that localism will get them a third chance against greed and profit when it comes to their wish to end the landfill site given that there is no evidence of need, a promise it would end in 1995 and community including who are increasingly saying no more dumping? does the prime minister really believe in local i'll? >> prime minister. >> i do believe in localism we

pot got rid of spacial strategies and regional and turned power to local government. a number of things local counsels were asking them for so they can act where they think it is necessary to act. on the specific issue that she raises i will look closely at it and write her. >> justin tomlinson. >> i know my right honourable friend will be concerned as i am potential job losses in my constituency. would he help secure support those that are after affected at this difficult time? >> well i completely understand my honourable friend's concern and we will work with local partners to minimize the impact of job losses. they assured us they're committed to the long-term sussuccess of the plant that i'm been to and remarkable plant and

3,000 people and they are chitted to honda and make sure that swindon continues to have a strong and economic future. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, this morning we learned that the energy company sse, will be freezing its energy prices for 20 months. would we, would we be right to assume that the prime minister believes that this price freeze is unworkable, impossible to implement, and probably a communist plot? >> it is hugely welcome in our country that energy companies are cutting and freezing their bills. as ever, as ever with the right honourable gentleman he has failed to read the small print. this is what scottish and

southern say about why they have been able to cut bills in this way. yes. the, this is what they say today. the decisions taken by the government to reduce the costs of the ecowere a principle factor in sse being able to make this price commitment. that is what is happening under this government and what a contrast, what a contrast with the doubling of the gas bills and the 50% increase in electricity bills when labour were in power. so mr. speaker, over the last six months we've obviously misunderstood the prime minister. he is the champion of the price freeze. that is what you must first understand, week after week, he denounced labour's call for energy price freeze to help families and businesses. but now appointly, now apparently he supports the price

freeze. can he explain why a price freeze was wrong six months ago but right thing to do today? >> what we've done is reduce the cost of energy charges so that companies are able to cut their bills. let me give him, let me give him the list about what has happened since i made the announcement about rolling back the costs of green charges. >> order. we must be able to hear both the questions and the answers. the prime minister. >> you're right, mr. speaker. they shout about him in support in here and brief against him outside. that is not -- that is what happens. this is what happens. this is what happens since i made that announcement. the fuel users, british gas, cut 50-pound off bills. scottish power, 54-pound off bills. eon 50 pounds off bill. edf 65-pound off bills and n-power, scottish power, edf

announced prices woken go up further in 2014. so can i thank him for the opportunity to demonstrate how this part of our long-term economic plan is as successful as all the other parts. [shouting] >> for once again, mr. speaker, shows how totally out of touch he is because the obr itself says that energy prices are rising by more than double the rate of inflation. that is the reality. but i do think, i'm very interested in his position now on price freezes because the energy secretary, the energy secretary said this morning, i'll tell them what we're not standing up to the energy companies in this country. that's what they're not doing. the energy sector, the energy sector freeze, who i fear, i fear over there, the energy sector energy secretary said this morning that he was calling on other suppliers to do the

same and freeze their bills. is it now the prime minister's policy that we should freeze bills? >> it's our policy that bills should be cut and bills are being cut under this government. that is what's happening. now, when we come to the let's have a look what scottish and southern said about the labor policy let's have a look at that i tell what you is weak. weak is not having an economic policy. weak is not respondings to. budget. weak is having no long-term plan for britain. that is what is weak. this, this is what scottish and southern say about labour's plan. is worth listening to. on labour policy it does not appear to include a clear commitment or a long-term solution to reduce the costs of supplying electricity and gas. and an externally-imposed 20-month price freeze would not reduce the cost of supplying energy. that is what scottish and southern say. and that is why, that is why i

assume, i found a labour business supporter. he is called jon mills. this is what he said about labour's policy yesterday. i don't think the labour party would do that if it were in power. if they can't, if they can't convince their one business supporter, how on earth can they convince the country? [shouting] >> mr. speaker, he is not the prime minister at all. he is the pr man for the energy companies. that is what he is. that is why bills are rising. what is clear his argument against the freeze has been totally demolished today. a price freeze for households and businesses is feasible, workable and it will happen under a labour government. and all of this shows he just doesn't get the cost of living crisis that is happening around this country. can he confirm that the obr

itself, should over the course of this parliament, living standard will be falling and first time that happened since the war? >> isn't great after a week we finally got to the budget? he finally got something to say about the budget. if he is concerned about energy prices he might want to explain why he has voted against the budget that has a 7 billion-pound cut for energy prices for businesses and consumers up and down this country? why did they vote against that? if he is concerned about the cost of living, why did they vote against the personal allowance of 10,500-pound for every single worker in our country? if they're concerned about the cost of living why did you vote against giving pensioners the right to spend their own money as they choose? if you care about the cost of living why did you vote against abolishing the savings tax paid for by the poorest people in our

country? not a clue about how to help working people. not a clue how to run the economy. no clue about the budget. >> not for the first time calm down, dear, calm down. or should i say, or should i say, or should i say for the benefit of the chancellor, eyes down dear, eyes down, dear. now the truth is, the truth is, that living standards, the truth is that living standards are falling over this parliament. and he talks about what the chancellor did on energy. it is classic give with one hand, take with another. he introduced, you introduced the carbon price floor and now he wants credit for giving part of it back to families and businesses. now, let's try him again. can he confirm that page 87 of the obr document says living standards are falling all over the parliament, yes or no?

>> he quotes time and again -- >> let order. let's hear the answers. the prime minister. >> of course we were made poorer by the great recession which they presided over. but i'm happy to compare the record on the cost of living anytime. we are cutting income tax for 25 million people. they voted against it. we have taken 3.2 million people out of income tax all together. they voted against it. we voted to freeze the council tax. they voted against it. we're freezing fuel duty, they voted against it. we're cutting spending so we can cut taxes for heart-working people. they have voted against every single change. their vote against the budget last night will go down in the history of this parliament as a massive own-goal for labour. >> he will go down in history as the prime minister, he will go down in history as the prime

minister who cut people's living standards over the course of this parliament and he can not deny it. he can't solve the cost of living crisis, mr. speaker, when he doesn't see there is one. he won't freeze energy bills because it has nothing to do with government. the thing you can always rely on with this prime minister, he will always stand up for the wrong people. >> what happening under this government is inflation is falling, unemployment is coming down. 1.3 million more people in work. 400,000 more businesses in our country. we are helping this economy recover from the ravages that it was left under labour. and that is the truth, mr. speaker. everyone can see that we have a plan for a better future for our country and everyone can see he is flailing around, a man with no plan, and increasingly no future. [shouting]

[inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. children with cancer are being denied new life saving drugs because they're out of date rules governing clinical trials allowing companies to exclude children even when the drugs could treat childhood cancers. will meet with me and the institute for cancer research to discuss how we can get the rules changed through the european commission to make sure families have hope and we get these treatments to children? >> i'm very happy to listen to the honourable gentleman and his suggestions. he and i both strongly support the cancer drugs fund that made a huge difference getting cancer drugs to people including children in our country. i'm very happy to look at his suggestion. >> steven powell. >> a little calm, please. beer and bingo, may not exactly be the bread and circuses of our

age but as leading lights of the coalition rush forward to express their love for them, will the prime minister disassociate himself from the snobbish and disdainful comments made by his party chairman? >> can i thank the honourable gentleman for once again advertising the fact that this government is cutting the tax on bingo operations and quite right because their industry was decimated by labour. and can i thank him also for pointing out the chancellor's approach of cutting beer duty because we want to back responsible drinkers and because we back the pub trade. yes, i'm sure the honourable gentleman, sitting opposite enjoys a game of bingo. he is only time he ever gets close to number 10. [shouting]

