a to a dozen for a merger was singular. at&t argued and a merger -- the evidence shows that the dominant forces driving competition operate at the national level. why is at&t now changing its position? which one is true? >> we have to go by the department of justice and the sec have evaluated these transactions. they have consistently evaluated them at the local level. these are intensely competitive markets. one of the regional carriers is u.s. cellular, and as a greater market share then -- you would always argue that what you are wanting to do is something in

the national interest. that is okay. your your to run a business and i am a businessman myself. this is a business deal. this is a business deal to make your company more successful under more profitable, and tatarstan that. wish to discuss it in that context not in the context of the national interest. this is not your consideration. tour consideration is what is best for your company. and i appreciate that. the discussion it should be handled on that level rather than to try to say this is something in the national interest. i read a few questions. it relies to a considerable degree on roaming arrangement with national networks and this is part of what enables you to

have the ability to offer your customers access to a nationwide coverage. what impact would this merger have on these running arrangements? >> that is a good question. one of the major impacts, it would eliminate a potential running partner. a few months ago, prior to the announcement of at&t-t-mobile, t-mobile made the announcement that by 2014, they would be installing a network. it is the next generation. without having a vibrant partner, one willing to work with us, it eliminates the ecosystem that you referred to, that we must have an beat -- and the environment. also, yes, i do.

>> what about -- with the recent fcc order mandating a commercially reasonable agreement alleviate the concerns that you had in this area? >> it would wind because what is going now with the issue in our industry today. even with the mandate, we are not able to have devices that would work on their network or work on a rise in its network. that would be so important to have t-mobile or someone else out there with a 4g not work. >> with any potential merger conditions alleviate the data roaming concerns that you have?

>> i cannot think of any. we were hopeful that with the verizon merger, there would be conditions that would make the market competitive for us and that has not occurred. we were not able -- we do have a roaming agreement with verizon, and i cannot go into the specifics of that agreement, but it is not one in which would allow us to be competitive over a long period of time. >> ok. mr. stephenson, would you care to respond? >> i am confused. that we need to keep t-mobile in play because it will give them an option to rome on a network. t-mobile is not building the network and they do not have the spectrum to build the network. in terms of lte, the sec will

require two (marks up. there is nothing to -- the fcc will require us to open our networks up. that is a cost that i do not understand why our customer needs to incur. at the end of the day, i understand the concern with this. we are going to build a competitive network to its network. this is competition and this is what we are looking for the. having a concern that we build ours out and we will rome on his network, i do not quite grasp the logic of that. but we will open our network up. >> that is is not correct. we're not looking for at&t rto

roam on our network. we would like to roam on theirs. the scale they have to control the devices, we do not have enough buying power to be able to put in place a 700 mhz device that would roam within their band class. all devices work with then each spectrum. this is not the case here, where at&t has their own proprietary band class. >> are you calling for arrested go back to the 1990's were you had this completes injured copper ability? >> we have been calling for that the last couple of years. something close to that.

it is something that we would like to see. just like it happened in cellular, and in pcs. >> in referring to this merger in your written testimony, he said, it must be stopped. it determines the course of this industry. in contrast, there are other regional providers that do the situation with more hope than you do. u.s. cellular has stated that it sees great opportunity for the merger. on looking at its own expansion opportunities. metro has said that we think that this is a really good time for that to to put our heads down and get down to business knowing that the company could give a sharper focus from its infrastructure vendors. everyone must operator for them

to focus on. help me understand why some of these regional characters would in this -- would give this as the end of the world as we know what. i am not familiar with those quotes. they are active members and rca has taken the position that we are against this merger. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. thank you, everyone. you broke in when i was asking mr. stevenson about the national market issue. do you want to elaborate a bit on that? >> it is a national markets. that is why we published a map like that that shows the arrangements that we have.

i cannot remember how far back it was that a customer asks about a regional plan. we happen to be a regional company international business and that is what makes the agreements so important. is still should be evaluated on a national basis. market by market makes no sense in a ragged the tory environment. from a business perspective, it makes no sense. it is all about national markets. >> thank you. we talked in this senate subcommittee about the adults the-northwest merger. -- delta-northwest merger. could you comment on the employment levels? >> they have all come out in

support of this merger and their track record is one of not supporting any issue that is not what i would call job-creating. it is not unique. you only higher where and when you invest. where we are deploying and investing are the areas we are hiring. it is the ability and it is broad band. this particular transaction, we have made a public commitment and we are going to abide by this public debt -- commitment. it is a public policy objective, but it is in our shareholders' interest to deploy. we viewed this as an incremental investment and covered the long haul, a job opportunity. these types of conduct -- transactions you do have overlaps in the workforce is.

