehicle manufacturing industries. promoting growth in the sector can greatly advance the president's domestic policy goals. under the chairman of leadership, the commission has been adopting innovation policies to promote broader deployment and adoption of mobile broadband services. these include the data roaming order, the wifi proceedings, the interoperability in the lower 700 megahertz band perceiving and health initiatives and

learning on the go private program. this also includes the five gigahertz band, which is another prime example of how this policy can advance growth in the overall economy. when the fcc first allocated unlicensed spectrum, it is primarily used for baby monitors and garage door openers. then wifi hit the scene and demand has been off the charts. in 2005, tens of millions of wi-fi devices were sold and in 2011, at least 150 million of those devices were sold in the u.s. unlicensed wi-fi is now an integral part of the way mobile carriers deliver their services. the consumer federation of america found that wi-fi also

allowed wireless carriers to save more than $25 billion per year in deployment costs. according to some, the annual contribution of the wireless sector to our nations economy is estimated to be more than $50 billion per year. it has increased so dramatically that we need more spectrum to support these services. the 2.4 gigahertz band, my critical success and other technologies is increasingly congested, particularly in major cities, densely populated centers are the most expensive geographic areas to deploy it licensed networks. therefore, i commend the staff are recommending proposals that could make up to an additional

195 megahertz per spectrum available and i hope it will provide us with responsible recommendations on how we can adopt technical rules that will create incentives for the industry to make the most efficient use of the spectrum. there are a number of technical issues to be resolved and we will have to coordinate with and cia on the impact of these proposed rules on federal users and the five gigahertz band. but it is important that we get started on resolving these issues right away. we must resolve these issues, the sooner american innovation can show leadership in developing disband for unlicensed services. this is due to many great individuals. in many other talented members

of enforcement and international and wireless bureaus that have presented us with such a medicare proposal making. >> look around come the wireless devices that we place in our ears, have on our lap, and hover over our desktop, they are multiplying. we own more of them. we do more with them. and the power more aspects of our lives with them than ever before. we are a nation whose every day depends on wireless connectivity. it is an essential part of our economic and civic life. it is no surprise that the demand is growing at a fast pace. but it is important to remember that the speed with which we face demand for a spectrum is not confined to licensed wireless services.

congestion in our unlicensed spectrum brand is fast approaching a breaking point as well. so why does this matter? for starters, the unlicensed economy represents economic growth. today, it contributes between 16 and $37 billion to our economy annually. that is more than americans spend on milk and bread each year combined. the unlicensed economy also represents innovation. countless innovations that have made our lives easier and more convenient every day. they are dependent upon unlicensed spectrum is good if you have ever called on a cordless phone, change the channel with a television remote, or pushed a button on a garage door opener, you have benefited from the power of unlicensed technology.

the unlicensed economy also represents a critical pathway for internet connectivity. today, more than one third of wireless data connections are uploaded into unlicensed spectrum is. most of us use the 2.4 gigahertz band, which is also the home of other wireless devices like cordless phones and microphones and microwave ovens and although the 2.4 gigahertz band continues to serve us well, it is growing very crowded. it is no wonder that the search is on to find more spectrum for unlicensed services. it is a search that this commission needs to support commissioned in regards to the law. it requires both licensed and unlicensed services across multiple spectrums. the proposals we make regarding the five gigahertz band are good

for stocks. these are ideas that can mean new near-term opportunities and long-term possibilities for expanding licenses down the road. let's start with what we can do today. the varying technical restrictions in place throughout this band. while still with working to expand more gigahertz frequencies, the kind of flexible rule that has been part of an unlicensed success story and a 5.7 up to 5.7 28 gigahertz band. as a result of these, cable operators use this to offer wi-fi services at hotspots in their franchise area. allowing consumers to take their broadband with them when they leave the house. this means they can save money

and continue with other gigahertz bands are still necessary to the same time, this can include these services. once the questions are answered, we should not hesitate to remove limitations are no longer needed. fast forward from what we can do right now what we can do down the road, consistent with direction from congress and job creation are, we are proposing to make an additional 195 megahertz in the five gigahertz band available for unlicensed use. these airways can be a colossal catalysts to unlock the full potential of a new wi-fi

standard. undoubtably, it awaits. as enticing as it is to be swept away by the future promise, we are going to have to deal with them as a reality. the national telecommunications and information administration reports that additional testing of the spectrum will take at least until the end of 2014. it will require resources like databases, dynamic frequency selection, and transmit power control. in short, finding ways to share this 195 megahertz of spectrum without interfering with critical government missions and it may take a long time. i think it is necessary to start identifying ways to accelerate

this process by incentivizing authorities to be more efficient with the spectrum right now. to do this, we are going to have to look for ways the federal users can realize value instead of only seeing losses from its commercial allocation. these incentives do not need to be purely financial and the rewards do not have to come directly from the spectrum being released. instead, incentives can come from benefits and appropriations, budgeting, and the structured use of synthetic currency as proposed by the presidents council of advisors on science and technology we need not only sticks, we should

explore characters. we need licensed and unlicensed and now is not a moment to stop. thank you to the office of engineering and technology for your terrific work. for your great and uncommon dedication. >> thank you. commissioner? >> it is one of the fcc's great innovations in the 1980s. the commission expanded several junk bands to commit additional uses. they are junk no more. in the 2.4 you heard spans, now some of the most valuable spectrum in the world for broadband. consumers are the ultimate beneficiary amongst licensed technologies, such as wi-fi and

bluetooth. for millions of americans, when they boot up their last tops, connect to their smart phones and use their tablets, they are on the internet. and in the words of the big bang theories sheldon cooper, everything is exciting. we are using what is suited for licensed use ideally. it enables localized use with minimal risk of interference. it will be finalized soon. and enhancing the contribution he and size of this wider channs selection, for example, the 160 megahertz could deliver one

gigabyte of data per second. that is super wi-fi. i am most pleased that today we are keen that the expansion of unlicensed use by a full 195 megahertz in the five gigahertz band. consistent with my thoughts since last october. the spectrum only required that we commence the proceedings on opening up the 120 megahertz. having this step does make sense. were spectrums allow higher speed, higher capacity connections, less congestion, and apartment buildings and coffee shops and libraries and offices across the country. for all these reasons, putting these two better commercial use could have tremendous benefits. to be sure, achieving this vision will not be without its

