other kinds of public benefits that professional sports enjoys and we have chosen to single out one which is the antitrust exemption. but these public trusts really demand a public trust from the league itself, special public benefits in my view demand recognition of that public trust from the league. do any of the other witnesses -- mr. goodfriend? >> senator blumenthal there is one category that has not been mentioned that is harmed by the local blackout policy and i want to make sure this goes on the record. local broadcasters, local grocery stores, local businesspeople often scramble at the last minute to buy up lots of tickets in order to avoid a blackout. if ever there was an example of a tax being imposed on businesspeople, that's it and it

is a tax imposed by the virtue of this protection, the antitrust exemption that allows the league to threaten the blackout. i will split out -- point out that they sports coalition pointed to allegations that were provided to us from an executive that wishes to remain anonymous that the reason why those three playoff games that you alluded to in your opening statement, green bay, indianapolis, the reason why those threaten blackouts didn't occur, it was alleged was because the nfl pressured broadcast networks to buy up unsold tickets in order to avoid the blackout. now let's assume for a moment that allegation is true. let me get this straight. the united states government gets the nfl in antitrust exemption. the nfl takes that antitrust exemption and exerts power on other third parties to get them

to buy something from the nfl at full value. now, the nfl had every opportunity to turn around to the sports coalition and say that is blatantly false how dare you make such allegations. instead they said nothing, nothing for weeks, nothing. when it was their turn to file at the fcc the best they could come up with was if sports fans coalition purports to speak for fans they shouldn't care how we avoid local blackouts. in my opinion senator that's a tacit admission so do we allow the league to avoid blackouts and we talked about how few there are. yes that's true but how do we get them? do we allow the league to avoid blackouts under its own policy by coercing others allegedly to purchase tickets or do we do say enough is enough? you don't get a gift anymore. you don't get to have your

antitrust exemption for local blackouts. they would be aloud cheer not just among fans but in my opinion local broadcasters, local grocery stores and local businesspeople if we did that. >> thank you and i might point out with respect to those local businesses and grocery stores in broadcasters if they got together the way that the clubs or teams do, in collaboration to maximize their bargaining power, they would be seeing their state attorney general or united states attorney general and they would be in court defending against an antitrust prosecution, civil or criminal so this exemption is really very special, very unique and very undeserved if the leagues in my view failed to recognize their special public trusts because of that unique exemption.

so i would invite any other comments. if there are none, we are going to keep the record open for one week and i will close the hearing. thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we sat and we watch and listen to a group of second-graders go through their

drill and andy card interrupted the president. i was stunned and i wrote down my notebook 9:07 a.m. and he whispers nobody interrupts the president. the president stood and said that he had to go and he went into a side room and then we heard, we discovered that it was two planes down, two plane crashes in new york. ari fleischer came out to the pool. we are now out of the parking lot outside the school and he said stay here the president will talk to the pool. i said no there are live cameras in the cafeteria. he didn't want to scare the children but he did go into that cafeteria. he said it's an apparent terrorist attack and i must return to washington. we raced to the plane and we were pushed aboard quickly. a the door slammed and then the pentagon was hit. the senate is back in session monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we are expecting senators to

consider legislation dealing with federal spending past december 11 when the current funding expires. >> when a house in the senate returned they will be taking up legislation dealing with new federal spending and a a face at december 11 deadline to do that. now with a look at what could be the final week at the 113th congress manu raju joins us a senior reporter with politico and in politico let's start with an article that talks about ironing out the money details for a deal. what is the current status of this legislation and what are the details on this bill? >> we are looking at a bill that

would fund most of the government until the end of the next fiscal year which ends the end of september next year. the idea is that it would allow funding for every federal agency until then except immigration enforcement agencies. that is a concession to republicans who want to fight the issue of immigration again at the beginning of next year when they take control of the senate. that is a condition to a larger spending bill that had democrats -- democrats agree to a short-term spending bill on the immigration issue. so watch for that to be a big fight going forward but there are larger details that need to be ironed out as well. as you mentioned how much money will this spend agency by agency? those are things negotiators are going through right now. in addition policy writers, those are restrictions that are put in a spending bill's restrictions against what the

administration can do implementing various policies. that's a fight happening behind closed doors and some of those things could become very controversial if they are not ironed out right now. those are the final details and we will be watching very close closely. the larger question is does it have the votes to pass the house? that's the big big question going forward. if they cannot do that then we will look at a short-term continuing resolution probably until mid-february. next week is a great week. >> host: what you hearing about house republican leadership efforts to pass this bill to work on this? >> guest: they are relying on democratic votes here. it looks like they're probably going to lose a sizable number of conservative republicans who want to have a tougher restriction against the president's executive action on immigration. they view the spending fight as critical for stopping the president's immigration moves.

the house republican leadership in the senate republican leadership did not want to go down that path. they are worried about a government shutdown. but as a result john boehner's going to probably lose several dozen potentially maybe a couple dozen conservative republicans for a vote in as a result john boehner is going to have to rely on democratic votes in order to get that through. that means he's going to have to make some concessions to get democrats on board. that's going to be a big question going forward. how much disdain or move to the left and get that democratic supporting get it through the house? those are things they are still hammering out behind closed doors. >> meanwhile nancy pelosi another article in politico talks about her flexing her muscles. what is she telling democrats, let's not rush into supporting republican efforts? >> guest: her aim is to find the democratic leverage on this

particular issue. they say if we hold out votes right now, if we tell republicans we are not quite sure we are going to support this and the republicans move closer and closer may be increased spending on certain programs that they favor as well as get rid of certain policy writers at the democrats don't like. the longer they hold off support the more boehner will have to get to them. at least that's what they believe. a lot of republicans think there is also kind of an effort by the democrats to lead to short-term continuing resolution for the entire government because some republicans think democrats want to have this big fight over spending in the beginning of a new congress potentially prompting a government shutdown at the beginning of the new congress something that will get republicans blame for. i'm not sure we are going to go that direction but certainly nancy pelosi believes holding out as long as possible will help at the end of the day.

>> host: coming down to the wire here and we are talking about just the house. what about the senate side? what are they going to need to do in order to get this passed the senate? >> guest: the senate is much more difficult institution. as you know it takes longer to pass bills unless all 100 members agreed to speed up unanimous consent which is not always an easy thing to pass controversial measures such as this. the spending bill that democratic led senate is going to need cooperation from republicans, conservative republicans to not slow down the spending bill once it passes the senate. once it passes the house next week assuming it does. so that's one big consideration but there are also other bills that harry reid is senate majority leader wants to get done like the defense of our station bill. it's a big $550 billion or so of authorize spending for military programs. they are trying to get that out of the senate next week but some republicans want more time to

debate that. it's a big question going forward as well as a year-long extension of expired tax breaks, something that is awaiting senate action. in addition to lots of nominations, dozens and dozens of judgeships as well as executive branch nominations that democrats want to get confirmed in their final days in office before mitch mcconnell the republican leader controls the senate next year. those are the things they are trying to get done in a weeks time. it's going to be very hard without republican support and if they don't get republican support potentially they could see the senate calendar slipping into the final week which is something all senators want to avoid. >> host: montu russia reports for politico and you can follow him on twitter. thanks so much for joining us. >> guest: thank you.