we will not need to marketing organizations. we have done this a number of times. we had a very delicate process for making this happen. we have developed what we think is a very unique, very time tested ability of dealing with these kinds of situations. if we negotiate -- if there are situations where there is overlap and business is shrinking and need to downside, we declare those positions are plus. we declare them surplus, but we do a job offer guaranteed. we give those employees opportunities to take those jobs in those areas. that has allowed us to manage our work force. elegantly. >> let's go back to some of the consumer issues. according to the data collected

by the sec, at&t accounts for nearly half of all exclusive smart to fall and launches compared to their one-third share. this data confirms what most people assume that at&t is committed itself to using exclusive contracts to attract customers. if this merger is approved, not only would at&t have 44% of all u.s. wireless subscribers, but they would be able to demand exclusivity context for any phone makers because of that enormous market share. do you think that is a fair reading of this situation? >> when i looked at 600 different options of handsets in the markets today, it tells me that this is a vibrant marketplace. every carrier has had some kind of exclusive arrangement as a means to get product to market faster.

when the market place is utilizing this capability is, we will probably produce a page as well. you are seeing fewer and fewer of these long term type relationships. >> the relationships are going down, but you will not make any commitments about the merged .ompanies >> this is a dynamic marketplace. >> will at&t commit to offer data at running the agreement at reasonable rates? >> of course, we will. that is the law. >> do you want to comment. >> we have been trying to talk to this company about it. maybe we will be able to work that out later on.

that is all i have to say. >> how does the concentration in this industry compared to other large industries, like airlines or automobile manufacturers? >> this industry would be twice as concentrated at the top and the airline industry, the banking industry, the oil industry. the concentration here, and if you look at the index, in some places, this merger is over 3000. in some markets, it will go 600 to 750 points higher. the department of justice says 200 is an anticompetitive increase. when you compare it to other industries, is off the charts. >> in canada, only three companies dominate the wireless

market. what lessons can we draw from canada's wireless market? >> i am a little bit bemused by folks looking at other countries and saying, those countries are more concentrated. they have to remember that many of those countries art have been regulated. there is price regulation, wholesale access regulation. i doubt that carried on the whole, u.s. citizens pay more. it is ironic that every time there is a city that the u.s.'s 25th or 20th, they say those are all wrong. they are different. they are rule. i find this in supreme irony. >> >> -- i want to point out

that i talked about the global broadband. what is the industry? it is wireless. it is well documented. the report did about the u.s. lagging. we are getting further behind every day countries like curious that we will not kept up with. these are unsinkable. from our point of view, what is available?

is there a way to have conditions that will deal with the fact that the u.s. is absolutely falling behind regardless of what mode we are talking about? that is a large reason why we think there is that kind of an opportunity. >> the one thing that i'm sure we can do more discussions about is the numbers. they show that the investment has gone down. competition has gone down. no one wants more than me to stop having dropped calls. willope that one of them wer work. i am not convinced that less competition will get us there. >> they invested one%.

horizon has invented in invested 12%. there are not complaining nearly as much. >> they have less. it is interesting. he is a very well respected analyst. they acquired new companies. that is why they are having the problems they are having. >> i will think we will let him respond. i think we are mixing apples and oranges. the access was behind the rest of the world. in wireless we are ahead. this is a very important distinction. >> thank you.

for rural america, there is no opportunity. >> did you want to reply? >> at&t has invested more than any other public company. senate $5 billion in the last four years. last year we invested about 9 billion. to there is obviously fix wine investments. they are serving the wireless business. the statement is inaccurate. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. some say that if it is approved it will likely be approved with a number of conditions.

would you except at&t from using any funds? >> does anyone want to make any comments? >> could i make a comment about the local market sex -- connecticut, about the local market? clearly saying that they compete against the u.s. cellular is like saying that walmart competes against the mom and pop's store. how does the justice department look locally? we have consolidated markets.

the centennial mergers started to look at the market. the market here is national. i suspect they will look at that based on the facts of this case. >> i would like to add to this. i do not think we are that different. 99.7% of our customers are on national rate plans. 99% of our advertising is national. business customers want to cede the math. if you look at national advertising, what are the key messages? these are not county and state maps. these are national maps.

we sell more of our devices to the national retailers. it is more than we do peronist stores. -- then we do in our own stores. >> we decided to go to the model. the regional differences are too big. we went to an organization that really the purchase the market. take this company. it is 0% market share.