challenges. the statute lets us expand only if we determine that licensed users will be protected by technical solutions, including the use of existing unmodified or used spectrum technologies and solutions. additionally, we must find the primary mission of federal spectrum users will not be compromised by the introduction of unlicensed devices. to help us in making these determinations, the national telecommunications administration has reported on the potential impacts the federal government has from expanding unlicensed use, and we appreciate their work. congress gave the fcc the ultimate responsibility. i look forward to reviewing your comments. given the wide swaths of

spectrum marty given to the federal government, i hope that we can consider that federal users should alter the system to accommodate unlicensed devices in the spectrum and what solutions will work, keeping in mind the cost and benefits of all the potential options. today is just the beginning of what will be a highly technical process. africa to say that the fcc could not proceed without the office of engineering and technology, so many people that have contributed, my thanks to all of you for your work on this item and for the work that you do each day to advance the mission. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> most everyone in this room were watching at home has direct experience with the problem we are seeking to solve.

you are at an airport, you are at a convention, you are at a hotel and you break out your tablet or smart phone hoping to get a wifi connection, nbc the wifi router signal there and you think, great, i can get online. moments later you are saying, not so fast. wi-fi congestion is a very real and growing problem that we see in daily life. like licensed spectrum, unlicensed spectrum threatens supply. as a consequence of a good news story. we are seeing tremendous demand for data, both for licensed use and unlicensed use. this is a good thing because it is driving innovation and new products and services, economic growth, job creation, new health care related applications,

education applications, this is all good. but it is creating a problem that several years ago no one anticipated. but the demand would be rising in such a high level, that all of a sudden this vast expanse of our airwaves would start seeming very small. because demand is going up not at 10% or even 20% or 100%, but as we have heard, 1000%. we are also seeing, as we have heard, very smart steps being taken to offload the demand from our commercial networks onto our unlicensed infrastructure. cisco estimates that it is already uploading 33% of all traffic to wi-fi, a project that that will go to 46% by 2017. this is a very good thing. it wasn't something that was anticipated when wifi came along, and of course it was not

anticipated in that regard either. it's a very good thing. while it is part of the solution to the problem of cellular networks, the popularity is creating issues of its own. it isn't just a problem at airports or public venues, it is becoming a problem at home in the early stages of this. it is increasingly common to have multiple data hungry devices using wifi at the same time. our current wi-fi infrastructure was not designed for this. so for the last two years, the sec has been pursuing a strong agenda to free up more spectrums for licensed and unlicensed use. we will continue to be

relentless when it comes to this. because we see every day the growing gap between data demand and the supply or spectrum available. we know that both expanding this spectrum for auctions of licensed use and expanding the amount of spectrum for unlicensed use has to be a major part of the solution. we will continue to lean into every idea to free up more spectrum for licensed and unlicensed use. this is why we have spent so much of our time together and it has led us to develop the pioneering concept of incentive auctions, which congress deserves great credit for adopting, and we are moving forward to implemented at the agency. a world leading policy that will enable the united states to free

up spectrum for auction faster than any other country in the world. this is one of several next-generation spectrum policies that we are pursuing. we have talked about spectrum sharing and next-generation licensing. as part of this, we have moved to free up the spectrum for unlicensed use, and create next generation unlicensed use in low band, continuous spectrum. when wifi first came along, the idea was that some of my colleagues have mentioned that we have a band that we can't figure out what to allocate back when the fcc did command and control allegations. in one of the predecessors said why don't we just put it on the market for unlicensed use.

not knowing exactly what it would lead to. not calling it what it became, which was a platform for innovation. that decision gave us, as we have heard, garage door openers and cordless phones and bluetooth and eventually wifi. as we know, wifi has added such tremendous value to our economy and society, spurring job creation, economic growth, hundreds of billions of dollars of value creation and revenue to the treasury. we need to do a couple of things. we need to pursue the next-generation platform for innovation, which we are looking at the proceedings. this proceeding is about nurturing existing wifi.

wifi as we know it. we all know how much value it is adding everyday to our lives and in our economy. we know that we are facing spectrum congestion issues and we know that we have to do something about it. our engineers and others who have looked at the landscape for expanding spectrum for traditional wifi house identified this as the most promising solution. it is why all of us together are working to move forward expeditiously on this proposal. as you have heard the proposal that we have been voting on today, it will have this available for wifi and would enable what people call gigabits wifi, the big large channels available and it will enable superfast wi-fi exchanges of information whenever wifi is

available. we are proposing to add 195 megahertz from this five gigahertz band. this would increase the spectrum available by 35%. this would be the largest swath of spectrum to be made available since 2003. this would have the enormous benefits that i have mentioned. as we move forward, of course we are aware that the spectrum that we have identified is already being used for other purposes, federal and nonfederal users, this is true of virtually all the other bands where wifi is used. it is not a new challenge for the commission to address. this effort with respect to this

megahertz will require significant consultation with stakeholders to enable non-interfering sureties of the spectrum, and again, we have done this before. the wifi spectrum crunch is so significant that consultation cannot be an excuse for inaction ward away. all of us involved in this must be guided by the president's directive to free up spectrum for commercial use, and by the critical importance of increasing the availability of spectrum to drive economic growth, job creation, and our country's global competitiveness. these are common goals. these are goals that we all share. we are committed to a process of consultation. we are committed to moving expeditiously to free up additional spectrum. we look forward to working with all government and nongovernment stakeholders, and to deliver to the public's grant of new spectrum for wi-fi that will

improve wireless broadband services all over the country. julie, let me join my colleagues for thinking each of you up here for working on this. i know you have been doing so for quite some time. you have done excellent work. i would like to commend the work of our engineers at the fcc. there is no non-complex issue and the quality of work that we consistently get is something that we are all proud of. others have been involved in this as well. the wireless bureau, the international bureau, thank you all. i think everyone in my office and i would like to thank everyone, all of my colleagues, we have made tremendous progress over the last few years.