>> as we begin to receive the vinyl to be digitized, to be saved, we began turning over the size of the 45s receive. first off gospel music was not widely heard in the white community. if it was a would only only be big hits at that the flipside would be -- less than what we discovered quickly with how many were directly related to the civil rights movement. since there is very few databases and none of them are complete all gospel music, we didn't know the sheer number of songs that had very overt songs like there ain't no segregation have been type songs at a time when possessing one of the songs much less singing it was a very dangerous thing in the deep south. you could get killed for a lot of things in the deep south but singing that sort of song out loud, that's a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of fame

hall of fame was set up in 19,764,175th anniversary rangers and honors at this .30 rangers who made major contributions for the service or gave their lives under her rock circumstances. we have paintings were portraits of all those rangers. they really begin with austin. austin was successful with his rangers. they fought not only managed to make the area reasonably safe from indian raids but when the texas war for independence broke out the rangers played a major role in texas gaining its independence by stating off the mexican army long enough to allow the columnist to build their own army and develop a strategy. as a result texas became its own independent nation, the republic of texas, for about 10 years.

>> president obama spoke about his economic agenda earlier this week at a luncheon hosted by the business roundtable and association of corporate ceos. we pick up what with a president taking questions from the group. >> your comment has been consistent in relation to tax reform. we have over the last couple of days been talking a lot about what are those things that are the most critical for driving job growth and middle income job growth and it always for us comes back to investment. the more we invest the more

middle income wages grow and as we think about what are those those things that will drive business investment and that job growth you touched on it and you have been consistent, tax reform. there is no single factor that could be more important. the question is, do you think it would be useful to have somebody with your administration, vineyard administrations say this is a priority to me and we will work with individuals in congress and see if this is a priority to drive this through. it's a timeframe for their something that can be done. both sides of congress being receptive so we would be open to working with you specifically with your administration to help drive this through. >> jack lew is here at treasury secretary and my understanding is he doesn't have enough to do so i'm thinking maybe we need to put them to work. let me get a little more detailed about the prospects of tax reform. we put out a white paper,

general concept on corporate tax reform several years ago when tim geithner was still treasury secretary and has had an opportunity to look at what our basic principles have been. they have been consistent. the idea has been to close loopholes and lower rates. we have discussed the possibility of being able to bring in some of the dollars outside of the country right now and in a one-time transaction, potentially use that to pay for some infrastructure improvements. i think there is some openness to that. and when you compare what we put forward with what dave camp, the current house ways & means chairman, put out, his principles for tax reform, there

is a tax globally that ensures that the folks aren't gaming the system that allows you to be competitive with folks based in other countries that are operating on a territorial basis. so there is definitely a deal to be done. i think two big hurdles that we are going to have to get over. the first is the classic problem which is people are in favor of tax reform in the abstract and sometimes more concerned with tax reform in the specifics. if we are in fact going to accomplish revenue-neutral corporate tax reform that substantially lowers the corporate rate, then we have to go after some deductions that people are very comfortable

with. and there are going to be some winners and their own to be some losers in the short-term. over the long term there's going to be less distortion in the economy and capital will be allocated more sensibly. but in the short term there are going to be winners and losers, including in this room. the question then becomes, are folks willing and ready to go ahead and make that move for the sake of a simpler, more streamlined, more sensible tax system. because if not, it's not going to happen. all of view represented in this room have employees and businesses and plans all across the country in every congressional district and if we don't have consistency and unity coming out of our top companies, then we are going to have i think the likelihood of us being able to get something done is low. the second problem is one that

is solvable but is tricky, and that is paul ryan at least in the past has stated that, and i think boehner has echoed this, that they don't want to just do corporate tax reform. they are ingested and also combining that with individual tax reform in part because they are concerned about pass through corporations not being able to benefit the way larger companies do. and we are actually committed to providing simpler and lower tax rates for small businesses as well. but what we are not willing to do is to structure a tax deal in which either it blows up the deficit, essentially we can't

pay for the revenue that is lost, or alternatively, that you get tax shifting from businesses to middle-class and working families. and so when you start introducing the individual side, gets more complicated in terms of who is benefiting, what are the rates and how is it restructured. my view is that if we start with the corporate side, it's a more discrete problem, fewer variables, fewer moving parts. we may be able to get that done and then we can potentially have a conversation about broader tax reform. that may not be how the republicans view the situation and so, and that could end up being a hangout. one last point i would make in this relates to the issue of individual tax reform but it

also relates to one of the debates that was taking place during the lame-duck period and that's about tax extenders. as a general rule, we are open to short-term extensions of many of those provisions to make sure that all of you are able to engage in basic tax planning at least for the next couple of years and are not having to scramble during tax time figuring out exactly what the rules are. but more broadly we would like to see if some of those tax extender provisions including things that i strongly support like research and development are incorporated into a broader comprehensive tax reform package. in order to do that though i also want to make sure that some provisions that benefit working families are included in that package. the child tax credit, hugely

important for a lot of working families. the eitc comment earned income tax credit, hugely important for a lot of working families, something that has historically been supported on a bipartisan basis because it encourages work but it says if you are working full time we will try to do everything we can to make sure you are not in poverty when you are doing the right thing in taking responsibility. there is a college tuition tax credit that benefits a lot of families, sometimes families who get caught. they are not quite poor enough to qualify for pell grants but they don't have enough money to be able to really manage college costs. so there are going to be some working class and middle class working families provisions that have to be incorporated if we are to extend some of these other tax deductions and tax breaks as well.

but that hopefully gives you a sense of optimism on my part but cautious optimism. i think that there are going to be some real challenges that we are absolutely committed to working with speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell as well as the brt and other interest in seeing if we can get this thing done. i think the time is right and you are right randall that the window is not going to be open to wide and it's going to start narrowing the closer we get into the next presidential election which i seems to start the day after the last election. >> mr. president, maggie with frontier communications. thank you for being with us and also thank you for explaining a little bit more what you are thinking about for tax reform. i also want to just underline that the tax extenders, until

there is some reform that takes place come is really important to all of us in this room. as randall mentioned it is about capital investment that really drives income growth for middle-class families. our company serves 30,000 communities in rural america so that is important to us. one of the other things that is important to us is the continuing resolution to keep the government going. >> me too. [laughter] >> can you talk a little bit about how we make sure that we don't have fits and starts again on the subject? >> i have been encouraged by recent statements by speaker boehner and leader mcconnell about their interest in preventing another government shutdown and i take them at their word. the federal government budgeting process generally is, how should i put it, not ideal. ideally we would have a longer

timeframes, greater certainty. we would be able to distinguish between capital investments that are going to have long-term payoffs and short-term operating expenses. historically that's just not enough of budget process has been structured and since the plane is constantly flying, it's hard to get in there. maybe jim has advice about how to switch up engines while the plane is in the air. so the tendency is just too kick the can down the road with a series of continuing resolutions. there has been an effort to try to get back to regular procedures and to systematically look through these budgets. there was talk of an on the this bill rather than a continuing resolution. and i think it will be useful for you to get directly from the

speaker what their intentions are at this point. but the wing -- the one thing i can say for certain is that no one benefits by the government shutting down and it is entirely unacceptable for us not to maintain the full faith and credit of the united states government. and we just cannot afford to engage in that kind of brinksmanship that we saw over the last couple of years. each time that happened consumer sentiment plunge. it was a self-inflicted wound and we had to dig ourselves back out of a whole, despite all the efforts that have been made simply because people's confidence in the system overall was shaken. so my strong hope is that we don't repeat that. and part of the principle that can prevent that is what i already articulated.