>> mr. speaker, yesterday -- [inaudible] very powerful and moving account of the posttraumatic stress disorder. will my right honourable friend join me to pay tribute to simon and louise is a completed epic fund from leads to parliament yesterday? their organization seeks greater -- highlight as well as one hidden costs of armed conflict. it also affects thousand of people who have been the victims of rape, sexual assault and other life-changing problems? >> i'm certainly happy to join my right honourable friend to praise the people who achieved through that run and raising, highlighting the importance of this issue. org sayings like combat stress do an extraordinary job in our country. we have to face up to the fact because of conflicts in iraq and afghanistan we'll have many more people suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder

who need our help not just this year, next year and long into the future. i think the chancellor's decision to make the money from the libor fines to use that to back military charities including those dealing with these issues is very farsighted. >> barry quick. >> mr. speaker, the 25th anniversary of the hillsborough disaster is less than three weeks away and fresh inquests are due to start. does the prime minister agree that scandal some police officers on duty of the day of the disaster are refusing to cooperate with the investigation and what are you going to do to prevent such a situation happening again? >> i think its important anniversary coming up. as he knows the ipcc is investigating all of these complaints and in addition the families can make complaints to the investigative tribunal as well. the home secretary written to all police forces asking to make sure they make available all the information they own on hillsborough. in my view that should include police officers cooperating with

this inquiry. >> dunn cain ames. >> departure, does the prime minister agree we should assist investment in the most energy efficient of plants in order to assure competitive and sustainable future for our tire manufacturers keeping jobs in britain? >> we should certainly do that we have a seen a huge recovery in the automotive industry. the decision by dunlop is disappointing. if we look at component supplies for the manufacture in the automotive industry we have huge pluses. but the broader help, the 7 billion pounds that referred to earlier that will help all business including those in automotive supply. >> jenny chapman. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a month ago i asked the prime minister about ambulance response times and he read out an answer -- didn't answer the question at you will. since then, since then an elderly darlington woman was

left more four hours vomiting blood before a blandance arrived. this time could not have prepared answer and get some action. >> i will be happy to look at honorable case that the lady mentions. i think that is the right thing to do is look at individual case. what we have in all our ambulance areas are waiting time targets ambulances are met to meet in response times and i'm very happy to look to see what happened in this case and whether lessons can be learned for the future. >> mr. speaker, with consensus breaking out in support of budget measures to help those provided for themselves will my right honourable friend join me seeking new consensus against imposing penal taxes on house that is have risen in value but whose owners may well be retired. >> what we want to see in our system is a fair tax civil. actually under this government the rich have made more in tax,

specifically more in income tax than ever year they ever did under labour. we have made sure, we raised taxes fairly, not least through the duty but we spent support a tax on the family home. we don't think that is the right separate forward and we'll fight it very vigorously. >> 17% of stay-at-home moms say that going back to work just wouldn't add up because of rising child care costs leaving them worse off. with maternal and employment rates going down on his watch, why is he doing nothing to help with the issue of rising child care costs before the general election? >> we are helping families with child care, not least by giving 15 hours, that is happening before the election. it has happened under this government in this parliament. 15 hours of free child care, free nursery care for three-year-olds and four-year-olds. they say it is not enough. it is more than labour ever provided.

it is good see the shadow chancellor gesticulating in favor of his leader now. he will be outside in a minute briefing against it. >> mr. speaker, the whole world, the whole world watched with crave concerns events in the crimea and massings of russian troops on eastern border of ukraine. coming on top of other incidents in the world in syria, north africa and venezuela and elsewhere is it not time prime minister reexamine the national security strategy and maybe, just maybe thought about reversing some of the deep and damaging defense cuts. >> well we will review the national security strategy on the four-year rolling basis we established it. i think that is the right thing to do. in terms of what we've done, in terms of defense spending we still have a top five defense budget for any country in the world. we've removed the 38 billion-pound black hole we inherited and we set out spending of 160 billion over the

next decade on defense equipment. but we wouldn't be able to do that in terms of modern defense equipment, the things that modern defense forces need, if we hadn't taken difficult an long-term decisions at start of this parliament. >> randy mcdonald. >> over 80% of the spending on transport infrastructure will be in london and southeast, leaving 5,000-pound per head compared with under 250-pound per person in the northeast. this gross disparity does nothing to help constituent is like middle brook pursue ambitions for growth. shouldn't such investment be more equitiably distributed across all the regions? >> when i look at what this government has done in terms of transport infrastructure struck if we look what happened in north of england which spent eight bill on transport in the north of england during this parliament. the new tyne crossing. 380 million to upgrade the a-1 from dishfor the to barton.

we did feasibility studies to improve the a-1 between new castle, all proposals brought forward under this government. we are rebalance economy and reinvesting in infrastructure and making sure northern england gets its fair share. >> unemployment in my constituency, mr. speaker, has fallen by over 20% in the last 12 months. with inflation recently falling too, that is providing wealth of upward pressure on living standards. would my right honourable friend agree with me we should take no lessons from the persistent negativity of party opposite and talking our country down and stick to our long-term economic plan? >> an absolutely key part of our long-term economic plan helping business create the jobs that our country need. we got 1.3 million more people in work, 1.7 million more private sector jobs compared to 2010. so we're seeing a rebalancing of our economy.

what that means for people is the safety and security of having a pay packet at the end of the week so they can support their families. that is what is changing in our country and that's why we need to stick to our long-term economic plan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. despite what the government said about cutting energy costs 71% of people surveyed are still worried about the bills and want a full energy bill price freeze now, so will the prime minister listen to the people of north tyneside and reduce the bills? >> we can help energy costs reducing bills rolling back costs of green levies and charges. own since we've done that we've seen energy company after energy company reduce the cost for people's bills. we also want to see a moremore competitive market. we want to see more players in this market, all things we're having to correct from the disasterous of stewardship from

the department of energy when the right honourable gentleman was in charge. >> each year thousands of lives are needlessly lost in this country because we diagnosed their cancers far too late. the all party group on cancer and why the cancer community has successfully lobbied the government to make sure that the local and national nhs are measured by bare one year survival rates in order to encourage ccg to introduce initiatives to promote early diagnosis, canner's magic key. the government deserves great credit for listening but twice now, and at late notice the publication of the one-year figures has been postponed. will the prime minister do what he can to insure that we neat the next deadline? >> p.m. >> first on the specific point my right honourable friend says, they are important figures and should be published in june. what we're doing in terms of cancer is backing the nhs with extra money. that is important. we have the cancer drugs fund

which i spoke about earlier that helped over 44,000 people since this government came to office and of course there is no cancer drug funds in wales made available for people but it is here in england. we're spending 750 million on cancer sure services. he is absolutely right about early diagnosis. that is why it is really important to make sure everything with our gps and recognize cancer earlier. >> the prime minister, indeed the whole house will be well aware of the contribution to the immense suffering of thousands of innocent victims across the united kingdom made by the qadaffi regime of sponsorship. ira terrorism and supply of arms and semtex to many republic groups. does he agree that the issue of compensation is remains a priority with this government? would he agree with me to review the keys and what progress might be met. >> minister, very happy to repeat what i said earlier.