making it committed to the division and unleashing spectrum for the economy. all of those in favor, please see yes, all of those in a opposition, please say no. okay, thank you very much. you are welcome to stay or go. are there any other announcements today? >> with that, madame secretary, would you please announce the next meeting? >> the next meeting is wednesday, march 20, 2013. >> great, thank you, we are adjourned. >> here's a look at our primetime schedule. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at charter schools and the

role they play in education. starting at nine eastern, we will take your phone calls and comments and tweets on the issue. programs relating to the financial crisis, and on c-span3 in american history tv, a look at the teachings of colonial history in the classroom. current and former officials from britain and france and poland discussed the international perspective on nuclear weapons, pointing to iran is a major concern. the panel is part of an all-day conference hosted by exchange monitor publications and forms. this is one hour and a half. >> i can't help noticing there are few people in the room. that could be because there is a strong awareness as to why this is particularly important. but when talking about nuclear deterrence, it is important to remember that this is a game that goes well beyond washington and the united states.

this is a game where there are lots a lot of people involved, and it is important to take this spectrum into account. including what is in the mind of allies and opponents. it may not be as important as it was 20 or 30 years ago, but it still remains strategically relevant. i hope the speakers will have something to say about that. the european space includes these allies. they have been adopting and adapting changes to the nuclear deterrent posture, and i think that these reflect evolving changes to their approach more generally. of course, this is relevant as well, specifically here because we have the debate on this

modernization extension program. this is bound to play a role in the debate. and there will be many people in this city who will speak on behalf of the europeans. so we have enough here to hear directly from them. there are many assumptions in this discussion, and i just outlined in context. i think there is an assumption widely held that nuclear weapons form the heart of the u.s. extended deterrence capability to europe. the second is that it is an extended deterrence. it needs the existence of nuclear weapons to remove those nuclear weapons would signal reduced commitment to european

security and embolden russia, who would seek to make use of that. if there were any such weakening of resolve, it would create instability, perhaps a crisis of confidence in europe, and potentially lead to more nuclear percolation. i outlined this in his first introductory. just to highlight whether this is true. there are questions in here. secondly, there is a question about whether deterrence are different in any way compare to those over here. and doesn't matter. there is also a question about what is driving this. are there increasing divisions between european and their

attitudes towards russia? those are my questions. it is the american information security council, and we engage in discussions like this around nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. but i'm going to introduce to you first dub brown, more formally lord browne, who is the secretary of defense around 2006 until 2009. he is also part of the european leadership network. we are talking about nuclear deterrence. i'm not.

>> thank you very much. thank you for the introduction. for those of you who have a slight accent here, i am concerned for you. as i spoke to the immigration officer yesterday, i had to repeat the work seven times before he understood. he thought that i was saying the terrorists, you cannot join. you can get used to this for a few minutes. the second point i want to make is improbable please be assured that it's a significant

organization that has set forth its purpose among other things, giving us a chance with our allies and friends because there is a tendency here in the united states and any given argument. and i think that we ought to be mature enough to know and to realize that we have a divestiture voices, not as what it is about. first of all, you should understand security environment from london over the last central years and the rest of the country. twenty years ago, the collapse

of the soviet union removed this to the united kingdom and the rest of the alliance. and it is a combination that dominates the uk security landscape. including international terrorism and unconventional attacks, seen as the most direct threat. over the past 10 years, consistent themes run through official government reviews of uk defense. both nuclear and otherwise, and we have had a plethora of these reviews. in general, the security context involves numerous crises of the geographical area. we have found that european security is essential in those

regions [inaudible] so far, it has proven to be correct. in the context of this with a range of other factors that could lead to an increase of conflict involving a nuclear armed state, including weak and failing states and international terrorism, pressure, and key resources such as energy driven up by population and economic development and climate change and military technology. direct nuclear threat to the uk or to any allies. the emergence of one or more states with a more limited capability, we could propose a

thread and the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism, which could result in weapons of terrorists. in 2010, conducted by the government and security strategy, terrorism including the use of cyberattacks, natural disasters, for example, and in international military crisis between the most pressing of uk securities. however, the uk's ability to meet these current and future tests has been reviewed, and this is interesting. it is tied to tackling the budget deficit. including tough choices to the defense budget as it relates to

both nuclear and conventional forces. nevertheless, in all of these views of the world and assessments of risk and the reality check in relation to budget challenges, the uk is committed to maintaining its position as a major global reach, and i quote, this is disproportionate to its size. the overarching policy was set out in 2003 defense, which was reinforced in 2006. we have committed to a safer role in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons, and continue to play a full row of in strengthening arms control and preventing proliferation of

chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. however, the continuing risk and necessities for a number of other situations represented to remain a necessary element over security. the strategic defense and review, rather, it retains the basic framework of the use of a minimum effect of nuclear deterrence, and also a remains committed to the long-term goal of nuclear weapons. continuous deterrence has been the foundation for strategic nuclear deterrence since the submarines were deployed in 1968. today we have four vanguard submarines, each with up to 16

missiles and no more than 48 nuclear weapons, with one submarine at sea on several days in this context, of course, the future is central to the nuclear deterrent. then prime minister tony blair, plan to spend between 15 and 20 billion and a new generation of submarines and missiles. he had the option had been considered in announcing the decision and although the cold war is over, there could still be a major nuclear threat and

excited north korea and iran as the new threat and a new circumstance in which it would be unwise and dangerous to give up the nuclear deterrent independent of any of the nuclear powers. he conceded that it would not prevent terrorism, but was very specific to set up additional assurance in circumstances where the uk was threatened in the united states is not. however, abandoning the nuclear deterrent would've been too big but there was no exercise at the time. but he said that was frankly inconceivable that we could use a nuclear deterrent outside the

united states. david cameron agreed with tony blair and he announced in the 2010 strategic view and to begin work on the bracing the vanguard submarines. but he said the plans to extend the life of the current vanguard class submarines would be reviewed and extended into the late year of 2020. he deferred his decision to start building an end including how many they rebuild, and he announced that the new warhead, which was expected, would need

to replace existing warhead and was not needed until supporting a decision until the next election. he redefined the word minimum. position number of warheads from 48 to a maximum of 40 and fewer than 160 no more than 120 from 225180 by the mid-year 2020. we have a three minimum deterrence in the last 10 years in america. the use of the weapons has also changed, the uk will use or talk

about the material breach of the obligations. the policies now overlap where they didn't before. so the purpose is to explain to you this is a changing landscape in a way that has never been before. too complicated even more, the same government announced in may of 2011, a review. this is a remarkable decision in terms of our politics. they announced that the view was that it was the way forward.