we have to be able to disagree on some things while going ahead and managing the peoples business and working on the things where we do agree. ..

and are some of those problems have been addressed, are being addressed by changes in the healthcare delivery system, which has been a huge driver of long-term federal debt. i think i mentioned earlier that healthcare inflation has gone up at the slowest rate in 50 years. far slower than had been projected by cbo or by the actuaries for medicare. and as a consequence we have already been able to book about $188 billion in savings over the next ten years, and reduced healthcare outlays, and i actually think we can get more done as some of the delivery system reforms we talked about are initiating through the affordable care act are put in

place. so, there's good news on the budget. but now what we have to do is to create a framework in which not only do we keep our deficits low and we're able to start driving down our debt, but we're also able to make some core investment is mentioned earlier, and in infrastructure, in education, and particularly early childhood education, an area where i think we can make a lot of progress, and basically research and science. i was out at nih yesterday, talking to a woman who had worked ten years on the ebola virus in great obscurity, until suddenly everybody thought she was pretty interesting. and we're in the process now of phase two trials on an ebola vaccine. but that kind of basic research investment is part of what keeps us at the leading edge. so if we can create a budget structure that allows to us make those investments, keep deficits

low, streamline our tax system, i think the opportunities for american preeminence economically are very, very high. doug? >> president, good morning. welcome. >> good to see you. >> the four things you mentioned in your earlier comments, infrastructure, immigration, tax and attraction are sweet spots for these group. any one or any combination or all of them would lead to economic growth, job creation, and everyone in here wants to grow and everybody wants to add jobs and raise pay. believe it or not. >> i do believe it. >> we'd be interested in your comments on the priorities of those at you look into '15, new congress, new faces, changed senate. what is first, second, kind of what is the lineup?

>> i think it's going to be very important for know consult with boehner and mcconnell to find out how they want to sequence their efforts because ultimately the challenge on most of this stuff has not been my administration's unwillingness to engage or get it done. it's been the complications of congress and the challenges they have in heir respective caucuses. my instinct, though, is to get a process started on tax reform early because you need a pretty long runway for that. it takes some time. we have some overlap in the frameworks, which will help, but that's probably a full six to nine months before we could really solidify something. so getting started on that

early, understanding there's not going to be a vote anytime soon and there's going to be a lot of contentious debate, i think would be helpful. with respect to trade, we hope to be able to not simply finalize an agreement with the various parties in the transpacific partnership but also to be able to explain it to the public and to engage all the stakeholders and to publicly engage with the critics because i think some of the criticism of what we have been doing oned the transpacific partnership is groups fighting the last war as opposed to looking forward. and so that may be something discrete we can get done if we're able to have a good, solid

debate and everybody feels like it's been transparent and they understand exactly what it is we're trying to do. infrastructure, i think, gets wrapped up in tax reform. the challenge for infrastructure has been that it's not that -- i think my republican friends don't want infrastructure. i notice whenever we gate project going they're at the ribbon-cutting. i think it's the pay-fors. how do you pay for it. they're very sensitive, as you know to anything that might be construed as a tax. of course, it's hard to pay for things if you don't have some sort of revenue stream. and i've been exploring -- had a conversation with larry fink a while back, and larry has been bringing together some people to see how we can do more in attracting private investment into infrastructure

construction, which is done fairly effectively in a lot of other countries-but that has not been our tradition. 0 our tax structures and legal structures are not optimally designed to get private capital and infrastructure. but we're working on that, but i too think that if we are successful with tax reform, that may give us an avenue for a one-time big push on infrastructure, but it's hard for me to envision this congress being able to vote on a big infrastructure bill on its own. because i don't know where they would get the money for it. i've got in proposals-but i don't think they're likely to adopt them. finally, on immigration, i think that's something that probably comes last. i suspect that temperatures need to cool a little bit in the wake of my executive action.

certainly there will be pressure initially within republican caucuses to try to reversion what i've done -- reverse what i've done, bees spite the fact what aim doing is i think exactly the right thing to do. we have to prioritize how we allocate limited enforcement resources, and we should be focusing on felons, we should not be focusing on breaking up families who are our neighbors and our friends and whose kid goes to school with us. it's temporary. and as soon as congress passes comprehensive legislation, it goes away. but i don't think that that's something that this congress will be able to do right away. my suspicion is they'll take a couple of stabs at throwing back what i've done, and then perhaps folks will step back and say, well, rather than just do

something partial that we may not be completely satisfied with, let's engage with the president to see if we can do something more comprehensive that addresses some of our concerns but also addresses my concerns as well. so, i think that's probably the sequence. get tax reform rolling, make sure that everybody understands, from my perspective, it's going to have to be balanced. we're not going to leave the itc or the child tax credit behind and just do a corporate piece on its own. but if we can get that ball rolling and we can get trade done -- and then there's some things we haven't really talked about. i mentioned at tent reform. stilt morning work to do that. cyber security, an area of great interest to a lot of people in this room. some areas that shouldn't be

ideological at all. don't require huge spend did tours of money. do require we re-organize ourselves to respond to new challenges and new threats. then you could see an environment begin to emerge of productivity in washington, which would be exciting. i love signing bills. all right. david? >> could you provide a global perspective for us. you recently in china, and them now being the number two economy in the word, us building peaceful commercial ties with them, while not turning a blind eye to the things we know are issues, is important. it feels like you made some progress there with green house gases and other things. then could you take a moment to talk about some of the trouble spots in the world and how you're thinking about russia and the middle east and korea and

what we have to deal with there. >> good. well, let me talk about economics and then i'll talk about geopolitics. i've touched on earlier the economics and many of you have great analysts, so i'm probably not telling you anything you don't know or are not experiencing concretely in your businesses. the united states stands out as an economy that going strong at the moment. japan is contracting in a way that surprised many analysts and i know surprised prime minister abe. he has got new elections. there's a delay in the consumption tax that the second phase of it that was slated to go into effect. therapy suing fairly aggressive monetary policy but i don't know whether they're going to be able to pull out of the current variation on what has been a

pretty long-term slump anytime soon, and they have some dead overhang they have to address. in europe, the debate has generally been framed as austerity and prudence promote by the germans versus a desire for a looser set of fiscal policies among the southern countries. if you look, the truth is that spain, france, to a lesser extent italy, most of the big countries in the south have been engaging in serious structural reforms. they haven't done everything that they need to do in terms of providing labor flexibility, for example, but they are making strides in addressing many of those issues. but right now what you have is a environment in which the dangers