the authorities are no doubt is the importance we attach to them in engaging properly with u.k. victims and seeking redress. i raised most recently with the libyan prime minister last september. this country faces huge challenges which makes it difficult to make progress on issue. i'm committed to doing that and happy to meet with the right honourable gentleman. >> does the prime minister welcome the change from the last labor government which talked loosely about british jobs for british workers but 90% of new jobs went to for return nationals? this sir, this government which lets success of its long-term economic plan -- last year, with last year, nearly, with last year nearly 90% of new jobs going to british workers? >> my right honourable friend is absolutely right. last year employment in our country went up by 425,000 people. that is 425,000 more families

with a breadwinner earning money for that family's security and i believe it is 87% of those jobs went to british nationals. there is much more we need to do. we're aiming for two million apprenticeships in this parliament. compel meant announcement by siemens creating a thousand jobs. barrettes creating 3,000 jobs in housing. we want to make sure junk people are available and trained for those jobs that means improving our schools, improving our skills and investing in apprenticeships. >> mr. speaker, westminster is awash with the rumor that the government is considering an amendment to the hunting gap. will the prime minister pay, will the prime minister take this opportunity to squash that rumor by committing his commitment to the coalition agreement which only allows for free -- on the legislation, on the repeal of the legislation? >> prime minister. >> there are always lots of

rumors going around westminster around good moment i'm sure to talk about them. as she knows, i said before in this dispatch box, proposals were made on a cross-party basis to the environment secretary about an amendment to the hunting act that would help in particular up land farmers deal with the problem of fox predation of their land. that letter has been received and is being considered but i regret to say i don't think there will be government agreement to go forward. >> lawrence robertson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i, members are in a state of high excitement but one hopes they're in a state of high excitement for the right honourable member. lawrence robertson. >> can i thank the prime minister for visiting my constituency during the recent floods. the place we met was a village called longford which floods badly but there are plans to build 3 1/2 thousand houses in

that very area. will the prime minister look at strengthening the flooding guidance he gives with regards to flooding? will he give stronger guidance to the environment agency because there is big difference between the rhetoric i'm afraid and what is actually happening in reality. >> minister. >> i know that my honourable friend's constituency suffered repeat he hadly with flooding and visited twice in recent years to discuss this with him with local people and local businesses. let me make two points. as he knows, any future developments have to comply with the national planning policy which makes clear inappropriate development in areas of risk of flooding should be avoided but secondly, more importantly, in 95% of the cases where the environment agency objects to the planning on flood risk ground, the final decision is in line with agency advice. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when bankers salaries have gone up five times the rate of ordinary workers, and when the top 100 chief executive offices are earning 133 times the

average worker's employed in their companies, isn't right that those on the highest incomes are contributing the most through tax? with that in mind, will he, will he then, will he then, rule out any consideration of a further cut in the highest rate of taxes for the richest 1%? >> we said that is not our priority but i do agree with, agree with with the honourable gentleman that the richest should be paying more in income tax and making a bigger contribution and under this government that is exactly what is happening. in a way, mr. speaker, that is what's interesting about the labour argument. they can't talk about jobs because there are more of them. they can't talk bin nation because it's come down. they can't talk about the deficit because we're cut cutting it. they have one argument left which is about fairness. if you look at figures, inequality is at lowest level since 1986. there are a million fewer people in relative poverty when they were sitting in the cabinet. half a million fewer children

sitting in poverty when they were sitting in the cabinet the fact that this government is delivering recovery and the government is delivering in a fairway too. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i notice that the prime minister is acutely aware coming up to 30 years anniversary of the appalling karnage at the golden temple. i have wonder what more can be done to at last bring someone to justice for the appalling events that followed across india. >> my honourable friend is right, what happened there 30 years ago led to tragic loss of life. it remains a deep source of pain to sikhs everywhere and pain on posting british india. i think the most important thing that we can do in this country is so celebrate the immense contribution that british sikhs make to our country, our armed forces and our business life and

celebrate what they do for this country. >> he is keen on boasting is he, is he, is he proud of the fact that so many elderly people in need are no longer able to get assistance, essential assistance because of the policies been pursued by this government? why is it that a cabinet made up of so many multimillionaires are so indifferent to the needs of people or most vulnerable in our society. >> i remember sid e sitting on that side of the house when labor gave pensioners them a 75-p increase. don't think we haven't forgotten about that. don't we haven't forgotten about the abolition of 10-p income tax as well. this government seen the pension gone up by 15-pound a week. we're putting money into the social care system because we protected the national health service. that is a record that compares very favorably with the party opposite.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. in the week of my 50th birthday, [inaudible] 50th anniversary of a will he join in me congratulating ken williams, head of the king center for helping me to organize anniversary an also my first apprenticeship fair which we will get more apprenticeship on top of the 3,000 we already have since this government came to power? >> well, can i first of all, very publicly wish her very happy 50th birthday and at same time wish everyone in redditch happy birthday and very kind monopoly set with redditch. i haven't put it in members register of interest. she is right to push

apprenticeship and job fairs. we're aiming two million apprinted tisships in parliament. i think it is one of the most important things we can do to provide a strong and secure future for our country. >> order. >> here on c-span2 we'll now leave the british house of commons as members move on to other business. you've been watching prime minister's question time, aired live wednesdays at 7:00 a.m. eastern when parliament is in session. remind he you see this week's session again sunday nights 9:00 eastern and specific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to view every program we aired from the british house of commons since october of 1989. we invite your comments about prime minister's questions via twitter using the hashtag, pmqs. >> this is a pictorial report on the nato manuevers of 1954. this is a gigantic land manuever

under the coordination of the fifth corporation, u.s. 7th army. it has many trains purposes but additional purpose could be to display nato's might before the communists this exercise is divided into two opposing forces called, black and green. in this exercise, both sides have the american-built, 280-millimeter atomic cannon. the atomic cannon has never been fired in europe. what you will see here is a simulated atomic explosion. but the atomic cannon can be fired in europe. the guns are ready, the men are ready. should the soviets attack any one of the nato's 14 nations, atomic guns will fire. >> from the u.s. army's the big picture series, nato manuevers aimed at deterring soviet

aggression in europe. this weekend on american history tv's real america. sunday at four p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> at a conference on telecommunications policy in washington, federal trade commissioner maureen ohlhausen warned against overregulation that could inhibit innovation and urged greater adoption of the ftc's case-by-case approach. this is part of an all-day conference hosted by the free state foundation. it's 40 minutes. >> okay. want to give thanks to commissioner reilly. now we're going to turn to our closing keynote address and i'm particularly pleased that commissioner maureen o'reilly is here to deliver that because a lot of the -- oh. i'm sorry. commissioner ohlhausen.

god. soon as i heard, i'm sorry. i did start it -- i started at 9:00. so, my apologies to commissioner ohlhausen. sincerely. so, but i'm pleased that you're with us because so much of the discussion today and i'm not going to preempt what you're going to say but i know it has to do with, you know, either preor post-verizon decision who should regulate the internet if anyone, congress, ftc. you know, fcc. so in order not to make anymore mistakes on your bio, we have, everyone here has your full biography here in our brochure. i'm not going to go over that now with your permission but. but i just, want to, thank you again for being here and please

welcome commissioner maureen ohlhausen, please. >> well, thank you, randy, for that nice welcome and thanks to the free state foundation for inviting me to speak today. randy you and your team do a great job in advocating on important technology policy issues and i'm honored to participate in today's possible discussion on the future of communications regulation. at the federal trade commission protecting consumers and competition on the internet is a substantial and growing part of our work and i have some specific ideas on the ftc's future role. after introducing the work of the ftc i'll make three points today. first, to protect consumers effectively while promoting innovation regulators must embrace regulatory humility and

focus on consumer harm. next, the recent verizon decision is an example of the difficulties of using prescriptive ex ante rule making to regulate a dynamic industry. the growth myth of the iron bed is instructive here as i will explain further in my remarks. then finally, reformers should look to the ftc's successful evolving approach to internet-related issues, including its ex post enforcement of basic competition and consumer protection rules. first a little background on the federal trade commission. the ftc's mission is to quote, prevent business practice that is are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers. to enhance and inform consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process and to accomplish these missions without unduly burdening legitimate business activity, end quote.