the review is ongoing, google reported the prime minister and deputy prime minister, and in the spirit of openness, a smaller version of a classified or unclassified version that could be public. the classified version will be held internally. the decision will not be made until after 2015. we will go into the election for a generation for which these two property leaders who have been in this review. it makes an argument for an

alternative and the labor leader i become the prime minister not privy to any of this, being able to say that i have no idea what this review says, he says black, she says why, i have not seen it. the prime minister would expect he would be required to do three things. one is to detail the possibility of significant growth in the next five years is remote. and two, because of that and then making a decision [inaudible]

>> thank you. very moving indeed. i turn now to françois from the french embassy. i wonder what we can learn from the french. thank you. >> thank you very much. i just wanted to make clear that i am speaking here and i would like to briefly address this. the first thing is a true bipartisan consensus of nuclear deterrence which was concerned by french presidents and specifically national dependence on security.

over the years it has paved the way for the good approach. includes financial commitments for the future. we will talk about the various parts about the consensus of nuclear deterrence. nuclear weapons as relevant from the political and security in the relation crisis. this was part of the vital

interests and sympathizing against any threat of any form. disarmament is an exclusive engagements of the universe. to a great extent, this traditional approach has been talked about by the administration. speeches were made by the president himself. it is expected on the scope of security and because it is part of the programs to be taken before an this.

it also has presented its vision. there is a nuclear deterrent that can be maintained. one of the highlights? as far as we are concerned, i think that you can see that we have the traditional nuclear weapons policy that is a consensus that we have to preserve. and it guarantees the nation's independence in this launch. we were very clear on the fact

that it is ongoing and we must have down our guard. it maintains this effort, and we will do everything we can to preserve this comment in spite of the financial situation and we should keep our efforts to be respected as possible. the last point has to do with the airborne components. it is a legislative branch in july 2012 to maintain things at the current level.

[inaudible] this does not include the consensus is under question, but this is remarkable because the french support this. there is a very good reason for this consensus. it is not a conservative consensus by nature. it is based on the concept of sufficiency which gives flexibility and is compatible with this context under the threat. that is why it first and foremost depends on the national

perception. especially where disarmament is concerned. we have this personal and includes nuclear weapons of reserve. we have a number of concerns and we are just now rectifying this necessity is in this. if you look at the future, you can identify sufficiency.

the first one is financial commitment and most people can see the assessment of what you deterrent. it has taken strong commitments in terms of financial commitments in the arsenal of systems and part of the airborne command air force. including the command warheads. the preservation will of course occur. and we have this future

situation reviewed. [inaudible] it has changed, but at the same time, we have a disciplined commitment. it is very important to mention nato, and nuclear weapons and deterrence [inaudible] [inaudible] there are corporations from november 2102 agreements, it is

a matter of independence. [inaudible] we have been seeking a discussion and i'm not sure that it is already in use, but as you can see, again, we do not close the doors. [inaudible] the situation requires posture of deterrence. ..

a pretty high level and one cannot say that it will never constitute for europeans. issues like this is still to be understood with the new security changes. at this point i would say that alliance in the strategic context of shrinking military as far as conventional forces are concerned show that we still need -- you may create

instability. to sum up i would say that the political vision today is that the world is not safe enough and will not be for a long time and that is why the french people for right now think we still need the ultimate protection that it presents. it doesn't mean there is no room of course for evolution and again france is willing to meet its commitment of the npt. concerning the question of -- of nato as we described the nuclear deterrence force, france alliance when presidents sarkozy decided to integrate military commander decided not to -- again to guarantee the independence of the french deterrent and you heard the report to assess french nato that we join the planning group.

at the same time france takes seriously its commitment and considers this a alliance of nuclear alliance and in the last two majors -- for specific place of the british and the french nuclear forces have been recognized and contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the allies. france remains interested in european stability and security and it supports from this point of view u.s. efforts and the next round of talks on disarmament. i would just say as you may have understood, you can expect from france a lot of continuity especially in the coming years with the conception of the support of the npt pr. i would just like to highlight the importance of the threat assessment and this threat assessment explains a priority by french authorities to the

fight against proliferation and especially in the iranian case. thank you. [applause] spit the nato parliamentary semacode what you need to know about simon is that more than any other nongovernment person he is in and out of nato constantly. he will tell you what really goes on behind the closed doors. >> paul thank you very much. i should explain that i spent a large part of my life working in one way or another for nato either fears parliamentary side or indeed on the international staff and as i live in brussels and my retirement days, i have for the last three years been working for dlna and the nuclear initiative basically following

the debates of nato on nuclear policy. and the debate that has been developing over the last three years so what i would like to give you in the next 10 or 15 minutes is a sense of how i am talking to the national delegation, the 28 delegations based at nato and the international staff in the sopel service talking to those people and getting their reflections on nuclear policy and basically where they think the alliance is going with the developments of nuclear weapons. let me say first of all that interest revived in nato nuclear policies over -- during the last three or four years and i say revise because during the 90s i think there was very little attention paid to nato's nuclear policy compared particularly

with the 1980s. those of you who remember the deployment of -- purging the decision, that was caused enormous -- a very controversial decision so it had a lot of attention to nuclear policy but once in the 1990s were focusing in on other things, focusing on nato enlargement in nuclear policy really was put into the shadows. it emerged from the shadows because there were a number of things that happened around the 2008, 2009. mad. first of all nato decided to redo its strategic concept, a concept setting up the guiding principles for the alliance and as a result of that develop something that was called the