of deflation and really weak demand in europe chronically, over a long period of time, i think, are the -- more significant than dangers of overheating economies and inflation in the european union. and we have -- i joke sometimes i am an honorary member of the european commission, and jack certainly is, tim geithner before him. we have spent a lot of time trying to manage through various crises that pop up in europe, and my concern is that because there's not a current financial crisis, and the markets are relatively calm, that we're not paying enough attention to just the overall weakness of the

european economy, and we keep on poking and prodding, suggesting to them that in our own circumstances, for example, we were able to reduce our deficits in part because, yes, we raised some taxes, but in part because we grew faster, and if you just have weaker demand, chronically, then it's actually harder to get out of a hole than if you had stronger investment and stronger demand there. the emerging markets, i think have been slower than anticipated. china has a fairly good rationale for this. they're trying to shift from a model that was export driven to a model that shows they need stronger demand inside of china, and they have a growing middle class that is getting confidence to spend money, but that

requires a complete reorganization of their economy. the have a real estate situation in part because of state-sponsored spending that is always at risk of overheating, and so the new normal nat -- that they're anticipating means they won't be growing quite as fast as they had before. if they grow at seven percent, we'd take it. but for them, that's significantly slower, and that then has ramifications in terms of demand for commodities and in turn affects a whole lot of emerging markets. india, modi, has impressed me so far with his willingness to shake up the bureaucratic inertia inside of indiana but that's a long-term project. brazil, challenges but they've got -- just completed an

election and i think they recognize they need to grow faster. so, i guess the overall global picture and, jack, you can correct me if there's anything i'm saying that's wrong -- is people continue to look to america for economic leadership. we need some other engines to be pulling the global economy along, and we are pursuing diplomatic poll skis consultations to try to encourage that. on the geopolitics, me meeting with president which hi was very productive and we had significant deliverables. he has consolidated power faster and more comprehensively than probably anybody since xi

jinping. and everybody has been impressed by his clout inside of china after only a year and a half or two years. there are dangers in that on issues of human rights, on issues of clamping down on dissent. he taps into a nationalism that worries his neighbors and that we have seen manifest in these maritime disputes in the south china sea as well as on the islands. on the other hand, i think they have a very strong interest in maintaining good relations with the united states. and my visit was a demonstration of their interest in managing this relationship effectively. our goal with china has been to

say to them, we, too want a constructive relationship. we have an integrated world economy and the two largest economies in the world have to have an eeffective relationship together. it can be a win-win for both sides. but there's some things we need them to fix. and we are pressing them very hard on issues of cyber security and cyber theft. mostly in the commercial area. it is indisputable they engage in it and it is a problem, and we bush them hard on it. one thing the brt can could is to help us by speaking out when you're getting strong-armed about these issues, and i know it's sensitive because you don't want be necessarily penalized in your operations in china, but that's an area that is important. same thing with intellectual property. we're pushing them hard on that. one of the ancillary benefits of the transpacific partnership is is to create high standards in the region that china has to

adapt to as opposed to a race to the bottom where there's no i. p. protection, for example, and china is really setting the terms for how trade and investment should operate. president xi is interested in a business investment treaty. that could be significant because it could help to change the environment in which you are able to invest in china without being discriminated against relative to domestic firms. we have lot of work to do on that but that's a work stream we have set up. so, i think we have to be cautious and clear-eyed about our relationship with china, but there's no reason why we should not be able to manage that relationship in a way that is productive for us and productive for the world. i'm less optimistic about

russia. i have a very direct blunt and business-like religious shown with putin. -- relationship with putin. we had aer productive relationship when dmitry medvedev was president, even though putin was still the power behind the throne, in part because i think the situation in ukraine caught him by surprise. he has been improvising himself into a nationalist backward-looking approach to russian palsy that it scaring the heck out of his neighbors and is badly damaging his economy, and sanctions are having a big bite on their economy. we continue to offer them a pathway to a diplomatic resolution of the problem. but the challenge is, this is working for him politically

inside of russia, even though it is isolating russia completely internationally. and i think people should take note of how unified we have been able to keep the europeans on sanctions and penalizing russia for its behavior, despite the fact it's tough on the russian economy -- to the european economy. people have recognized there's a core principle at stake that helped establish peace and prosperity in europe that can't be ignored. if you ask me if i'm optimistic he will change his mindset, don't think that will happen until the politics inside of russia catch up to what is happening in toe the economy in rich which is why we'll continue to maintain that pressure. finally in the middle east, you're going through a

generational shift, a shift in the middle east, and it is messy and dangerous. part of it is sectarian schisms between shia and sunni and conflicts between states that engage in proxy fights that are far more bloody and vicious and significant now than the conflict between arabs and jews. and you're seeing that primarily in iraq and syria. and i am confident about our ability to push isil back in iraq. syria is a broader and longer -- more difficult long-term proposition in part because the

civil war has gotten so bad, and the interests of outside parties are so conflicting, that it may take time to let that thing settle down, but obviously we are very active not just militarily but diplomatically. the longer term problem in the middle east is -- this relates to the economy -- the whole region in some ways has gone down a blind alley, where too often islam is now equated with rejection of education, modernity, women's participation, all the things hat allow you to thrive in a modern economy, and that's not uniformly true but too often those forces inside of islam

have been elevated, and moderate voices and voices that recognize islam should be compatible with science, education, tolerance, openness, global commerce, productivity. too often those voices have been silenced. the question now becomes are we able to strengthen those voices? that is a generational project. some of the things we are doing, for example, entrepreneurial summits for muslim small business leaders. that's the kind of thing that we want to continue to promote, and where we think the brt can be very helpful. but in the meantime, big chunk of my job is just making sure that we help to contain the damage that is being done inside of the middle east, and then hopefully over time build towards a better future there.

that's not a two-year project. that's going to be a longer term project. a long answer but a big question. he said he wanted to go around the world. i did that pretty fast. all right. in the back. >> mr. president, you mentioned infrastructure in your opening remarks, and the brt would echo the fact that our highways and bridges are deteriorating and lack of investment is creating congestion which is retarding economic activity. >> i want my fedex package moving smooth through our infrastructure. >> "60 minutes" did a very good piece on this problem the other day. so, the highway trust fund, which provides the funding for all of these infrastructure improvements, ran out of money in august and it was papered

over with a patch based on some pension accounting. so, now you have bipartisan bills in both the senate from senator corker, a republican, and senator murphy, of connecticut. you have as of yesterday, a bipartisan bill in the house with congressman petrie, a republican, and congressman bloomenauer act democrat, and you had the chamber of commerce head and the head of the afl-cio jointly testify in congress about the highway trust fund, the gasoline and diesel tax. and you have the entire industry supporting an increase in highway taxation to fund these infrastructure improvements.