for a century the ftc has pursued this mission under section 5 of the ftc act which authorizes the commission to prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair deceptive acts or practices. these dual competition and consumer protection mandates are intentional. competition and consumer profession laws are complimentary tools and both help to promote vibrant competition that benefits consumers. or vibrant markets that benefit consumers. congress charged the ftc with carrying out this competition and consumer protection mandate across nearly all segments of the economy, including vast, the vast majority of commercial activity on the internet. and the ftc also enforces several issue or sector-specific laws such as the children's online privacy protection act and the telemarketing sales rule. this broad jurisdiction means that the ftc and the federal communications commission share

jurisdiction over much of the internet ecosystem with one significant exception that i will discuss later. whether at the ftc or the fcc all regulators of technology should embryce two fundamental principles. one, regulatory humility, and two, a focus on evaluating consumer harm. unless regulators follow these two principles, even agencies with the best designs, statutory, and regulatory structure will be less effective and possibly make consumers worse off. on the other hand, regulators who embrace these principles can help limit harm caused by the flaws that exist in all regulatory approaches. practicing these principles is particularly important when the area to be regulated is rapidly changing and difficult to predict. it is exceedingly difficult to predict the path of technology

and its effects on society. the massive benefits of the internet have in large part been a result of entrepreneurs freedom to experiment with different business models. the best of these experiments have survived and thrived, even in the face of initial unfamiliar late and unease about the impact on consumers and competitors. for example, you may remember the early widespread skepticism directed toward online shopping. but today, let me ask, how many of you bought something online this month? early, me too. early skepticism does not predict potential consumer harm. and conversely as the failure of thousands of dot-coms has shown, early enthusiasm does not predict consumer benefits. because it is so difficult to predict the future of technology, government officials like myself must approach new

technologies and new business models with a significant dose of regulatory humility. had means we must work hard to educate ourselves and others about new developments. we must reserve the effects on consumers in the marketplace. we must identify benefits and any likely harm. and if harms do arise, we must ask that existing laws and regulations are sufficient to address them, rather than assuming that new rules are required. and we must remain conscious of our limits. the success of the information economy means that we regulators can now gather so much data but data isn't knowledge or wisdom. data driven decisions can be wrong. even worse, data-driven decisions can seem right while still being wrong. political polling expert nate silver notes that, one of the pervasive risks that we face in the information age is that even if the amount of knowledge in

the world is increasing, the gap between what we know and what we think we know may be widening. and regulatory humility can help narrow that gap. equally important we ought to focus on evaluating consumer harm. before intervening, regulators must understand how new technologies and business models affect consumers, both postively and negativelily. this requires caveful factual and economic analysis. it also serves another check on action for the sake of action. as noted in the ftc at 100 report which i played a large role in, the improvement of consumer welfare is the proper objective of the agency's competition and consumer protection work. our consumer protection laws encourage us to focus on consumer harm whether the cause is pro deception or unfairness.

in analyzing a deceptive practice or omission, the ftc asks if the deception is material. that is, absent the deception, would the consumer made a different choice? as explained in our deseparate shun statement, if different choices are likely the deceptive claim is material and injury is likely as well. thus, injury and materiality are different names for the same concept. the ftc's unfairness statement relies even more explicitly on harm. it deeps a practice unfair if it causes substantial harm which is not outweighed by any offsettingconsumer or competitive benefits and the consumer could not have reasonably avoided the harm. the ftc's unfairness statement specifically identified, financial, health and safety as varieties of harm the commission should consider substantial and further states that emotional impact and more subjective types

of harm will not make a practice unfair. i believe that these clear statements as to what constitutes consumer harm have focused the ftc and made it more effective than it would be, for example, under a less-specific public interest standard. when the ftc exercises its competition authority, it also carefully evaluates consumer welfare or its corollary, consumer harm. the core mission of antitrust law is to improve consumer welfare by protecting the vigorous competition and economic efficiency. the ftc has expressly acknowledged that its dual consumer protection and competition mandates are bound together by the single objective of improving consumer welfare. this is in part why i have said, that consumer welfare must be among the guiding lights for the ftc to apply its section 5 authority to cases outside the reach of traditional antitrust laws. in such cases, i have argued

that before taking action, the ftc ought to establish substantial harm to competition or to the competitive process and thus to consumers relying on robust economic evidence that the challenged conduct is anticompetitive and reduces consumer welfare. by focusing on practice that is are actually likely to harm consumers, the ftc has limited its forays into speculative harms, thereby preserving its resource for clear violations. i believe this self-restraint has been important to the ftc's success in tackling a wide range of disparity problems without disrupting innovation and think that is a model worth replicating. so regulatory humility and a focus on evaluating consumer harm are both necessary to successfully protecting online consumers and competition. however, regulators also need the proper tools for the job. although the ftc and the fcc share jurisdiction over the

internet, the tools they use are very different. the fcc has traditionally regulated the communications industry using prescriptive ex ante regulation. the communications act and subsequent legislation establish ad system of classification for various telecommunication providers or services and within that silo structure the fcc has generally conducted administrative procedure act rule makes that classify end at thises as falling within a specific silo and detailed the procedures these varies types of earnedties must follow. frederick hyack who investigated laws and liberties would call them rules of command and rules of organization as distinct from rules of spontaneous order such as common law that arose organically and evolve over time. i believe that the prescriptive ex ante approach is not

well-suited to regulate the rapidly evolving internet. prescriptive ex ante regulation faces at least they knowledge-gathering challenges. first, a regular, regulator must acquire knowledge about the present state and future trends of the industry being regulated. the more prescriptive the regulation and the more complex the industry the more detailed the knowledge that the regulator must collect. second, collecting such sufferings information is very time-consuming if it is even possible at all because such knowledge is generally distributed throughout the industry and may even be latent. third, as a regulated industry continues to evolve, collected knowledge can quickly become stale and this is particular concern for fast-changing technological fields like telecommunications. now these knowledge problems can lead to negative consequences. first, because statutory

procedural and resource constraints make it impossible for the regulator to continually update the rules, it's difficult for exante regulation to keep up with technological change. these props may not be as acute if the regulated industry is evolving slowly over decades but the internet ecosystem which is rapidly evolving the prescriptive ex ante result resulted in significant mismatches between the rules and reality. second, because ex ante regulations are an attempt at almost impossible task of predicting the future, some harms will occur that weren't anticipated. simultaneously, regulations may prevent harmless or even beneficial practices. and third, prescriptive ex ante regulations can hinder innovation. for example, if an innovative new project or service doesn't easily fit within a particular

statutory or regulatory classification the innovator may be uncertain how to comply with the law. such legal uncertainty exacerbates the already risky effort to develop something new which ultimately discourages innovation. so in short, prescriptive regulation, particularly of fast-changing industries, risks becoming procrutian. let me explain what i mean that. in greek mythology he was a rogue black smith a son of sea god poseidon who offered weary travelers a bed for the night and built an iron bed especially for his guests that sounds nice and welcoming. there was a catch, if the visitor was too small for the bad he would forcibly stretch the guest's limbs until they fit. if the visitor was too big for the bed, he would amputate limbs as necessary to fit them into the bed.

eventually he met his demise at greek hero who cut off his head. now the general lesson of prrocrutes is warning against to squeeze complicated things in simple box. take complicated ideas, technologies or people and force them into our preconceived models. as talib points out in the bed of procruses we don't recognize this backward fitting approach or even proud of our cleverness in reducing something complicated into something simple. now regulatory humility councils embracing the lessons of prokrutes. regulators should resist the urge to simplify, we should make every effort to to rate complexity and develop institutions robust in the face of complex and rapidly-changing phenomena. unfortunately due to the limits of knowledge, regulation too

often is a procrustea in bed for the regulated industry. when the regulated industry is rapidly evolving yesterday's comfortable regulatory bed quickly become as torture rack for tomorrow's technologies. in particular the history of telecommunications regulation is largely a story of regulatory attempts to fit new technologies into an out of date regulatory model. from the 1913 kingsbury commitment to the 1996 telecommunications act and its subsequent implementation, congress and the fcc have constructed a bed of regulation that makes distinctions based on physical platform, business model and geographic characteristics that are increasingly irrelevant. consequently, when considering the converging technologies and overlapping business models of an ip-based world, the fcc has struggled to employ prescriptive exante regulation tool in a

legally-sustainable manner. the pro-krustean title two bed doesn't allow the fcc esmuch flexibility. the verizon versus fcc decision and open internet order together provide fascinating example of the ex-ante approach n a 2000 two declaratory ruling and several subsequent decisions the fcc determined that broadband internet service was information service and was there for not subject to title two regulation. in other words the fcc decided not to subject broadband internet services to the bed of title two riglation because it just doesn't fit well. but fast forward to 2010, where in the open internet or, the fcc established three requirements on broadband service providers. antidiscrimination, anti-blocking and transparency and as you all know the d.c.