defensive posture review which was a review of the capabilities the alliance has. the third element that calls attention to the focus on nuclear policy was of course the president obama's power speech about reducing the role of nuclear weapons and their final elimination and that of course refocus people's attention and the fourth element for the position of the german coalition and their agreement that they would seek the withdrawal of american warheads from german territory, this was a very -- this was seen as a sign of the country saying we want these weapons removed. and then of course there was the thing that should people's attention the fact that the aircraft of the four european countries where the nuclear weapons and american nuclear

weapons were updated -- raise the european countries were going to have to -- the aircraft used for that particular mission. they first inform us perform a conventional role but they also have interest and these platforms, each of those four countries was faced with the decision to renew these platforms. and that again focused people's attention on nato's nuclear policy. so we had a debate or a series of discussions on four principle elements. people basically asking themselves, nato is a nuclear alliance. what does that mean? what does the term being a nuclear alliance actually stand for? there were four elements to this debate. first was the language that we used in nato documents to destroy the purpose of nato's

nuclear weapons so the language we used and that language had to be consistent obviously with the language of the three nuclear powers who were at the core of being a nuclear united states united kingdom and france so that language had to be consistent with the language used by the three individual countries. so the purpose of nuclear weapons and the first element discussed the policy and their was controversial. finding the right language that covered the three countries particularly was in d.c.. the second element was the posture itself. what does nato need in terms of capabilities for extended deterrence to have a satisfactory deterrence policy? there the purpose obviously was on these warheads, the american warheads based in europe to be used by dca aircraft in the four countries concerned.

again a controversial issue in several countries. the third element not covered at all was the role of missile defense. missile defense is sort of the new boy on the block somehow that has been introduced generally supported by most alliance countries and the whole concept of defending against ballistic missiles, but then there was the question of what impact with the missile defense have on nato's nuclear posture? will it mean we can rely less on the nuclear weapons deployed now or would it make any difference at all and of course there were all sorts of question marks for how we were going to pay for missile defense. and the fourth element was the role of arms control disarmament because there aren't number of countries that forced nato to be more forthcoming and give a higher profile with the whole question of disarmament and arms

control. so those are the four elements we have been debating over the last three or four years. to give you a sense of the thinking in the alliance, think the easiest thing to do is to divide the countries of the alliances into two groups on these particular issues. the first group is a group that basically, the toe to groups or those who want change in the two groups that want change. the group of countries who are against change, there are a small number of allies who basically are happy with the existing situation. they see no reason to change the existing set up. they believe that there is a reason to deploy american warheads and they serve an important purpose particularly in terms of linking the american guarantee to a defense of

europe, a physical proof of the collective defense commitments. these countries see no reason really to change their situation when they are asked, would you agree with the removal of these warheads, they reply how will that make us more secure? and if you can't say we believe more secure why would be supported? and i think lukasz will cover these in his presentation. those countries who have come into the alliance in the 1990s,r wish to prove the commitment and the nuclear guarantee, they really see no reason for that to be changed and of course adding

to that, they have a certain suspicion towards russia. so these two things the determination to have the article v commitment demonstrated and the suspicion of russia adds up to a position that says we are quite happy with the situation as it is and we don't think we should change. on the other hand there are a group of countries who would like nato to change its policy and those countries believe that we should in fact support president obama's speech. the alliance should itself move in the direction of reducing the role of nuclear weapons and in living up to the non-proliferation regime. a number of people also believe that the current situation where the warheads are deployed, these warheads, as so many are

redundant the purpose of which would cover -- or they are just not credible. it's not credible that the systems would ever be used in an emergency. so those people first to would like to see nato changes nuclear policy and secondly they are in favor of nato demonstrating a bigger support for disarmament and arms control so then you have the alliance of these two groups both for and against change. the common denominator for both groups is russia because both groups agree that whatever happens, we need to engage russia to reduce -- to engage in a reduction of similar systems on the russian side, reciprocity and that is common to both

groups even those both for and against who agree that russia has to be engaged on this particular issue. the defense posture review which i referred to actually gave the current situation, the current strategy and the current range of favorabilities a bit of help. it basically said that the current mix of capabilities, the conventional, the nuclear, missile defense, that these were in balance in these actually met the criteria for effective deterrence and defense. but nevertheless the ddpr did indicate that there was potential for change into particular areas. on one hand, it pointed out that, or it's task to nato to look at the current sharing arrangements, how countries

either the countries themselves are other countries who joined in the nuclear operations, the training and the exercises and so on, how can that sharing of the nuclear arrangements bring participation so there would be a nato committee will be looking at how the sharing is organized in the coming months. the second testing from the defense posture group was actually pointed at russia and the new nato committee was established which has been tasked to look at if nato were to agree to have fewer warheads, what would we be asking from the russians both in terms of numbers and in terms of transparency. so those two issues get some satisfaction to those people who are not totally happy with the status quo and would like to see

the change. now that is the debate we are going to be having in the coming months and in that debate i would just point out that there are certain countries whose voice will carry more weight than others. everybody for nato policy to be carried, obviously all 28 have to agree. that's consensus but in the same time within that process certain countries obviously have more weight than others. in the first country that has has the most weight is wages the united states in the nato discussions obviously. the united states as a country that carries the most weight because it is the extender of nuclear deterrence. it is the nuclear protector. obviously in developing its own plans, it consults regularly with its allies, but at the same time the allies are waiting to take their lead from the united

states. it's no coincidence that for the last two years, allies since the proud speech, allies have been asking what difference will the president's speech in part made to american policy? thus far we have seen no change. the american position has been very consistent in terms of of keeping things as they are. and nevertheless we are waiting to hear whether there will be a new product to speech and whether that will change things in terms of the american position on these issues. the other countries to carry weight you have obviously heard from, the united kingdom on the one hand and france on the other and i don't need to go into more detail. the nuclear discussions within nato obviously they have a certain standing. that of course isn't defensive of the organization, the