so why not before you -- before the congos home for december, just pass a bill that takes the two bipartisan bills that i just mentioned, up, and solves the problem, because come may, it's going to run out of money again because the patch is over. i would think that would be a great opportunity for the -- you and the new congress to show some bipartisan success here. >> i tell you, if i were running congress, i'd potentially take you up on that offer, or suggestion. i think i would -- probably would have already done it. in fairness to members of congress, both on gas tax -- votes on gas tax are really tough. gas prices are one of those

things that really bug people. when they go up, they're greatly attuned to them. when they go down, they don't go down enough, and so historically, i think there's been great hesitance, and so i guess what i'd do is separate out, fred, a short-term problem and a long-term problem. short term is we have to replenish the highway trust fund and i will engage with speaker boehner and mcconnell to see what they can get done to make sure we're not run out of money because we have a whole bunch of construction projects in the train right now that -- set aside the stuff we need to do, just keeping going on the stuff that is currently operating, would be in dangered if we don't

replenish it. the question will be, is there a formula long-term for us to get a dedicated revney knew source for funding the infrastructure we need that is no so politically frightening to members of congress that it's reliable. the gas tax hasn't been increased for a 20 years. there's a reason for that. and if that is your primary source of revenue, when the population's -- i don't know what it's done but gone up x percent, gdp has gone up x percent, we have got -- i mean, your business, fred, has completely transformed over the last two decades, and yet we still have the same mechanism to try to keep up. it's probably a good time for us to redesign and think through

how -- what is a sustainable way for us on a regular basis to make the investments we need. and this may be something that we can introduce into the tax reform agenda. it may be too complicated and we have to do something separate, but we have to figure this out. we are falling behind. dave, you were asking earlier about china. i do not take potential competition from china absolutely but i am absolutely confident we have better cars than china does and i'd much rather have our problems than china's problems. i'm confident of that. on the other hand, if they need to build some stuff, they can build it. and over time, that wears away our advantage. competitively. it's embarrassing.

you drive down the roads and you look at what they're able to do, but the place that we stayed at for the apec summit was this lavish conference center and -- it probably put most of the conference centers here to shame. they built it in a year. now, you have an authoritarian government, that isn't necessarily accountable. i understand we're not going to do that. but if they're able to build their ports, airports, smart grid, their air traffic control systems, their broadband systems, in -- with that

rapidity, and they're highly superior to us, over time that's going be a problem for us. so, fred, guess the answer is, i'm going to talk to mcconnell and boehner to see what we can do short-term, and to see whether these bipartisan bills have any legs. they'll have a better sense of head counts and i have to talk to harry reid and nancy pelosi as well. but even if we were able to get something done it would not be the kind of ten-year solution we need. the best i suspect they could do would be to stagger through another year, and we have to have a better way of planning, and executing on infrastructure investment. and i'll be engaging with the brt and you, hopefully, and others who are interested to see if we can come up with something. got to check in with larry to see if he has figured out whether we can get all that global capital on the sidelines to start helping us fund some infrastructure projects here in the united states.

greg? >> so just to go back to immigration for a minute, it remains a top priority of brt. we're of the mind that the policy and the politics can still align sometime in 2015. we are steadfast and consistent in comprehensive or broad-based reform and all the components that come with that. we agree with you on timing. maybe it's for whatever, second quarter, summer, whatever it ended up being, but there's still an opportunity to do that. as we go down this path and what appears to be a piecemeal approach with multiple bills that can advance, i wanted to make the comment we all collectively need to be mindful of the sequencing and the packaging of those individual pieces of legislation, and how they're viewed so we don't talk past each other. you know what i'm saying. >> i do. and, greg, look, let's be blunt.

brt has a great interest in the high-skill visa issue, and h1vs, and making sure that stem graduates are available to work in businesses in the united states. i'm for that as well. there was a limit to how much we could do on that front through executive action, because something like h1v visa numbers are clear, statutory, not subject to a lot of executive interpretation. but, for example, we could administratively make sure that folks who had been approved for green cards, that process was accelerated so they weren't stuck and their employers weren't hobbled in terms of utilizing personnel in a more efficient and effective way.

so that's component one and i know that's preeminent interest to this room. there's an agricultural component there wasn't a lot we could do administratively on the ag sector, but those whose businesses keep track and are related to what happens in agriculture, understand that we should have a more efficient system for managing fairly, justly, agricultural workers who are vital to the economy, and frankly this is one of the few areas where it genuinely is true it's hard to find americans to do those jobs. sometimes that's overstated. sometimes the question is, and i hope i'm not offending anybody here but sometimes when folks say we can't find anybody, it's because you don't want to pay as much as you'd have to find some folks. but in the ag sector, that's

hard work, and it's hard to find enough american-born workers to actually get it done. but we have to treat them fairly and make sure it's good for workers and good for business. that we could not do much about through executive action. so those are two big components that are of interest to this group, that need to get done. border security, the truth is we're already doing a lot. we're going to be doing more as a consequence of the executive actions. there was a spike in concern about the borders because those kids had been coming up from central america during the summer and it got two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage until everybody forgot about it. it does reflect real problems in central america, with their economies and violence, but also active marketing by smugglers to parents saying they could get kids in. we brought that back down so the

numbers are now below that they were two years ago. overall, the border is less pourous than it's been anytime since the 1970s and we make huge investments down there. we do mow put we're working that part of it real hard. then there's the issue i did deal with in executive actions, although not for everybody, and that is the 11 million people who are here undocumented, but the vast majority who are law-abiding. and the one principle, i guess, if in fact we can still get a comprehensive deal going forward, even if it's somewhat piecemeal, is i'm not going to preside over a system in which we know these folks are in the kitchens of most restaurants in

the country, are cleaning up most of the hotels that all of you stay in, that are doing the landscaping in most neighborhoods where you live, whose kids are going to school with our kids, and we tolerate it because it's good for us economically, to have cheap labor and services, but we never give. the a path to be part of this country in a more full and fair way. that's just not who we are. that's not how most of our forebearers got to the point where we had the opportunities we have today. and so i'm not going to perpetuate a system of that sort. i've taken executive actions. what i'd like to see, and i'm happy to negotiate, is to see if we can solidify that into law, but it's going to be hard, i

think, for me, and for other democrats, to vote for a big package that says, all right, we're going to still not deal with that, and just deal with those aspects of it that are of core concern to the brt. doesn't mean i can't have that conversation but i want to be honest about the complications of us doing something piecemeal. >> we support -- >> i know you do. >> the components. >> you guys are all there you've been terrific on this. i have no complaints at all, and in fact i have only gratitude for the way that the brt stepped up. i think everybody here sincerely understands what immigration has meant to the life of this country, and just in terms of macroeconomics, this saying it's not a sexy arguement to make to the public, but we are younger than our competitors. and that is entirely because immigration, and when you look at the problems that china,

japan, europe, russia, are all going to have, a lot of it just has to do with they're getting old, and we stay young because we're constantly being replenished by striving families from around the world, we should want that to continue. i'll take two more. right back here and then over there. >> u.s. trade representative michael froman is doing a herculean job of driving trade agreements and the more access of global trade guess for creation of jobs. how can we get tpa passed so michael can have the clear support he needs to drive these agreements. >> i'm going be talking to mcconnell and boehner, reid