21 some could be there. it shows you how different we are. thank you for being whom. -- here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> and donald trump gives a speech. mike rogers speaks on the council for relation. later, a senate hearing exam and a proposed merger of at&t/t mobile. >> without significant spending cuts and changes in the way we spend the american people's money, there will be no increase in the debt limit.

it is online at the c-span video library where you can watch and cheer and the and then recovered to watch and share every of and we have covered -- it is online at the c-span video library where you can watch and cheer every video we have coverage. >> donald trump spoke at the national chamber of commerce. he said they admit that [unintelligible] his remarks are about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. what a nice group.

thank you very much. it is a great honor to be here. this is where it all started for me. in 1989 it earned a mine made this pitch. there is a motivational types speech. everybody works here. we love workers. i made the speech. i came back. i found out i was running for president. that is the first time i thought about running for president as donald trump. it was interesting. all of my life i have heard that very successful people cannot run for high office. i just heard it so many times. nobody said it would be easy. i had no idea i would get a

hammer that i have been hammered. i think it is a compliment. i am not sure. i knew i was getting into the lion's den. the president said a lot about me. there were no jokes. there is a comedian that got up. he started talking about me. i said is this a good thing? is it a bad thing? in my supposed to be honored are high and the table? i just sat there and listened in ticket in. it was a little bit amazing.

i am not a professional politician. our mayor is a great leader. i think that has turned out to be largely an asset. i sit on the president. i was very strong in saying put up your birth certificate. why not show it? why does it take so long? i was honored i was able to get him to do it. i guess the debate will rage. my big thing has been jobs. it has been jobs in the economy. i built a really great business. i belted over years. it is doing unbelievably well.

we made a lot of decisions that have been really terrific. i hate getting out of that business and doing something else. our country is in serious trouble like it has never been before. the kind of numbers we are hearing today are so unbelievable and so incredible in size. three or four years ago you never heard keyword "trillions." now everything is trillion. the deficit, debt, budget. a lot of people do not see how to get out of it. my businesses will not be good if this country is going to be going down. it has a very big shot at doing this.

what i can tell you is that if president obama gets reelected, i think taxes will go through the roof. i do believe he is holding them down as much as he can. i met with a great group of folks. we have a very frank discussion. if he gets in office, i honestly believe your taxes will go to a level that they have not been at for a long time. that will not be good for this country or business. it to not begin for new hampshire. it will be good for no one. we have a real problem. we do not use our best people. i have seen this over many years. i know the good ones and bad

ones. it is an absolute art. china is going to make $300 billion for this country. they are taking a hard jobs. they make our products. they take our jobs. they do through manipulation of currency. then the president of china comes to the united states and we hold a beautiful evening. we honor a man that has taken advantage of this country. i do not blame him. if he can get away with it, why not do it? the whole thing is unbelievable. he looked at what opec is doing, they sit around the table.

there is a lot of oil of there. we are going to cut it back. they want to keep the prices high. that is not going to happen. you are not doing it anymore. we protect them. we protect so many countries. we protect self korea. i ordered 4000 television sets last year. i love things that are in trouble. i love it. thank you for telling me. i am only kidding. the food is very good. i am not kidding about that. it is a nice hotel.

you look at what they are doing. the worst abuser of the united states is opec. last year they made $4 billion. this is not a huge country. we do not do that much business with them. what is going on? what do we doing. where does is thinking come from? how does that happen? i am a very proud republican. i'm very proud of our ideals. i like paul ryan very much.

the plan that was put forward was early. there is the reason to put the plan forward with they are even talking about touching medicare at this time there is the reason for its they come in. it is put in by the republicans. you have republicans. you talk about demagogues. the democrats are doing a plan like i have never seen. we lost a congressman who decided to go on it. he should be thrown out. a very popular republican woman is running for the office.

she is having a hard time defending that situation. i'm talking about the art of the deal. it is the biggest selling business book of all time. airtime and mention that, people applause. the tell me they got their stock by reading that book. you have to let him go first.

there are so many things going on. what is happening? what is happening to this country? we have a chance to be great again. think of it. until recently, we are spending $2 billion so brazil can drill for oil. what are we not drilling for oil? why are we not drilling for oil in this country? a friend of mine who is doing pretty well and a guy who is always wanted to do this is buying a plane. he tells me the name of the plane. where is it may? brazil. why brazil? because i get a $1.2 million tax credit in the united states a firefight in brazil. what is going on?

i know wall street very well. i know the sellers and the guys who are the smartest and those who are not. will renegotiate against china and south. -- and south korea, we are to using our street is business people. we have the best. instead we use a diplomat. i do not want a nice person. i am not that nice a person. i would make this country great again. that i can tell you.