circuit recently struck down these rules in part. the court found that by imposing antidiscrimination and anti-blocking fuels the fcc was imper missably treating broadband services like common carrier services. so we're returning to our gruesome greek met at that fore, as if the fcc said, broadband providers we're not going to force you into a title two regulatory beds but we're going to trim some of your limbs and never mind these are some of the same restrictions we would impose if we were going to force you into title two. the up shot off the court's decision to impose anti-blocking and antidiscrimination rules the fcc would have to reclassify broadband as a title two common carrier service. that is, force it into the title two bed no matter how badly it fit. net neutrality is not the only internet issue where technological change is exposing flaws in the ex-ante approach.

voice over internet protocol is another good example. now voip is a broadband based telephone services and to the consumer voip looks nearly identical to the traditional voice service that the fcc regulated as common carrier since its earliest days. although the fcc has imposed certain regulations on voip, the fcc does not regulate voip as a common carrier service. the fcc has not acted on a lond pending rule making proceeding posing the question whether voip is title two common carrier service. i don't raise this to encourage the fcc to regulate voip under title two but rather to emphasize that the ongoing voip transition will continue to push difficult issues like this to the fore. given that the prescriptive ex ante regulatory approach faces such difficulties, what's the alternative? for consumer protection and competition issues i have

significant experience operating within the model we use at the federal trade commission. the ftc model is the quite different from the fcc's. instead of the a siloed statute, section five charges the ftc to prevent and punish unfair methods of competition and unfair deseparatetive acts or practices. the applies all industries with a few exceptions. and where the fcc's regulations generally set the boundaries of what certain types of entities can do, the ftc's statute senses off deceptive and unfair practices for all entities but generally permits everything else. the ftc's process an enforcement centric, rather than a rule-making centric one. and as such, it is ex-post, aren't ex ante, rather than case-by-case rather than one size fits all. because an enforcement action requires the complaint and a case to move ahead, the ftc's

method typically focuses on actual, or at least specifically alleged harms rather than having to predict future harms more generally. because of these structural differences the ftc's enforcement process is less effective by the systemic knowledge problems of the fcc prescriptive ex ante rule making approach. first rather than having to collect detailed knowledge about an entire industry, the ftc only need gather enough information about the specific parties to the dispute and their behaviors in the relevant market. and the ftc has significant investigatory authority to gather such information. second, collecting such information is much simpler because the vast majority of that information will be in the hands of the parties to the case. and third, even in rapidly-changing industry the ftc's decision on a case will bind only those parties to the specific case. now the case will have

precidential value but when the ftc weighs that precedent in future cases it can consider any changes in the underlying facts. thus, the ftc's approach facilitates what adam thierer calls permissionless info or anti-cautionary principle better than a prescriptive rule making approach. the proof they say is in the pudding. as the internet has become increasingly integral part of society the ftc's enforcement centric approach has enabled it to serve a increasingly large role in protecting consumers and competition online even while the industry continues to innovate. in fact the ftc is already addressing major internet centric concerns including new issues in privacy and fraud and advertising and other consumer protection issues along with competition issues. perhaps the most significant internet issue that the ftc has tackled is privacy. the ftc leads the federal effort

to protect the privacy of consumers online. now online privacy is a very wide-ranging topic covering spam email and data collection, security, the safety of children and online advertising and hot new top picks include the internet of things and big data and the ftc has been active in all of these areas using a full range of tools including enforcement, consumer and business education, policy research and convening stakeholders for discussion. so for example, the ftc has brought a wide range of enforcement cases addressing consumer harms related to the internet including more than 100 spam and spyware cases and 50 data security cases and we've brought these cases against a wide range of defendants including international hotel chain, a major data broker a national drugstore chain and the social media site twitter and we also hold companies to the promises they made in their privacy policies and brought actions against companies such as google and facebook for

violating these promises. additionally we brought over 20 cases to enforce the children's online privacy protection act and we connected more than $7 million in civil penalties. i believe this strong enforcement record reflects the ftc's readiness and capability to protect consumer privacy online even in the face of technological change. so enforcement is a cornerstone of our activity to protect consumers online but it is supported by wide range of other complimentary tools that the ftc uses to promote consumer welfare and competition online including consumer and business education and policy r&d efforts. . .

and for businesses we also offer a wide range of legal resources and guidance and and books on topics including online advertising and privacy laws and best practices across the internet. the ftc has a strong policy research and development capability that uses to stay abreast of new technology and emerging issues. so, for example, the ftc has been closely studying the related issues of baghdad and the internet. we have hosted successful workshops on these topics and others including disclosures and online marketing and advertising practices and children's online

privacy and mobile tracking. future ftc workshops will cover topics such as consumer behavior prediction and analysis, consumer generated health data. these workshops are particularly valuable because they not only do they educate consumers and businesses, they also help the commission informed about ongoing technological development and the benefits and risks of any new such technology. so we are turning to the verizon decision for a moment. although the decision does not explicitly affect the ftc's important role in protecting the internet consumer, it may have an important effects. first, the d.c. circuit did uphold one provision of the open internet ordered that could assist the ftc's consumer protection effort. specifically the court upheld the order's requirement that broadband service providers be transparent about what they offer. this transparency requirement could provide useful information to consumers.

and the ftc can monitor the information provided by broadband service providers to ensure that it's accurate and consistent with the actual practices. and to the extent that we find statements inconsistent with reality, our deception of 30 empowers us to take action to protect consumers. second, the d.c. circuit while striking a parts of the open internet order, did accept it internet order, get accepted at d.c.'s assertion that it is indeed an authority under section 706 of the communications act. the partial dissent in verizon raises significant and legitimate concerns regarding majority's interpretation of the fcc's 706 authority. the scope of this authority would appear to be bounded only by the fcc's creativity and connecting its proposed regulatory action to the promotion of broadband deployment. there's a lot of uncertainty about the extent of the fcc's 706 authority, it does appear a particularly aggressive fcc

could assert overlapping jurisdiction with the ftc on internet consumer protection issues. for the reasons i've already discussed, i believe that the ftc's enforcement driven case-by-case approach is much better suited to the fast-changing internet world and, therefore, i counseled caution in adopting of the prescriptive rules in this area. so with our array of enforcement and education and research tools, the ftc is well-equipped to advance its competition and consumer protection mission online, even in the face of constant change. but this isn't to say that the ftc is perfectly equipped. there is one significant change that should be included in any update to the communication laws. common carriers should no longer be exempt from ftc oversight. so although the ftc and fcc chair jurisdiction over much of the internet marketplace, common carriers are exempt from ftc jurisdiction. in the prior era of separate

regulatory silos of communications channels, this may have made sense. but today, and carriers and non-common carriers can be directly in a number of markets. the commentary exemption to archers ditch means these competing technologies face disparate radio toward regimes through an accident of history. and this exemption also frustrates effective enforcement with respect to a wide variety of activity, including privacy, data security and billing practices. and should be removed. so just to sum up i want to thank you for your attention today, and now i know a lot of energy will be spent over the next several years looking at how we can reshape our communication laws. i hope that during this process legislators and regulars will embrace regulatory humility and focused on evaluating addressing consumer harm. and further i urge all of you to reflect on the demonstrated challenges of using prescriptive