committees that do the nuclear planning but is very present in the drafting of all alliance documents and making sure those documents are in complete agreement with the position in france has been quite cautious on the whole disarmament issue. generally speaking the four countries in favor of existing arrangements, also their views often differ depending on whether you are talking to someone from the foreign ministry or talking to someone from the ministry of defense but in general, the view of italy, of belgium, the netherlands, and germany is this is a mission that they are prepared to continue. at the same time, you have a group of people that i will refer to as the disarmament the

usual suspects in the building who persistently press for disarmament to be given a higher profile. so we are now at a stage where we are looking to see what will be coming down the track in the next year on nato's nuclear policy and that will depend on a number of things. future developments will depend on first of all u.s. leadership. what will happen here in washington will determine to a large degree the policy that will evolve in nato. there are certain political developments in some nato countries that could affect the decisions. germany for example or in the netherlands if the parliaments decide that they are not particularly in favor of carrying on this mission that could make a difference. russia's willingness to engage or not engage on these issues is going to be a big deciding factor as to what we do and then

as always, the degree to which people pay attention to the nuclear issues is hostage to other things. what are the developments of grabbing people's attention? and finally the whole question of alliance cohesion. at the end of the day, for most countries, what is most important is keeping the alliance itself solid and strong as being the most effective contribution for security and stability. those are the elements i think we will be looking at in the coming year. i will say finally, very often nuclear is not very high on the order of priorities of the member countries. other things like afghanistan or syria tend to overwhelm the agenda. nuclear is seen by most countries as a very special issue. it's sensitive politically.

very many people in any country deal with it so it is actually a very special case. ambassadors, ministers, prefer to leave it to the experts, to leave it to the people who are supposed to know about these things as a technical as well as a policy issues those the number of people that deal with these are relatively small and it's never as high on the agenda as we often think that it should be. finally the bottom line is nato, cohesion and consensus. thanks. [applause] >> thank you simon and i think it's worth bearing in mind that quite often other people in other parts of the political system don't pay as much attention as some of us would like. going off to lukasz kulesa. he has been in and out of polish government working for the

polish think-tank. lukasz is a great collaborator with basic and i wanted to bring him over so you could get a central asian european perspective. thank you lukasz. >> thank you very much and thank you for the invitation and also thank you, i would like to thank the organizers for giving me this opportunity to speak. if i get it right from the program i am actually the only representative of a nonnuclear weapons based lists among the speakers. it's a great responsibility. i can say that you are on the supply-side of nuclear deterrence as well as my countries and a couple dozen other countries on the demand side of the nuclear extended --

my task is difficult like simonds. you basically hear the same story retold from a slightly different viewpoint and possibly that would help you in understanding some of the molding of the characters that are appearing in the movie called nato nuclear posture. nuclear is at the heart of the alliance approach to deterrence, and indeed the efforts in europe has been described as the glue holding the alliance together or nuclear weapons in europe are actually like the wedding ring of the marriage. the u.s. commitment in the european security is most

symbolic. however tradition of marriage isn't exactly what it used to be so do we need this wedding ring still and do we need this wedding ring support in europe? this seems like the transit line -- transatlantic divorces on the horizon that possibly we might decide if we can take on this -- take off his ring and put it in the drawer and put it on for special occasions like the nuclear crisis or we could possibly decide there are other ways of showing affection to each other. for example having a joint bank account, or basically the two sides of the atlantic doing something together against their neighbor. you asked about the federal and eastern european perspective and i will say if you believe in the

power of marriage, but since it's complicated in this kind of black and white decision in nat. i would call the first camp we don't even care camp or the do it later camp which is in my estimation the majority of nato member states. and if i was to kind of state who is in the no change camp i would also invite friends to join in the no change camp and ultimately the united states in the no change camp when it comes to the nato nuclear deterrence policy. but it's important to note that for the central europeans of the countries connected to the alliance in 1999 and later, actually the issue of the nuclear dimension was not

present during the nato space and not during the first years of the partnership. as you may recall in 1996 and 1997 actually nato made the statement, we have no intention, no plan and no allusion to deploy nuclear weapons in the territory of the new member states or to contract with the -- on the territories. these were basically accepted by the countries that wish to join the alliance. the preoccupation was more with the conventional deployment where nato also put some restrictions over the deployment of combat forces on the member states. so in a sense our region was forced to take a stance on this disarmament question and in 2008

and 2009 as simon described, if you are watching the coverage of the speech of president obama, actually the part on nuclear-free world and the agenda, people cheered but they weren't actually enthusiastic. some said it was because they didn't understand english and i assure you that the check can speak english but they did exact way catch the reason why the czech republic and the new member states so-called this particular announcement is being made. so the central european questions basically decided they quite liked the nuclear to turns provided to nato in including the deployment of the u.s. nuclear weapons. i will give you three and a half reasons for that.

the first reason has to do with a more general attitude on the deterrence requirements for the alliance and for the -- of article v, the collective defense clause which has historical experience of states in our region. so the experience of being more the subject of a political game involving russia, germany and some other neighbors in different configurations and from the political map of the world for some time which means our strategy deals with the war state scenario and are very much concerned about the credibility of defense and they very much fear abandonment by others and

also the realistic framework of international relations is the major framework in our country. also the weakness of the peace movement or the disarmament movement in the 1980s, basically many saw the peace process in europe over cruise deployment playing into the hands of moscow, playing into the hands of the common regime. and so we had this general attitude as the first reason and the second reason basically is the presence, the widest presence on the u.n. territory and the united states is the most credible source of assurance despite the advances of the european integration when it comes to security.

in addition to that, there's a superstition that the presence of the u.s. troops on our territory in the central european union especially with the current engagement during the crisis. as i mentioned at the beginning, there are three reasons for the -- nuclear forces and our territory but countries from central europe, for example to have the deployment of the element of the u.s. missile defense. in the case of romania actually succeeded. the most important reason surprise surprise, our relationship with russia and president putin it seems has continuity of sorts. the treaty policy which would include more muscle flexing

towards the west and to consolidate multiple presence into so-called russian zero insulins, especially from the central european perspective. moscow is basically continuing to present nato as a threat, as a possible and sometimes even actual threat. you can see it in the direction of the vision of the forces. you can see it in some of the exercises conducted last year and you can reconstructed even from the nuclear dock or in, which seems to basically involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons at an early stage to escalate conflict if the enemy is actually winning on the battlefield. also the presence of the nuclear-capable delivery --