we had a great victory last week with the killing of oslo -- of osama bin london. that was great. we are so politically correct. the people that i watched jump of the world trade center, that was torture. why? in terms of torture, in terms of enhanced interrogation, we would not have caught him with out it.

that is what led this to him. i think these people should not be under the kind that they are under. i do not think so at all. one in the things that was recently found out is that osama bin laden's plan was to bankrupt what was the former soviet union. he succeeded in doing. now it is called russia. that war bankrupted russia.

he wanted to bankrupt the united states. we have $10 billion a month. what are we doing? i heard that they have tremendous mineral resources. i look at iraq. i see things. do you know who is in there trying to get them? china. while we are out there fighting, nobody knows. we are spending billions of dollars on fighting.

we are trying to get the minerals and afghanistan. we cannot build schools and our own city. we cannot build roads in our own cities. i have been to china in numerous times. i see airports going up like you and not believe. was the last time you saw a major bridge being built in the united states. it does not happen. a friend of mine -- i respect what they do. if they can take it vantage of our leaders, i have great respect for that. they are filling in a big chunk of the ocean. how long did it take did take them to the year of our mettle

permanence? he said what? he said it is the ocean. they built new cities over there and about 12 minutes. i am totally into fairness. they are going to employ thousands and thousands of people because of a blade of grass. i have seen them over a certain type over this. i deal with environmental consultants all the time. i look at this. they say it is horrible.

he said actually, it is not horrible for me. i'm making a fortune. they actually go up to albany. they make their restrictions harder. you have to hire them to get them through this horrible situation. if you are not rich, cannot do it at all. even the drilling of oil the of such resources. today announced that they were going to have all of their transportation needs down and they wanted natural gas. they are going to sell the oil to the united states and other places.

we have more natural gas than anybody. the wind is limited. i go up and build a building. i want to use solar. i am good at dollars. this will take approximately 22 years. i said that is not so good. maybe i will not use solar. it is going to get better. we have tremendous. we do not use it. you hear about of a dog a using natural gas. it is incredible -- abu dhabi using natural gas. if you look at bill o'reilly from a few weeks ago, i said

osama bin laden is in pakistan. some of you probably heard this. it was loud and clear. as we are going to give them 3.2 billion. i said listen. i understand something about that. this is before the event took place. we are not giving q this unless you hand over to us osama bin laden. everybody looked at me. nobody else they did that. in never get picked up.

it is interesting. they pick them up. they do not give me credit. that is what they paid about politics. when you come up with a good idea, if they like it they take it. i love to get credit. i said you could look over there at the number of weeks. let them give us this. if anybody thinks that they did not know that he was here, who is not sitting in this big house. they made it like this incredible mansion.

anybody thinks that the government did not know he was there, they are foolish. this is important. they do not have any money unless they get nuclear weapons. to me this is simple. for us to be giving them money, they go out. they take our money. they use of for themselves. they go well and use that money for nuclear weapons.

the main not be at all friendly. they may be tremendously against us. if that happens, it is shield is in serious trouble. they seriously need our money. that is a deal that i wish to make. you cannot let them have this nuclear weapons. another one i gave, is the sovereign nation of iraq. they spent $1.50 trillion. we have low worth thousands of great young men and women. we have tens of thousands of people that are incredible people that are horribly wounded with legs and arms missing. and see this in new york and all

over. we go in. the price it. we believe it. as soon as we leave it iran will take over iraq'. it is already happening. they are planning it. you know how people are. iran is very cunning. they have been fighting for years and years. for years they were equal. the war is over. they get there. what we have done is we have decapitated one of their countries. they want the country. what they really want is the oil. they have the second-largest oil reserves in the world. $15 trillion.

it is very close to our deficit. it is interesting. it is an amazing number. why is this? i say, they are in there. i have friends. they are good people. they are smart people. some are liberal. some are conservative. are you suggesting we take the oil? that is a sovereign nation. i say, excuse me? it is amazing. some people love it. if you remember when we rent into iraq, alatas marlins are saying not to worry about it. we did not know what we were doing. it does not matter. he did not knock down the world trade center.