approaches to regulate a fast evolving technology like the internet. and i believe the ftc successful ex post enforcement of competition and consumer protection rules provides a useful template for protecting internet consumers. and i look for to working with all of you and with congress to update our laws to serve consumers better. thank you. [applause] >> well, maureen, thank you so much for the. that was very substantive address, and i think an important address. so i appreciate that. i just want to say two quick things and they were going to take him in keeping with tradition before we adjourned for the day, i'll take a couple questions, and commissioner ohlhausen has graciously agreed to answer those. but first i want to say, i'm going to pick -- make a

confession and a probably a minority in the room, but i didn't know who pro--- i did know, we always refer to that, so i thank you for that. i much better educated now. secondly, i'd like to say, i hope you don't take this personally but i wish we could clone you actually and then one of you over at the fcc, it's an appropriate occasion should arise over there as well. now, i want to just remind you that we can continue the conversation on twitter at hashtag fsf con f. i hope you will do that. swing keep the conversation and ideas going as well. so i'm going to see whether we have a couple of questions.

is there someone who hasn't asked a question i'm going to give them first dibs and then if that's not the case you might be able to be a repeat offender. so do i have any questions? >> i've got one right back in the back, and just, please, state your name for the record and then ask a question. >> thank you. earl comstock. question for you. about the fascinating presentation, but obviously there's more to the communications act than just looking at some of these things and i'd be curious, i didn't take it that you're suggesting, or i'd be interesting in hearing how your agency's authority would allow you to address issues like universal service, access to networks in the first place, for example, what if a broadband provider said you can't attach devices that aren't approved by me? that's the kind of

anti-regulation that actually to the creation of the internet was obligation to allow attachment devices that met certain standards without qualification. for example, and cable networks today you don't see that. i'd be curious how your agency's authority would be able to address things like that. >> so the ftc wouldn't be addressing issues like universal service, right. that is not a competition or consumer protection issue. that's another basically policy goal that you would need a different approach to. but for example, obligations of broadband service providers, more generally towards the consumer, initially it made sense when you have a monopoly provider to have more pervasive regulatory structure to control how they deal with consumers, because consumers don't have another choice. if they don't like that they don't have anywhere else to go. one of the strongest things we've seen in this area is a

move towards greater competition and greater choices for consumers. shall not sure it makes sense anymore to have these very prescriptive regulations when you have a market system that may provide different options for consumers. so, for example, if a broadband provider were to do that, if they were to try to impose this on their subscribers, i think those subscribers would have a pretty strong incentive to say, who else is offering this service? i don't like this. i'm going to go use wireless or i'm going to go use some other broadband provider. so to try to design rules for issues that are unlikely to arise in a competitive market, to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense. but that's how i would answer that i think. first we need to look at is this something likely to happen, and then if it is likely to happen, do we already have the tools of able to address those kinds of concerns such as the antitrust laws and consumer protection

laws. so if you provider said, you can do what you want, and then they don't actually adhere to that promise, that's a fairly straightforward dissection issue. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, appreciate that but i've only got the room for a certain amount of time here. so if there's another question over here, if someone else has one, i'll recognize them. if no one else has one i'll give them another one. doesn't look like anyone does. >> three cheers for the hayek reference. so what do you do the essence of the common-law? is a case-by-case or is it something more than that to happen in each case? >> well, certainly we have, rights, our basic principles, unfair or deceptive acts of

competition and it's important for the ftc to articulate i think generally what those mean. we've got a dissection statement and unfairness statement on the consumer protections on. and as you probably know and i don't know if others do, using unfair methods of competition, authority of the ftc, i said we need to have a similar statement saying what does that mean generally. but then as you apply it to evolving facts, that's where the common law comes in, where you start saying okay, what does that mean when you're talking about online advertising? what does it mean when you're talking about a new technology? we kind of applied in an ongoing way that way. it's the kind of harm we should be addressing? that's a we talked about in the unfairness statement. what's the substantial harm, things like that. i think over time it's much like how a court would apply a general statute to the facts at hand. i think that's kind of what our role should be, rather than to

try to get in ahead of time to forecast what all the problems may be integrate a role that controls business behavior to forestall all of those problems. >> okay. well, first of all, i just want to thank all of you for coming, before i think commissioner ohlhausen again. as i said, at the beginning this was our sixth annual free state foundation telecom policy conference, so we are certainly already looking forward to thinking about the next one. and/or events by the way in between, our seminars and other events. so commissioner ohlhausen, i've got as a token of our appreciation a free state foundation, that's a blanket. it may come in handy today. now, commissioner clyburn and commissioner o'reilly, i think,

both took theirs. i said at the outset of the conference with commissioner clyburn, it not only cost $14 despite how nice they look, so hopefully, that fits within any restrictions over there at the federal trade commission. but i want to thank you again for a very, very substantive and important talk. thank you, and this concludes our session. [applause] >> a live picture from brussels, belgium, president obama is about to make remarks at the closing of the eu-u.s. summit. the present pay tribute to american troops who died a century ago in one by laying a wreath at a memorial. to remark the wars lessons are still relevant. the president visited. later today he will travel to

rome, italy, where he will remain overnight. we expect remarks in just a moment. live coverage from c-span to. -- c-span to. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] >> again we are live from brussels, belgium, where we are awaiting remarks from president obama this morning. he will be talking at the closing of the eu-u.s. summit. while the president is traveling abroad, the ap is reporting that from the state department is saying the second of state john kerry will be traveling to europe next week and then make a brief tour of north africa.

secretary to will be visiting brussels for a nato foreign ministers meeting on april 1. he will focus on russia and ukraine as well as afghanistan. in brussels, secretary will see european union officials to better cornel west response to russia's annexation of tiny. he will also travel to algeria and morocco for talks on counterterrorism and bolstering democratic transitions in the arab world. and announcement made in jordan were such a state john kerry is currently visiting. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> again we're waiting room are some president obama this morning. is expected to close out the eu-u.s. summit that's been taking place. while we wait for the president from earlier today we spoke to reporters discussed the white house proposed changes to nsa

data collection. we expect the president to announce later this week from this morning's "washington journal." >> talk about what's going on when it comes to data collection by the nsa. this week several plans announced not only from the white house but house republicans as well. join us to help us understand what's been proposed from the "washington post," national security reporter and joins us on the phone. thanks for joining us. could you talk a little bit not only about the president's plan and what was unveiled by house intelligence committees but with those two comparing contrast so to speak? >> guest: so presidents plan has not yet been revealed but we do know some of the broad outlines in basic terms. both plans will end the mass collection of america's phone records. the question, the differences are in how far they would go and

what the degree of judicial review would get and when. so the president's plan would end the collection of phone metadata which is numbers, phone numbers, calls, length of time a phone calls. but not the content. and he's stressing that it would require a judge to approve every phone number that the government wants to submit to the phone company to be searched on before it is searched on. where as a plan that was unveiled yesterday by the leaders of the house intelligence committee would have the judge look at those numbers after they were submitted. probably after but after. so that's a key difference i would say. >> host: as far as the president's plan, the ultimate

hold the information? >> guest: in both cases the phone companies would continue to hold the information just as they always have. they collect data on our phone calls whenever we make them. and so they've continued to do that. it's just that rather than turning all of that data over daily as they do now, it's not all companies but most several big ones, rather than doing that, during all over to the nsa like they do now, they would just hold on to it. they would hold onto it any longer than they do now, which is key, but the key difference here is that the government will no longer be collecting all of that data in mass. and storing it in a big database and then searching through the numbers. they would have to ask the companies to return them information on specific phone numbers. >> host: ellen nakashima, one of the things referenced yesterday by the presence of something called hops.

could you tell us what that is and what that means to the various proposals on data collection? >> guest: both the president proposal and the house intelligence committee's leadership proposal i believe would limit the queries the two hops. so what happened in the data analysis is when you submit a number to be searched on, it returns in theory all of the phone numbers that were in contact with, all the numbers you call, all the numbers who called you. that's the first hop. that set of numbers that were returned. the second half is finding out all the numbers that were in contact with that first hop, that first set of results. so that you can essentially can build out an exponential form, the chain of contacts for people who are called. does that make sense?