and pelosi, making a strong case on the merits as to why this has to get done. it is somewhat challenging because of a factor i mentioned earlier, which is americans feeling as if their wages and incomes have stagnated. and there's a half truth that is magnified, i think, in the discussions around trade, that global competition has contributed to some of that wage stagnation. it's an appealing argument. i think when you look at the numbers it's actually an incorrect argument that over time, growth, investment, exports, all have increased the capacity for working families to improve their economic standing, but i say it's a half truth

because there's no doubt that some manufacturing moved offshore in the wake of china entering the wto and as a consequence of and a half attempt more of the jobes were lost because of automation and capital investment, but there's a narrative there that makes for some tough politics. we have to be able to talk directly to the public about why trade is good for america, good for american businesses and good for american workers, and we have to disspell the myths. part of the argument i'm making to democrats is, don't fight the last war. you already have -- if somebody is wanting to outsource -- any company here wanted to locate in china, you would have already done it. if you wanted to locate in a low-wage country, with low labor

standards and low environmental standards, there hasn't been that much preventing you from doing so. and ironically, if we are able to get transpacific partner ship done, then we're actually forcing some countries to boost their labor standards, boost their environmental standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption, increase intellectual property protection, and so all that is good for us. those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to american workers. so, i'm going to have to engage

directly with our friends in labor and our environmental organizations and try to get from them why it is they think that -- for example, mike is in the conversation with vietnam, one of the potential signatories to the tpp. now, right now there nor labor rights in vietnam. i don't know how it's good for labor, for us to tank a deal that would require vietnam to improve its laws around labor organization and safety. we're not punishing them somehow by leaving them out of something like this. let's bring them in. on the environmental front, i haven't looked carefully at the environmental laws in malaysia

recently, but i suspect they're not as strong as they are here. it's not a bad thing for us to nudge them in a better direction, particularly since we now know that environmental problems somewhere necessary the world are going to ultimately affect us. so, i think that there are folks in my own party and in my own constituency that had legitimate complaints about the trend lines of inequality but are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to opposing tpp, and i have to make that argument. but i will tell you, though, when you talk to boehner and mcconnell, that some of those same antitrade impulses are more asend dent in the republican

party than they might have been 20 years ago as well. some of you may have encountered those in conversations. this is why it goes week in opinion -- we're not going to get trade done, not going to get infrastructure done, not going to get anything done in this town until we're able to describe to the average american worker how, at some level, this is improving their wages, it's giving them the ability to save for retirement, it's improving their financial security, if people continue to feel like democrats are looking after poor folks and republicans are looking after rich folks and nobodies looking after me, -- nobody is looking after me, then we don't get a lot of stuff done, and the trend lines are evidence of the fact that folks have gotten squeezed.

and obviously 2007 and 2008 really ripped open for people how vulnerable they were. all right. nick. >> mr. president, thank you for being here today. we talked about many issues that are on 2015 agenda in the business roundtable. one of the real pervasive issues is the regulatory burden in this country, and still it remains the major issue that many of us deal with. in my industry, american electric power, we're in the midst of a major transition in our industry. we have environmental rules, obviously, that we continue to advance, have done quite a good job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so forth. and i know that we have had billions being spent on renewables at the time when we're now having greenhouse gas rules being put in place.

independent system operators say they'll be impacts on the reliability of the grid, and i know you have been seriously responsible and involved with the reliability implications of our grid, post hurricane sandy, from a cyber, physical standpoint, and it really is interesting for us to see this transition occurring. we've got be reasonable and rational and goes to the regulatory question. how do we continue to make progress -- i'd like your views on -- you talked about this before, how do you see the progress has been made and what you anticipate occurring in the next couple of years relative to removing some of this regulatory burden that in fact makes us up a uncompetitive. >> i think it's a great question and a good place to close because this is an area where i'd like to see us do more together. i've said before to my staff --

i haven't said this publicly so i have to be careful here -- you get a little looser in your last two years in office. that -- this is a little tongue in cheek but it will get to a point -- the republicans -- maybe i'd throw the brn here -- are actually 25% right when it comes to regulatory burden. now, you say the numbers are different. but what i mean by that is, nobody wants to be regulated. and there are some regulations that are burdensome on businesses, they'd rather not do them, burt the common good that is served is sufficiently important that benefits so outweigh the costs that as a society we should do them.

and we were talking about china earlier. i will just point to one simple example and that is you would not want your kids growing up in beijing right now because they could not breathe. and the fact of the matter is that used to be flew los angeles. as recently as 1970. and the rope it changed was because the clean air act, and in my home town of chicago, the chicago river caught fire. right around the same period, and because of the clean water act, you now have folks paddling down the water, and fishing and the commercial renaissance of downtown chicago is in large part driven by a really big radical piece of environmental legislation that at the time people said would destroy our businesses and our competitiveness. so, there's an example of something that -- it's

inconvenient, it's tough, but it's the right thing to do and over time i actually think it's not only good for our quality of life, it's actually good for our economy. because we have some realin motivative companies here and you figure out how to adapt to regulations. remember what i said at the beginning. you're 25% right. what is absolutely true is that as we comb through our regulatory structures, there are old regulations that have outlived their usefulness. you have regulation for railroads that don't take into account gps, and so they have folks doing a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't acknowledge technology that has sprung up over the last 20 years. you have regulations poorly written. you have regulations that are not properly synced up so that you have different agencies with

different responsibilities and so compliance costs end up skyrocketing. you have regulations that squash innovation because at times some of the agencies -- the regulatory agencies treat every problem like a nail and only have a hammer, and aren't engaging with industry enough to think, here's the problem we're trying to solve. is there a smarter way of solving it? so, what we have tried to do is to set up a structure in which we can engage directly with various industries, explain, here's the goal we're trying to accomplish, solicit as much feedback as possible, and then try to design systems that provide some flexibility, allow for creative adaptation, but still hit the mark, still hit the goal, and for example, on power plant rule, which obviously you're having to spend a lot of time with, i recognize

that there's a big expense for a lot of companies. on the other hand, i think gina mccarthy has tried to have sufficiently open process so that she is working with not only industry but on a state-by-state basis, recognizing not every state is the same to figure out, there is a smarter way for us to do this but still meet the mark of reducing carbon emissions. what i'd like to do in these last two years is figure out how we can improve the system to find that 25%, and again, we may not always agree on what the 25% is, and can we institutionalize it so it's not my administration. we already instituted a coase benefit analysis system -- a cost benefit analysis system -- we inherited one.