it has nothing to do with it. what he did do is kill terrorists. he would kill you if you were a terrorist in iraq. he would kill you. now iraq is the harvard of terrorism. the one to be a terrorist, go to iraq. afghanistan is pretty good, too. what you are redoing? we have our army over there. in a the kind of money we are talking above? we have spent 1.5 trillion. at a minimum, we get our money back. we tell each when the family of the soldiers that died the there are a couple of million dollars. we give them a lot of money. it is pemex compared to what the

numbers are in this incredible reserve. we pay those families back. people say seamy he cannot do this -- say to me you cannot do this because of the sovereign nation. when the families of those fallen soldiers are sitting at home watching television a couple of years from now, they will not go away there. when the families of the great soldiers are sitting at home a couple of years from now, one iran goes in and takes over iraq, and tells of one house to bid the united states coast -- is, how do think the parents of that 22 year-old soldier, had you think the parents will feel about that? the soldiers will have died in

vain. what a terrible situation. i have made a lot of good predictions. but allotted them came true. i am not saying i am a great psychic. i think most people -- business people do. i said terrorism will be a big factor. people did not know too much about what terrorism was. i say we are going to have a great crash. i think we could have a real problem.

we could have a real second did. i know how to deal with opec. i know how to deal with china. i'm a lot of money. i was very proud of myself. these people are smart. they are cunning. they are not our friends. i am thinking about running. it is tough. i am very anti-establishment. too early, too soon, there is no reason for him to do it. the new go and do your number. he gets something that or make the country great again. i'm very anti-establishment.

people will say bad things about me. what have i said today that people take a shot at? i want to take care of our people. to the other countries, i want to take advantage of a situation like this. lenny think about it, what is there? i go back. i am doing nicely. i haven't even announce whether or not i am running. even the republicans do not like it. i'm not in the club. you cannot be in that club. that club is not what once is what's going to make as a great country.

we have tremendous potential. we have unbelievable potential. if we know we wrongdoing. if we had the right people. we cannot let china drain us. we cannot let south korea drain test. -- us. i said find an american company. nobody could do it. they cannot find a company. we have them from south korea. it is interesting. do you know what happens? they have this agreement. they said we do not want it. my son would not have agreed to

that agreement. that is how bad it was. a couple of days later, they win by north korea. north korea said we did not want to mess around. we signed the agreement. they would not do it. as soon as the bombs went off, we said we want to do it immediately.

we have to use it. south korea makes a fortune selling the televisions. a politician must not say what i say. it will not work. they are going to respect you more. they are going to have more respect. when you are firm and tough was somebody, if you develop a better relationship with them. when they make a lot of money because you're stupid, they don't respect you. right now, nobody respects our country. they don't respect our leaders. right now, this country will be

going over a cliff. just in closing, i want to say and i think it is very important, i honestly believe that the upcoming election is one of the most important elections ever in this country's history. we have a chance to be great. we have the chance to be an unbelievable power again. i am talking from an economic standpoint. i do not want china and afghanistan. why is not china helping with libya? you know who gets a lot of their oil from libya? not the united states. we get nothing. china. why are they not involved? we do not have the right leaders. they do not see it. if i run and if i win -- and

that is a big if -- this country will be great again. this country will be rich again. and maybe, most importantly of all, this country will be respected again. thank you very much. it is a great honor to be here. thank you. [applause] thank you very much . >> mr. trump, thank you for those remarks. we will take questions. >> make them nice and easy, please. >> mr. trump, thank you for coming today. as a small businessman --

>> a good negotiator. i will let him negotiate against china. [laughter] [applause] those guys can negotiate. go ahead. >> thank you. as a small businessman who has been downtown for 53 years in a fourth generation business, the concern we all have downtown is that we're losing market share. the old single-owner businesses are going away as malls and shopping centers are being built up. what would you do as you see these downtown suffering to maybe change direction and look at it from another point of view to be a viable again? to be healthy again? and to help the next generation? >> they come in and they have these massive stores.

it is a whole different thing. this is a changing time. a lot of towns are knocking them out. i would say this, in all fairness, if the economy were good, and it is not great in new hampshire and all and it is not great almost anywhere -- he noted is good? it is good in washington. washington is running everything and they own everything. that is the exact opposite of what we want. if this economy where raging again, you do so great. guys like me and plenty of others in this room will be going to your store. there is room for everybody. if we could get this economy going again, if we could get jobs back instead of having them going to india and having them -- and having mexico -- there is a place called newton, iowa where maytag was given a huge incentive to move out of newton,

iowa and they moved to mexico with their incentive. and now newton, iowa is devastated. this is years ago and they have not come back. if we could use the right brain power, you have some much business and so would everyone else. you hate to restrict these big companies from coming in. i think even you would agree to that. i've seen plenty of towns do it and they have been hurt in a much different way. if we could make our country strong again, economically, we're just teetering along and it will start getting worse and worse because of what is happening with the euro and other things. we have no interest rate. i went to a bank the day. if you have a cd's, the deny give you anything. if you want to borrow today, if your super prime, you can borrow whatever you want and not pay anything. but if you need money for a house, they will not give you money for a house. you go to the bank and it is very, very hard. i am talking about the big