[inaudible] in the russian military district so the central european border as a little bit to our sense of security. i will admit that there is a possibility of crisis with russia escalating to the level of -- but moscow might be somehow to play the nuclear card nuclear weapons deployment in nato territory against some other european countries which makes the timing not the best to actually reduce the nuclear extended deterrence provided by the united states. the additional factor, the three and a half factor which makes deterrence attracted to our region is actually that the

central european -- no financial contributions are needed. there is no political backlash connected with the participation of the nuclear arrangement and deployment on the european countries. of course indirectly we are -- deterrence through the development of our conventional forces in the nato operations in the defense budget and in the case of poland its 1.95% of the gdp but directly nuclear deterrence comes to us at no price at all. so obviously taken all of these issues into account, when we were confronted with an upsurge of nuclear disarmament, the first reaction was rejection and

presentation of these proposals as quite in reasonable even taking into account it would take a signal of alliance going on the article v function, giving up an access or a bargaining chip in relations with russia. so in response to the change, the change of nato deterrence, basically this argument about the numbers between the russian strategic forces and the forces fully deployed in europe was brought up. as a consequence of the disparity arguments we have the argument about a nuclear -- with transparency and confidence

measure. and indeed in 2010 we had a speech of -- in 2012 with the result of the hp are which is for the central europeans so the alliance meets the criteria for effective deterrence and defense and the further reduction of nuclear weapons would take place only in the context of reciprocity states with russia. what is next? in central europe there is the process of moving beyond nuclear deterrence of such and the deterrence posture of alliance needs to be broad enough to address contingencies and threats and should include

conventional capabilities and territorial nuclear defense and should include nuclear deterrence and the capability to counter emerging threats and cyberthreats. reciprocity is considered a basic submission for any changes and in the arrangement is quite satisfactory and quite sustainable on the nuclear horizon. i know we can resolve up with some other method of -- and the final changes and the strategic environment. quite obviously the deterioration of relations with rush-hour nuclear breakout by iran would threaten the position of those countries which are arguing for continued needs to have nuclear sharing arrangements.

central european but there is no radical change in the situation in the coming year i think the position of the component of withdrawal would become stronger. and the final thoughts, the position of the united states we remain -- will remain the most important factor shaping the debate in nato and in this particular transatlantic marriage the united states is leading in the relationship. thank you very much. [applause] >> now we have a -- to open it up to the floor. it i am sure there are many question marks. we have outlined some of them. does anybody want to contribute?

>> good afternoon. i am joseph and i am an analyst and used to writing and not speaking. your talk fascinated me and working in and around nato for the last 25 years, i was in belgium and i attended most every meeting of the nuclear planning and staff group for the last 10 or 15 years and am aware of the issues both operational and the policies. your talks, all of them fascinated me. apart from the european experience, in the first talk i was wondering in january of 2007 you gave a speech in which the

blair government of the continuation of the deterrence at that time. in the beginning of your speech and i don't know if you recall, you said consistency and you were the first person who has spoken on the topic in 1993. you emphasize consistency and the relative low cost of the continuation of deterrence -- deterrence. [inaudible] you are suggesting that there are alternatives and i'm a bit confused by the consistencies that you said were so important in 2007 and what i interpret perhaps incorrectly as you are advocating now for a contingency.

i just happen to have mighty copy of tony blair's memoirs with me and i think you quoted the first part of that correctly but you left out the second part. in the final analysis i thought the downgrading of our nation which did mention betty continues an uncertain world too big of a risk for defense. i would suggest adding the second part for completeness sake. the analogies, the wedding ring in which i believe is a -- analogy which she uses suggest that the wedding rings are an outward sign that there is no physical sign necessary. i disagree with that. of course there are more condescending analogies, that the u.s. contribution of nuclear weapons in europe are akin to a

beach house in which the parents decided to give it up but they didn't tell the children yet. i also find that a bit disturbing that the continuance of the arrangement. i was wondering if he could comment on -- i'm not sure how to address you correct way. i watched all the episodes but i don't know how to address the title. will you remain after, from the union, will you remain north of the border or south of the border? [inaudible] >> thank you so much. >> the last question, i am scott

and i don't think i can change that actually. it's a bit late. i probably could have a some stage but it's a bit late. consistently my countrymen have been 20 to 30% in favor of an amendment. they are at the moment 97% in favor of the amendment so i'm not -- but i am british and i'm scottish and i can tell you to do that. [inaudible] i will do these in reverse order. you are right to point out the other half of that sentence but of course the point i was making was the factor which is the

other half of the sentence was articulated in his speech, my prime minister speech and in addressing the issue. it wasn't articulated in any's stage -- states. the issue of states never came up in the discussion until he wrote his memoirs so that is why that part of the sentence was more interesting to me. if you see my short contribution this afternoon you will see i address the issue. it did not become apparent to me that it was my prime minister's menace -- memo memoirs. the question of consistency, i named you have the better of me in a sense. i don't have a copy of the speech at of the time but i remember making these arguments

for continuous deterrence in 2007 and i was the principle spokesman of the government for the maintenance of the status quo. i mean i knew more things than i have to say and i have learned much more about these issues and since then, but frankly the delay is implementing the decision has meant that we are facing the prospect for these replacement ssbn's in a much less benign economic environment that would then we had in 2007. there was a mini-crisis in the world in 2008 and has changed the ability of our country in economic terms to be at the profits of this expanse. also a considerable number of years or more understanding the effect of these weapons and if you are referring to the -- and

i think you are, then i've rehearsed a number of these changes and there's a much better understanding of the effect it has on climate change now because the climate change models we have with the use of nuclear weapons are better than they were before. in the diversity which makes it much less easy even then it was 10 years ago or five years ago to be able to use these weapons as a deterrent against these sorts of threats i enumerated consistently in the reviews over the last eight years and they're exactly the same threats of the reviews of all of our allies. so my question is, the speech, constituency or not consistency and the circumstances facing the challenges we have in the possibility of conventional capability which we are

deploying and using consistentll afford the luxury of an alliance with five votes at any given time as nuclear weapons? in our case not able to deploy four days cracks what now is the argument for maintaining this threat of our nuclear forces against the challenges that we face? and i want those arguments tested and there's a review going on that looks like -- looks at that and i'm not privy to them. so i mean there is consistency that there is not manner in consistency when the circumstances change.