it cass controversial for a wheel. mostly criticism from democrats. i actually believe in cost benefits. it makes sense to engage in a vigorous review, and my rule is we are not going to promulgate new regulation until you can show a significant benefit relative to costs, and we have been able to document it in the most rigorous way possible. but are there some other institutional things we can do to build the process. so, for example, there's more input on the front end rather than the rule gets promulgated, published, and then there's this big cumbersome, inefficient, unwieldy process of comments and maybe -- are there smarter ways of doing that? we're spending a lot of time on the regulatory lookback process, digging back into old rules and seeing what don't make sense. what i'd like people to do, the

brt to do, is perhaps industry by industry, work with jeff, and let's inventory -- what are the rules that bother you most, we'll go through them, i'll tell you if it's child labor laws, i'm probably going hang on to them. we're going to keep that rule. if it's some basic issues around environmental protections, i'm going to be wanting to preserve them but in those instances where they're significant costs, i may say, we're not going to change the goal. if you think there's a smarter tie do this, we're willing to listen if you think there is. let command and control market incentives, we're open to it. and on that list i suspect there may be four or five regulations

out of 20, 25, where you can persuade us, this actually should just be eliminated. doesn't make sense anymore or should be replaced. and we will be open to doing that. the job council we put together that some of you participated in, gave us a list of recommendations and some of them involved, for example, streamlining infrastructure projects. we adopted almost all those recommendations, and business is absolutely right. wasn't that they minded haven an environmental review. the didn't like the idea of having permitting, environmental review, all this stuff go consecutively and you end up with an eight-year time for example when if you put it on parallel tracks you can come press it down to one year. well, so we are open to common sense. and what i have assigned jeff to do, and my entire cabinet to do,

penny, and tom perez and others, is to sit down, listen to you, and if you can show us either that something is counterproductive and doesn't work, or there's a smarter way of meeting the goal, we will embrace it happily. there's going to be times when we just disagree on the goal, and i'm going to be -- worker safety mitchell -- my instruction, want our workers to be safe and we have the safest work force we have ever had in history. magic huge strides partly because of continuous improvement you instituted in your own candidate. it's been good fork -- in your own companies. it's been good for business or workers but frank live if it hadn't been for initial laws to prod you, some of it wouldn't have happened. so we're going hang on to worker safety. the question then is there is a way for us to enforce it in a more efficient way and less

disruptive way, but continues to hold you accountable. that's a consideration tom perez will be happy to have. all right? happy holidays, it's good to be an american. [applause] ♪ note ...

♪ ♪

>> during a recent visit to the european parliament strasbourg france pope francis called on the european union to promote democracy and transparency among its citizens. he also talked about protecting human rights and combating extremism. this 45 minute address begins

with european parliament president martin schultz to offer welcoming remarks. [applause] [applause] [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: your holiness,

francis and your colleagues, dear guests, ladies and gentlemen 26 years ago pope john paul ii addressed the european parliament. his speech was a milestone on the path to the beginning of the process of reunification of europe. today, pope francis is addressing the european parliament, its members represent more than 500 million people from 28 countries and the members of this house represent the diversity of europe.

over the past six years, europe has seen a dramatic and unprecedented crisis particularly the loss of confidence of the people and their institutions both at national and european level. this loss of confidence is tremendous. however with our confidence and trust no institutions can exist on a permanent basis and therefore their appropriation of everyone is required in order to gain that trust in that confidence. in that sense the european union and its institutions and those of the catholic church to a large extent perceived hand-in-hand with tolerance and respect. of a quality and also that of solidarity and peace are part and parcel of our common goal,

our common task. the european union state stands together, being together and not excluding young people, difficulty in finding a job and their place in society and people are looking for a better future for themselves and for their children. people are fleeing war and disaster. people are looking to the institutions for social justice. the unfair distribution of wealth and opportunity in life, the situation of old people in our societies, peace and war, the immediate neighborhood of the european union as well. and all of these areas we are facing shared challenges. your holiness, your words have tremendous significance not just because you are a religious leader of war than 1 billion

catholics. your words have significant meaning because they speak to all of us. they are directed and addressed to all of us and they are valid for all of us. the themes which you address are ones which are of a concern and not sense universal. your words provide guidance, leadership at a time of a lack of guidance and leadership and counsel. your words of peace, of dialogue, of integrity and shared responsibility for our fellow man and woman. all of these things remind us very forcibly that we have a common task and we must find common solutions to them. we are stronger united than separately. your message is a very european message and based on the very idea which informs european

unification and your back story is europe's back story, a story of a family which lefty europe and saw a new homeland in latin america and south america. it's a history of a pope who came from the other side of the atlantic and has come to reform the church and to lead the faithful. it can serve as an example to all of us and can help europe to renew itself and to reform itself and on behalf of all of my colleagues can i say that you are welcome here and thank you for taking our invitation offered to you by the european parliament. it is an honor and indeed a privilege to be able to listen to your words today and your holiness pope francis, you have the floor. [applause]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, vice president and members of the european parliament, all of you working in various capacities in this house, friends i am grateful to you for inviting me to address this

institution which is fundamental to the life of the european union and i thank you also for giving me this opportunity to speak through you to the more than 500 million citizens in the 28 member states whom you represent and especially i am grateful to you mr. president for your warm words of welcome in the name of the whole house. there are no longer the opposing blocs which divided the continent into and gradually the hope is being realized that europe, endowed with sovereign and free institutions, will one day reach the full dimensions that geography and even more,

history have given it. as the european union has expanded, the world itself has become more complex and ever-changing. increasingly interconnected and global, it has as a consequence to come less and less eurocentric. despite a larger and stronger union, europe seems to give the impression of being aged and weary, feeling less and less a protagonist in a world which frequently regards it with aloofness, with mistrust and even at times with suspicion. as i speak to you today, i would like as a pastor to offer a message of hope and

encouragement to all the citizens of europe. it is a message of hope based on the confidence that our problems can become powerful forces for unity and working to overcome all those fears in europe together with the entire world is experiencing at the present time. a message of hope in the lord who turns evil into good and death into life. it is a message of encouragement to return to the firm conviction of the founders of the european union, who envisioned a future based on the capacity to work together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship between all the peoples of this continent. at the heart of this ambitious political project was confidence in man, not so much man as citizen or as an economic agent

but in man, in men and women as persons endowed with transcendent dignity. i feel bound to stress the close bond between these two words, dignity and transcendent. dignity was the keyword in the process of rebuilding a following of the second world war. our recent past has been marked by the concern to protect human dignity in contrast to the manifold instances of violence and discrimination which, even in europe, occurred over the centuries. the recognition of the importance of human rights came about as a result of a long process, entailing also a great deal of suffering and sacrifice which helped to shape an awareness of the unique worth of

each individual human person. this awareness was grounded not only in historical events, but above all in european thought characterized by an enriching encounter his distant springs are many, coming from greece and rome celtic germanic and slavic sources and from christianity which profoundly shaped them, thus forging the very concept of the person. today the promotion of human rights is central to the commitment of the european union to advance the dignity of the person both within the union union and in its relations with other countries. this is an important and praiseworthy commitment because there are still too many situations in which human beings are treating as objects this

conception, whose configuration and whose utility can be programmed and who can then be thrown away when they are no longer useful because they are weak, because they are sick or because they are old. what kind of dignity can there be without the possibility of freely expressing one's thoughts or professing one's religious faith? what dignity can there be without a clear political framework which limits the rule of force and naples the rule of law to prevail over the power of tyranny? what dignity can there be if men and women are subjected to all kinds of discrimination and what dignity can a person ever hope to find when he or she lacks food and the bare essentials for

survival and worse yet doesn't have the work which confers dignity? [applause] promoting the dignity of the person means recognizing that he or she possesses inalienable rights which no one may take away arbitrarily, much less for the sake of economic interests. at the same time however care must be taken not to fall into certain errors which can arise from a misunderstanding of the concept of human rights and from its paradoxical misuse. there is today a tendency to try an ever broader individual rights and i am tempted to say individualistic rights and