banks. i'm not talking about you. your bank is wonderful. [laughter] [applause] they have taken these tremendous subsidies from the government and now, they sitting on them and not allowing the money out. that is one of the big problems. the real problem, what is going with gasoline in terms of green the world back, in terms of bringing our world back, and eventually, interest rates will have to go up. the dollar is being decimated. if you look at your food costs -- look at the cost of cotton. that blows away gasoline. but if you look at your food costs, at your clothing costs, and your gasoline costs, it is setting records. a lot of that is because of the decimation of the dollar. so we have to get a strong dollar back. we have to get the country going again. you, side, and everybody else will make a lot of money.

>> you a ticket question right here in this corner and we're back there. -- we will take a question right here and in this corner and way back there. >> my husband and i own a small clothing store. before i ask my question, i would just like to say, as a mother of a young naval officer who did four six-month deployment in the persian gulf between 2003 and 2005, i do appreciate your respect for the job that those young men and women have done. >> thank you very much. [applause] i do respect them greatly. >> i question to you is -- you have made some statements about not being a nice guy and being anti-establishment and some things like that. to that end, if you do enter the political arena, the art of

compromise is something that is kind of important. is that something, a skill, that you will develop? [laughter] is that something that you will tap into your inner nice guy at some point? [laughter] >> that is a very fair question. she is a comedian. first of all, i hope i am a nice guy. i say that, but i hope i am a nice guy. >> i have one other thing. >> go ahead. >> i hope the two johns go head- to-head in the final. >> i thought you were talking about candidates. [laughter] that is right, the celebrity apprentice. thank you. very funny. [laughter] do we have two of them named john? ok, number one, i hope i am a nice guy. we do not have room for big negotiation. we have given that up over the

last 10 years, 12 years, 15 years. we have to do it right. the problem that we have is that there has been some much compromise. let's compromise, let's compromise, let's do this, let's do that. in the end, we have more debt than ever in the history of the country. we have more debt now than all but added that together. we need not compromise. we need smart people. and we need good people. and maybe we need lame-duck people. maybe people will say, you know what, we have to do the right thing for this country and we have to do it. if it is popular or not popular, whatever it is to get this whole thing in order, because, if you don't get it in order, this country's going over a cliff. they were comparing it to greece and comparing us to a lot of other countries that do have been reading about. i was watching one of the shows the other day and said that we were actually in worse shape proportionally than some of

these other countries. we read all the time. it is true. 40 cents out of every dollar goes to pay interest to china? and to other places that are making a fortune on us? i think compromise is a great thing. i have made plenty compromises over my life. we are beyond compromise. we have to do what is right for the country. if we do not, we will not have much a country left. ok, thank you. that was a great question. thank you. [applause] >> we will take the third and final question this afternoon. >> ok, go ahead pierre >> good afternoon, mr. trump. my question is -- you have spoken a lot about getting respect back for country abroad. more importantly, here in our community, what will we do for new jobs? do you have any novel strategies to develop new jobs or to grow the economy?

>> i do, actually. i have a lot of strategies for new jobs. we have to take our manufacturing back from china and many other places that are doing it. [applause] it is really easy. i toured two weeks ago -- i toured new hampshire. we had a great time. we had some companies that i looked at that were absolutely unbelievable, the level of detail, the technology, the whole thing. these are great manufacturing companies. i was so proud. i almost didn't think we have this anymore in this country. we have some great, great people in this country. but when china minister currency so they take jobs out of new hampshire and new england and you look at what happened -- but when china manipulates their currency so they take jobs out of new hampshire and new england -- the think these people want to be in mexico? the fact is that we have to

manufacture our own product. we have to. we have to start manufacturing again. we have to, by the way, get rid of obamacare. it is a disaster. [applause] if we do not get rid of it -- i have six friends who are in modest-sized businesses. of the six, two will close their business. another two are thinking about it. they say that we cannot afford obamacare. we can afford the health care could we cannot do it. these are good guys. they have really good companies. they are fantastic people. they're thinking about closing. i never heard them mention that word and i have known them -- a couple of them went toward in with me. i had never even heard this. we have to get rid of obamacare. the other thing is that i really think that this president is giving -- doing this country a tremendous disservice. the study should have given his birth certificate to use your -- believe it or not, i am really proud of what i did getting him