>> host: because it would aid in investigations a source not only the one number is but who the numbers calling as well? >> guest: that's right. to find who was in contact with you and what the committee of contacts is. maybe they were, in touch with someone who's a suspected terrorist and we didn't know that. that's also partly where we have some privacy concerns. the further out you go in those hops, the greater the chance, the wider you are casting the net and the greater chance you will pick up totally innocent law abiding people. in fact, there's a third version of legislation, reform legislation that would not allow hops beyond first hop whatsoever. it which is basically and bulk collection and although collection, not just the phone metadata, require judicial approval up front and would not

enable that automatic second top. >> host: ellen nakashima, some details of the president's plan being put out, when to expect the formal announcement? >> guest: the white house isn't saying. but they are working on a proposal. the president has given his attorney general and director of national intelligence a deadline of this friday to come up with options. so i guess in a sense they have met that with this plan which he suggested in a press conference he thinks is workable. so now let's see what they come up with and what happens in congress. there are some lawmakers who say the president doesn't need to actually have legislation to end phone metadata mass collection. he can do that now administratively. but reform advocates also want to take advantage of this window of opportunity to get broader reforms, not just of this metadata, this phone program,

but to change the underlying law. so that it could be clear that it cannot be interpreted to allow both collection our mass collection of all types of data as well. >> host: that's ellen nakashima with the "washington post" picture report on national security matters and talk about the president's proposal for nsa data collection or ellen nakashima, thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you. spent president obama's expected to announce those changes sometime this week. again we're waiting for president obama. is said to make remarks to closing of the eu-u.s. summit. is attending this week. earlier today the president laid a wreath in belgium were hundreds of fallen u.s. troops helped liberate belgium. but today he will meet with the nato secretary-general, general rasmussen for talks and this evening he will travel to the center for fine arts where he will deliver remarks and then

it's off to rome, italy, where the president will meet with pope francis for the first time. that's scheduled to happen tomorrow. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> as the rim continues to fill as we await remarks from president obama after the closing of the eu-u.s. summit here. the u.s. senate is scheduled to gavel in at 10 a.m. eastern. general speeches for the first hour and procedural votes on judicial nominations. after further debate at about 2:30 p.m. we're expecting answers of confirmation votes on the nominations. that will be followed by a vote on nomination of u.s. ambassador to saudi arabia joseph westphal. a simple majority is needed for all of those votes. yesterday senate majority leader

gary reid withdrew essential bill from the floor in consideration and received unanimous consent to call up the house passed bill. tomorrow there will be two hours of debate as this and will hold to both related to the house passed bill. the senate will first vote on the substitute a minute by senate foreign relations chair bob menendez and ranking member bob corker. that the name that would authorize $150 million in economic assistance to ukraine and imposed sanctions on russian and ex-ukraine official to a vote on final passage of the house bill as modified will follow. simple majority needed for both of those votes. the senate is set to gavel in at 10 a.m. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> as we await president obama this morning, ma a reminder that we do have life committed coverage of the u.s. senate. the senate is set to gavel and

at 10 a.m. we will bring a live coverage of the senate as they begin their session, so if we're not able to bring to the president lied, you will be able to see it live online at c-span.org. yesterday several senators came to the floor to talk about the supreme court's oral argument on the hobby lobby case that took place yesterday morning involving the contraceptive mandate in the health care law. here's what they had to say as we await remarks from president obama. >> in the supreme court, something very significant is happening. i'm from oklahoma. david green, a guy in oklahoma city, and his wife started a group called hobby lobby by making picture frames in their garage. that wasn't that long ago. i can remember they're doing that. they were able to open the first store it was about 300 square feet with the profits they made in the little garage operation. it is david green faith,

practice in the day-to-day business decisions that led him and his family to build a successful nationwide company. over the years that business has grown to 602 stores. of 6-under to stores now, madam president with plans to expand the hobby lobby has an annual revenue upwards of $2.5 billion. and david has had success despite running his business in a very countercultural way. for instance, all of the retail stores close at 8 p.m. each night and all day on sunday. so employees can spend time with their families. this is appreciated by the companies some 16,000 employees who are paid above the minimum wage. hobby lobby's generous employee benefit plan included an on site clinic with no co-pay at hobby lobby headquarters, and eligibility to enroll in medical, dental and prescription drug plans, along with long-term disabilities and life insurance

and a 401(k) plan with a generous company match. this is something they have done long before obamacare came along. at one point or hobby lobby was challenged by a competitor who said they would bury the company with their money so the firm opened their doors on sunday ultimately earning the company some $150 million in revenue each week. that was over and above that competitor previously had been able to raise. eventually david green said he was challenged by god, to trusting him with his business to go back to his policy of closing on sundays, and he did and his business has prospered. david's christian faith runs deeper than a desire to have a profitable, successful company. but he's getting both. when he was faced with the decision to make more money or of a god, he chose to obey god and what of the kant's quick. more recently, listen to this, madam president, he didn't turn

to a competitor to came from the united states government. part of obamacare requires employers not only to provide health insurance for their employees but also to provide free access to the bills that terminate pregnancy. david as i do and many other believe that life begins at conception but i believe that. david believes that. we are free to believe that. and offering an option to end that life would be in violation of our moral compass as defined by his faith and our faith. here is a guy who feels so strongly in his belief -- >> on good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the press conference in brussels. i invite first the president of the european council barroso can

present the main details. mr. barroso, you have the floor. >> good afternoon. it has been a great pleasure to welcome president obama to this eu-u.s. summit in brussels. we meet at his at important moments, certainly for peace and security on the european continent. events in ukraine and elsewhere go to show that there are many unsettling uncertainties. and that's why the summit uncertainty of the? >> guest: that relationship is so crucial. it is the bedrock to face these challenges, about friendship tested by history, and that is a shockproof. cooperation among our countries is unrivaled. so in a meeting today, we focus on the issues where together, together we can provide the

political sphere at the highest level. we obviously spoke about ukraine, today's most pressing message. it was a follow-up to our actual exchange at the g7 meeting in the hague two days ago. europe and the united states have a strong and coordinated position. for the eu side, i refer you to the both statements of last week european council. we support ukraine in its pursuit for a better life as a nation. crimea illegal annexation is a disgrace and the 21st century, and we will would not recognize it. the first priority is to de-escalate the situation. russia's support for on osce mission in ukraine is a positive step. the fact that rush and ukraine's foreign ministers finally met in the hague is another sign of

more openness. however, if there is further escalation, we europeans and americans are ready to intensify sanctions. with the understand that sanctions are a means to an end. the goal is a negotiated solution irrespective of international law. we also stand by georgia and moldova and european union has brought forward in june the signing of the association agreements with them. apart from ukraine we talked about negotiations with iran, about working to end the terrible war in syria, and to stop violence and anarchy and the central african republic. both our humanitarian tragedies. united states and europe will continue their work to fight terrorism, -- a chip's death sentence of over 500 muslim brothers we urge egyptian

authority to restore the rule of law. our second major force was economy. we spoke about recovery in europe which is taking hold. we should have 2% of growth next year. thanks to much hard work europe and the eurozone have really moved on. the focus now is on reinforcing economic fundamentalists. last week saw the finishing touch on the banking you know, the centerpiece of a stronger euro zone. we also spent some time discussing energy, especially energy security, what we can do together to reduce europe's dependency on russian gas. our g7 energy ministers will meet on this soon. we also spoke on climate change and our ambitions for the upcoming global negotiations. and today, together with president obama, we reconfirmed our shared commitment for an ambitious transatlantic trade.