>> the wedding ring analogy, thought i'd mention it but it is a trademark. another analogy and this one was quoted by sir michael quinlan that the reference in europe are akin to the columns which were used by the english architects. he was asked to be in a meeting in a suburb of london actually the people who ordered the columns set the building would stand on its own. he built the additional columns that made but made them in a way that finished centimeters before the first floor so some are claiming that actually the

nuclear weapons forward-deployed in europe are like the alliance of these columns and we don't really know what happens when you remove them. my personal opinion is that actually they wouldn't have permanent damage to the state of the alliance but it's very much open to debate. >> i think there was -- yes. >> a question for lord desmond brown. if they do vote to withdraw, what happens? what will they do if the option? what is your take if it happens that way? >> could you clarify that? >> is the question that if the united kingdom withdraws from, did you say withdraw?

scotland. >> scotland, all right. see i am a unionist politician in the sense that i support the union, and part of being a kenyan politician in scotland is not to show contingency. not because i am naïve or stupid but because it creates answers for those who seek the support of independent scotland. i know how scotland can secure itself in the context of its

continued membership with the united kingdom. so you will excuse me if i resist the temptation to say the defensive security policy for scotland, not that i could assure you the framework of it. i think i probably could but i'm not prepared to do that. broadly speaking my answer is of course an independent scotland could defend its security and there's no question. many other small countries do. however they face a significant degree of challenge doing so because of its geopolitical position and not the least of those would be, we have a rather substantial part of the economy and infrastructure and one of the most hostile environments in the world and we have a responsibility to secure those people whom we ask in the oil

and gas infrastructure. the possibility of attack against -- or some other forces. whether it could do it and in the absence of the relationships with united kingdom has and has built off of intelligence in other areas seems to me to be a challenge and those who support independence, i would think the gdp in the country and real-time sort of defense and security exists already in the context of the united kingdom's membership with nato and its relationship with the united states as an ally in particular. >> we have a question down here. >> bruce goodwin. given french independence statements of nuclear

independence and give them apparent united kingdom ambivalence of that nuclear capability, how might that affect france if france were the last western european nuclear power standing? >> first, as i said, sufficiency which is based on the national embassies. it means our position makes the security and environment -- right now the consensus is so strong that france will want in

the foreseeable future to retain its nuclear deterrence. if course if it were to be the last country in europe to still retain nuclear weapons, this will be of course a new environment but frankly we are not there and i don't see at this stage a debate in france and i don't see these kinds of debates are impacting the way we are seeking our nuclear deterrence. but again we are really not there at this stage. >> thank you francois. >> the same question i posed earlier with regard to nato and the european countries. i would like to hear the panelists view on, in real terms, is the nuclear deterrent perceived as a realistic, viable deterrent given the structure of

our deterrent and what we have in our stock pile? do people believe that indeed the u.s. or your perception of the folks that are not friendly to nato or europe or us, they believe that the u.s. will use its nuclear capability in a regional conflict? >> i think that's very helpful question and i'm going to go through each panelist in turn very briefly that's okay and perhaps we could start over on this side. lukasz is the deterrent both sufficient in capability and is their confidence in europe that the u.s. would have the will to use it in relevant circumstances? >> well trying to convey the central european rather than my personal point of view, i would say that there is an

organization that has to be at stake, that has to be a crucial core interest of the united states for the united states to make the decisions to use nuclear weapons. therefore if you talk about the regional that you implied the core interest of the united states would not be affected and in such a scenario i think there is a big question mark in our region, whether the united states will decide to use nuclear weapons to liberate rico for example or two -- but as i mentioned the issue of whether the united states would consider such a regional conflict to actually have global implication that includes the united states core interest, this is the crucial question for the central europeans. >> and it's not about deployment? >> is not about deployment.

we also kind of observed the whole asian stories where the japanese especially were attached to a particular type of weapon in the u.s. arsenal and consider them very very important and untouchable until the moment that they were told they would actually be retired. i think a particular weapon in a particular location right now for the reason i described, they became important because that was part of the dpr debate and reciprocity is there in nato's strategic documents. but i don't see ap 61 station in europe as our article of faith. thank you. >> thank you. simon. >> this was a question we asked over and over again in the cold war and developing nato strategy

and i think basically first and foremost it's a question of political confidence. it's a question of political confidence in american leadership. it's only secondary a question of actual capabilities and locations as lukasz has suggested. people have different views of the importance of location but the importance of location is related to the importance, your view of the person you're trying to deter. what we are trying to do basically is to deter someone from doing something, by raising the potential cost and what you need to do that first and foremost is the political leadership. the moment you go underneath that he began to try to envisage will the united states use its nuclear weapons to and defense of a particular region? then you get into never never land.

you can't possibly know what you are trying to do is stop the person in that country from doing that in the first place and i think people would have reasonable confidence today in the american capabilities the united states have but most of all it's a question of political confidence. the combination of political and capability the first and foremost the emphasis has to be on political confidence. >> francois. >> this is a political issue of course but what is at stake is the article v and this is the principle on which nato is based and i think for the past 60 years, it has been a credible commitment. of course there are guarantees that nuclear is the ultimate

safeguard but again the article v and i think and this this -- there is confidence in this. >> we have got time for one more question is there is one. if not -- yes? >> i would like to echo what general welsh said and say i think that the u.s. contribution works but you have to remember it's not just the forward to plate forces. it's also the u.s. strategic forces in the u.k. forces in the french contribution of deterrence and it's not just the deterrent force but you recall that germany and italy turned to the npt as a result of u.s. assurances so the u.s. deterrence as a whole also functions as a non-proliferation measure