to produce it. believe me. [applause] but it is sort of the same thing. we're going through all of these courts systems. they are in virginia and all over the place. why does he not a lot just to go to the supreme court? you will save a year and maybe more than a year. i know people that are going absolutely crazy with their business because they're doing this very, very, very complicated restructuring on the assumption that obamacare happens. and if it does not happen, they have to go all the way back. this is thousands of millions of businesses in this country. why do not the various legal entities involved, headed by the president, in all fairness -- why does he not less it -- let his people go directly to the supreme court? win or lose, at least they will be certain. when we talk about business,

there's something that we talk about -- certainty. you need certainty. at least this way, we will get it faster decision. ultimately, those people on the supreme court will be ruling on obamacare. they may approve it or they may not. but would it not be good if we knew what would happen instead of waiting a year and a half, maybe two years and nobody knows what is going to happen? certainty. it has been an honor to be with you. this has been a lot of fun. thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> said it, newt gingrich the specialists said he is running

for president. -- this morning, newt gingrich specifically said he is running for president. >> newt gingrich. i am announcing my presidency for president of the united states that. i believe we can return to full employment, to real security, to an american energy program, to a balanced budget. i work for president ronald reagan. we got jobs created again and americans proud of the country and we got note -- and we got rid of the soviet union. unemployment came down from 5.6% to under 4%. for four years, we balance the budget and paid for $0.5 billion in bills. i want your help because no one person in the oval office can

get this done. we americans will have to talk together, work together, find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those forces that do not want to change. there are some people who do not mind if america becomes a wreck as long as they dominate the wreckage. but you and i know better. we owe to our children, our gallon children, the country, and ourselves. looking interface, tell the truth, make the tough courses, get the job done. there is a much better american future ahead with more jobs, more prosperous, a better health system, longer lives, greater independent living, and a country that is decentralized with power given back to the american people and away from washington. no one person can accomplish this. it cannot be done from the oval office. we have to work together. we americans have to get it done.

i hope you decide to join me. us worked side-by-side. let's do this for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren, and for our country. see what we are trying to get done and decide to join us in getting america back on the right track. . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> mike rogers at the council on foreign relations. then a senate hearing on the proposed merger of at&t and t- mobile. and the house armed services committee works on a bill authorizing next year's defense department programs. >> former massachusetts gov. mitt romney is considering a presidential run and has assigned an exploratory committee. tomorrow, he will be in an arbor, michigan. you can watch it live at 2:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span 3 and c-span.org.

>> this in june, the balance between security and liberty, the difficulties of the climate change treaty, and the limits of international law. your questions for author and university of chicago law posner.or eric pilsne that is live sunday june 5 on c- span 2's book tv. >> in "a reason to believe," he recounts his life peer in antonia uhas talks about the deep water horizon. and on afterward, william cohen shares his insights on money and power, how goldman sacks came to rule the world. look for the complete book tv schedule and get our schedules

in your in box. sign up for book tv alert. >> the c-span networks, which provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction book, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, all mine, and on social media networking sites. finder content anytime through the season ended a library. -- c-span on the road with their digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing resources to your community. it is washington your way. it is now available in more than 100 million homes, greeted by cable, provided as a public service. >> now house intelligence committee chairman mike rogers. he talks about the killing of osama bin laden and how u.s. intelligence has changed since 9/11. the council on foreign year -- for relations posted this hour- long event. -- the council on foreign relations hosted this hour-long

event.

>> congressman rogers brings a wealth of experience to his chairmanship. he served in the army. he served in the michigan legislature. he has also been in the private sector. i think all those issues will be relevant to our conversation. turn your gadgets off -- that means all the way off, not on beep or vibrate. this meeting is on the record. it is being recorded. the entire session is on the record. the congressman will offer his remarks for about 15 minutes. then we will engage in a question and answer session together. about 8:30, will open the floor to your questions. we'll ask you to wait for the microphone, introduce yourself and your affiliation. the congressman will be talking to us today about the

implications, the lessons, the significance of the successful attack on osama bin laden. we look forward to those remarks. we welcome you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. good morning. it is great to be here. i appreciate the opportunity and the offer. i thank you for your work in the intelligence business as well. i know you did some liaison work. in this business, they change acronyms more than they change their underwear. [laughter] thank you for being here. it is always good when you walk up to give the speech when jane harman, who is a good speaker, says, "do not screwed this up." [laughter]

i am honor to see the national security adviser for ronald reagan here. thank you for being here. i see paul bremer in the audience -- a former ambassador. my wife worked with you in iraq for quite a while. thank you for sending her back in one piece. we appreciate that very much. i want to talk a little bit about where we are. before i talk about where we are, i want to talk about where we came from. 10 years ago on the date of 911, the intelligence community was very different than it is today. a very different. it had suffered huge losses in the '90s. in some places in the world we had no coverage whatsoever. wheat closed up shop in a lot of places.