president barroso will see more about it in a minute. let me just say that in days like this, forging even stronger economic ties across the atlantic is also a powerful political sign. a way to show our public opinions and the world's -- the world who we are at heart but in europe, economies based on rules come societies based on values, and proud of being so. finally, today we spoke about data flows. president barroso and i conveyed to the president, european concerns after last year's revelations on surveillance programs. these concerns are shared widely by citizens in eu member states. and we welcome the recent announcement by president, united states and european union are taking further steps to address these worries and restore justice. on the government of check will have an umbrella agreement on data protection by december

based on equal treatment of eu and u.s. citizen. on the commercial, u.s. have agreed -- the so-called safe harbor framework transparently and late uncertainty out of essential transatlantic trade, and we all agree on the. ladies and gentlemen, so all in all the focus and reductive meeting and timely, too. mr. president, we are looking forward to receiving you again, again in this building in less than three months for the g7 summit here in brussels. thank you. >> thank you for your remarks. remarks. i want to give the floor to the president of the european commission, jose manuel barroso. >> first of all, president obama, it's great to have you here in brussels, the capital of europe into headquarters. your visit sends a very strong signal. first of all of the ukraine

citizens, they understand how important the transatlantic relationship, for europe and for the united states of america. to american people, i would like to say to the american people that you can count on us as your best friends and alliance. and also to those of the world, we remain committed and open that we decide to engage in all those global issues from free trade to achieve to public calls to climate action. but at the same time we will also the firm in defending our common values, those of peace, of freedom, of the rights of individuals, the rule of law. european union and united states have risen together to make sure that actions that are unacceptable will bear serious

consequence. and, in fact, we can say that it is in the spirit that there is not only we are working on issues like iran or middle east peace process but most recently on the crisis in ukraine. we have discussed this again today. we are determined not only to safeguard to support independence, prosperity of the country, but also showing that some kind of acceptable behavior cannot continue. we also discussed -- the importance of energy, energy security. our teams are going to meet next week to discuss some issues in terms of energy cooperation between europe and the united states. a very concrete problem most specific example, --

[inaudible] not only because it is the agreement as were preparing for most important economic relationship in the world, every day there is a trade off, 2.2 billion euros, around $2.6 billion between the two sides of the atlantic. it's not just because of the huge time mention of this agreement, but because it will be an agreement among equals. not only our economies are equal in size, but our societies are equal in values. and i believe that to boost our economies, a new impulse of this ttip, transatlantic investment partnership will be very important to give this size

injection of dynamism. and, indeed, even increase the potential for growth. but only for big business but also for small, medium-sized businesses, from heavy households that are great potentials in terms of job creation both sides of atlantic if we do it right. and today we have confirmed that we are determined at the highest level to make it happen and to be a success. not only for us but also for the global economy. thank you. >> president barroso, thank you both -- >> we are going to leave these remarks at this point. live coverage will continue online at c-span.org. we are leaving as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. live coverage of the senate beginbegins at 10 in each of the senators did expected to debate judicial nominations and a to ukraine and sanctions against russia. once again, live coverage of the senate coming up at 10 a.m.

eastern on c-span2. >> this is a report on the nato members of my team 54. this is a gigantic land maneuver under the coronation of the fifth corps u.s. seventh army. it has many training purposes but an additional purpose could be to display nato's might before. this exercise is divided into two opposing forces called black and green. in this exercise, old sides have the american bill 280 millimeters atomic cannon. the atomic cannon has never been fired in europe. what you will see here is a simulated atomic explosion, but the atomic cannon can be fired in europe. the guns are ready. the men are ready. should the soviets attack anyone

of nato's 14 nations, atomic guns will fire. >> from the u.s. army's the big picture series, nato maneuvers aimed at deterring soviet aggression in europe, this weekend on american history tvs wheel america sunday at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> i do recognize that xenophobia exists. if it is explained irrational fear of islam and, therefore, negative attitude towards the community, i'm absolutely against it. if it's part of the scene a phobia. xenophobia is nothing more than xenophobia versus one group, judeophobia, christian phobia or any other phobia. it's part of it. but what happened is that the islamist lobby, the brotherhood lobby and the iranian lobby have hijacked that motion and made into a weapon to anybody is criticizing a policy issue that has nothing to do with a

religion, nothing to do with the five pillars, okay, there has been accused of islamophobia. i think this is very close to what the national socialists in germany would ask anybody who is criticizing their policies have been against the germans, against the german race. and even at a national level it has come very dangerous. >> walid phares on u.s. policy in the middle east saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday night at nine on booktv is afterwards. and on april 5, more discussion on the middle east with military strategist and former assistant defense secretary bing west with your calls and comments live "in depth" starting at noon eastern. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> u.s. senate about to gavel in. live coverage starting at 10 a.m. eastern, about five minutes from the. senators are expected to debate judicial nominations and aid to ukraine and sanctions against

russia. live coverage at 10 a.m. eastern. yesterday senators came to the floor to talk about the a to ukraine bill. senator menendez talk about the agreement to remove the imf provision to help you get the bill passed. here's what he had to say. >> i rise to express my robust concern about brussels actions in the continuing escalation of tensions in central and eastern europe. even with ukrainian troops leaving crimea and russia continues to extort the ukraine. disavowing an agreement on gas prices that was part of a bilateral agreement, allowing russia to leave the black sea court in the crimea for its fleet. russia is now arguing that it no longer has to provide the discounted just because it illegally seized the port. but it also must be paid back

$11 billion for our discounts. at the same time, russia has amassed one than 100,000 troops at ukraine's border. in addition to 23,000 troops that are in the crimea, making clear the threat of an outright invasion of ukraine and possibly a portion of multiple. putin is watching to see what we will do, to see if we have the resolve to act or if the innocents gets the greenlight to take the next step. so i believe we need to act now. so although i also believe that our response to russia's annexation of crimea should include the international monetary fund reforms that passed me by person way out of the senate foreign relations committee, and that obviously received a rather strong

procedural vote yesterday in the senate, and i think it's critical to strengthen the assistance package for ukraine and strengthen u.s. global leadership, i recognize that our ability to be able to move this package with it at this point is unlikely. the house republican leadership has proven itself intransigence on imf reform, and we all know why. trying to link support for imf reforms on c-4 political committees that may have violated campaign finance laws, and may have individuals who illegally use them to influence federal elections is pretty outrageous. i cannot believe that the house leadership will not put national security interests above a partisan political interest. but obviously politics so don't

start at the water's edge on this issue. so while i'm not happy about it, i believe we need to move forward on a bill today that since the necessary message of support to the ukraine, and resolves to russia. but as we take that step, let's realize that if the imf had lead the effort to stabilize ukraine's fragile economy, congressional ratification of the 2010 imf reforms would increase imf emergency funding to the ukraine by up to 60%, and provide an additional $6 billion for longer-term support, said an important marker for other donors such as the eu and the world bank. let's be clear about what keeping -- >> senator menendez yesterday on aid to ukraine and sanctions against russia. legislation that we expect to

hear more about today. votes are likely tomorrow. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by dr. daniel mcclure, american legion national chaplain. the chaplain: let us pray. our heavenly father, creator and sustainer of all that we are or will be, thank you for your care in our daily and national concerns. history has revealed your hand in our national affairs and how much our lawmakers need your wisdom, courage and grace. we ask a special endowment of mental strength and physical endurance in these dangerous but exciting times.