underlying this is a conception of the human person detached from all social and anthropological context. it is if a person were a man and increasingly unconcerned with the surrounding monads. the equally essentially and complementary concept of duty no longer seems to be linked to such a concept of rights and as a result the rights of the individual are upheld with regard to the fact that each human being is part of a the social context in which his or her rights and duties are bound up with those of the others and the common good of the society itself. so i think it's vital to develop today at culture of human rights which intelligently links the individual or rather, the personal dimension to the dimension of the common good, the dimension of the all of us

made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups that together constitute society. unless the rights of each individual are harmoniously subordinated for the greater good those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflict and of violence. to speak of transcendent human dignity bus means appealing to human nature to our innate capacity to distinguish good from evil and to that compass deep within our hearts which god has impressed upon all creation. above all, it means regarding human beings not as absolutes but as beings in relation. one of the most common diseases in europe today if you ask me today is the loneliness, the

loneliness of those who have no connection with others. this is especially true of the old who are often abandoned to their fate and in the young who lacks clear points of reference and opportunities for the future. it can also be seen in the many poor who dwell in our cities and in the migrants who have come here seeking a better future. this loneliness has become worse and continue to have tragic consequences for society. in recent years, they can be seen that as a european union has expanded, there has been a

growing mistrust on the part of citizens towards institutions which they regard as aloof, engaged in laying down rules which are insensitive to individual people's concerns if not actually harmful. in many quarters we gain a general impression of weariness, paging, but they europe which is now a grandmother, no longer fertile and vibrant. as a result the great ideas which once inspired europe have seemed to have lost their power and attraction and being replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions. together with this we encounter certain rather selfish lifestyles marked by an opulent which is no longer sustainable.

[applause] and which is frequently indifferent to the world around us and especially to the poorest of the poor. to our dismay, we see technical and economic questions dominating political debate to the detriment of any genuine concern for human beings. the human being risks being reduced to a mere cog in a machine that treats them as items of consumption to be exploited with the result that is so tragically apparent, whenever it is a human life no longer proves useful to that machine it is discarded with few qualms as in the case of the terminally ill, the elderly who

are abandoned him and cared for in the children who are killed before they are born. [applause] this is a great mistake which happens when technology is about to take over. the result is a confusion between ants and means. it is inevitable consequence of a throwaway culture and an uncontrolled consumerism. if on the other hand we have pulled the dignity of the pers person, that means that we are acknowledging the value of human rights -- human life which is freely given us and hence cannot be an object of trade or of commerce. and u.s. members of parliament,

are called to a great mission which many times seems an impossible one, to tend to the needs of individuals and of peoples. to tend to those in need takes strength and tenderness. it takes effort and generosity in the midst of a functional estate and private mindset which inexorably leads to a a throwaway culture. to care for individuals and peoples means protecting memory and hope. it means taking responsibility for the present with its situations of marginalization and anguish and it means being capable of bestowing dignity upon that.

so how can hope to be restored in the future so that's beginning with the younger generation there can be a return of that confidence that is needed to pursue the great ideal of a united and peaceful europe, a creative and resourceful europe, one that is respectful of rights and conscious of its duties. to answer that question, i'm going to use an image. one of the most famous frescoes of raphael in the vatican depicts the so-called school of athens in the center of plato and aristotle. plato's finger is pointed upward to the world of ideas, to the sky, to heaven as we might say. aristotle holds his hand out in front of him towards the viewer,

towards the world, towards concrete reality. i think it's a very powerful image of europe in europe's history made up of the constant interplay as it is between heaven and earth where heaven indicates openness to the transcendent, to god which has always distinguished the peoples of europe and the earth represents europe's practical and concrete ability to face situations and problems. the future of europe depends on the recovery of the vital connection, the inseparable connection between these two elements. they europe which is no longer open to the transcendent dimension of life is they europe which risks slowly losing its own soul and that humanistic spirit which it yet loves and defends.

taking as a starting point is opening to the transcendent, i would like to reaffirm the centrality of the human person which otherwise is at the mercy of the fashions and the powers of the moment. i consider fundamental not only the legacy that christianity has offered in the past to the social and cultural formation of the continent but also and above all the contribution which christianity has to offer today and in the future to europe's growth. that contribution doesn't represent a threat to the secularity of states or to the independence of the institutions of union, but rather an enrichment to them. this is clear from the ideals which shaped europe from the beginning such as peace subsidiarity and reciprocal solidarity and humanism based on

respect for the dignity of the human person. so i should like to reiterate the readiness of the holy see and the catholic church through the commission of the bishops conferences in europe to engage in a meaningful open and transparent dialogue with the institutions of the european union. i'm like was convinced that a europe which is capable of appreciating its religious roots and grasping their fruitfulness and their potential will be all the more able to enlist the many forms of extremism which are exploding in today's world, not the least as a result of the greatest vacuum of ideals we are currently seeing in the west since it is precisely man's forgetfulness of god and his failure to give him glory which

gives rise to violence. [applause] i cannot fail to recall the connection to the many instances of injustice and persecution which daily afflict religious minorities particularly christians in various parts of the world. communities and individuals today subjected to barbaric acts of violence. they are driven away from their homes and native land. they are sold as slaves, kille killed,, crucified or burned alive under the shameful and complicit silence of many. [applause]

the motto of the european union is united in diversity. but unity doesn't mean uniformity of political, economic and cultural life or of ways of thinking. in fact all real unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up and in a sense it's like a family which is all the more united when each of its members is free to be fully himself or herself without fear. i consider europe as a family of peoples who will sense the closeness of institutions of the union within these institutions are able wisely to combine the desired ideal of unity with the diversity proper to each people,

cherishing particular traditions, acknowledging its past history and its roots, liberated from the many manipulations and the many phobias. affirming the centrality of the human person means above all allowing that person to express freely their individuality and their creativity, both as individuals and as peoples. at the same time, the specific features of each person represents an authentic richness of the degree that they are placed at the service of all. it always needs to be remembered that the proper configuration of the european union based on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity so that mutual assistance can prevail in progress can be made on the basis of mutual trust.

within this dynamic of unity and particularity you ladies and gentlemen of the european parliament the responsibility of keeping democracy alive for the peoples of europe. it is no secret that a conception of unity seen as uniformity strikes at the vitality of the democratic system, weakening their rich, fruitful and constructive interplay of organizations and political parties. this leads to the risk of living in a world of ideas, of mere words, of images, a sophistry and to end up confusing the reality of democracy with a new political nominalism. keeping democracy alive in europe requires that we avoid

the many globalizing trends that diluted byality -- reality. angelic forms of purity, dictatorships the relativism brands of ahistorical fundamentals on ethical systems lacking kindness and intellectual discourse are wrapped up with them is a life is a challenge in the present historic moment. the true democracies and political will of the people must not be allowed to collapse under the pressure that multinational interests which are not universal, which weaken them and turn them into uniform systems of economic power at the service of unseen empires. [applause] this is one of the challenges which history places you before today.