they used the intelligence committee for the opportunity for a peace dividend and the fall of the soviet union. we saw leading up to 9/11 what a serious mistake that was. we saw that the problems that were inherent in the strengthening organization and its ability to continue to do its mission -- they hunkered down in a place where information sharing was different. it was not personality-based. it was legally-based -- the ability to share information to grand juries was a crime. i do not look good in those orange jumpsuits with the numbers across the front.

what that meant was the culture that was developed was developed because the planes in the road and the rules in the road prevented those things from happening. over time it became known that you do not talk to each other. it is a legal prohibition to do that. that culture was ingrained in law, policies, and the institutions. you have a shrinking intelligence community. intelligence is too risky. we are going to eliminate large numbers of our intelligence committee. really, it led to 9/11. what's 9/11 happened, the whole notion of who is responsible or who do we blame started. at the same time, something remarkable happened. all of our intelligence agencies realized that they were not prepared for what was facing them.

the integration started. we saw technology that did not exist 10 years ago that is, today, absolutely critical to the success of those emissions. it is integrated in a way i have never seen before. the case that we saw last week, up to me, is a great example of how it can work. but i caution -- it was one successful operation in what is a long and hard fight against al qaeda, its affiliates, and those who want to do harm to the united states. we have heard calls that this is the opportunity to do it just like that every time and dismantle other large parts of the intelligence business. it cannot be further from the truth and we need to take the lessons from the '90s as we move forward. let's look at what happened. 10 years ago the target was osama bin laden. they had and osama bin laden

unit in the cia prior to this. its function was to understand, steady, and validate what they really had. they have some events that were concerning to them. africa bombings, the uss cole, tower bombings -- all of those things have an impact, but none of it had stretched across the ocean and tapped the united states directly. when it 9/11 happen, it took a unit that was obscured and made it important. "we realized it was we did not have enough human intelligence, we do not have the ability to touch people easing the correct language in the correct place as often as we would like, our ability to have signal collection in places where we need it was lacking. it was very washington, d.c. centered to the rest of the world. we did not coordinate as well as we could with the n.g.a. and other intelligence platforms that we had.

it did not happen in that way. something pretty amazing started. we started taking people off of the battlefield and we gave them interrogations'. think about why that was important. i had a senior intelligence official tell me a couple of years ago that about 70% of what the intelligence community understands the about operations, recruiting, finance, weapons movement, how they raise money, what the propaganda unit looks like, and all of those things, including what their relationship is with the hakani network came out of this first year's interrogation. all of them. that is important because if you want to get to the next place, you have to understand who they are and how they operate. five years ago to an interrogation a small piece of

information came out. an arabic name applied to an alias name. pretty difficult. that is about all the information they had that may have been tied to one of the career networks used by osama bin laden. it is more than they had in a long time. they started building on that case using every piece of intelligence technology and human intelligence we had. sources became incredibly important. we try to keep defining who this might be or what a physical description was or what operational status they may have. signal intelligence got better and our ability to get signal intelligence got better. small conversations ended up reaping big rewards overtime to try to convert to new to identify who, what, when, and why. our ability to use overhead technology. if you have ever seen a pin board on potential leads, you

can imagine that thing lit up like a christmas tree. many joked that bin laden was at a burger king in kalamazoo, michigan. guess what? there is a pin right there on that map. they decided to follow every lead at every time, i do not care how small, large, or outrageous -- they would spend time to figure out if there was truth to that particular lead. they say that the largest grossing starbucks in the united states is at cia headquarters. there is a reason for that. they are open up a lot. there is a lot of people drinking a lot of coffee, falling a lot of leads. most of them went nowhere. most of them were dry holes. most of them actually took us

away from where the target may be. then that one lucky break using all the pieces. every little piece got better. one interrogation that you the nickname. the next that you a home town or a real family and name. the next piece identified where that person might be working. all of that led to a very lucky event when they were able to follow a particular individual to a certain compound. it did not fit the characteristics. some called a mansion. some called it another thing. it clearly did not fit the characteristics of the town it was in. they put a special unit -- an isolated unit even in the counter-terrorism unit -- and decided they would have the equivalent of a pursuit team and analyze everything at the next level of. they analyzed all the resources we had with all the agencies we

had to apply on that particular target. we wanted to know everything. in the next few months, they started to everything. the complete patterns of life. all of the things you would hope they would know so that someone could make a very good decision to say, "yes, that is probably osama bin laden. we better go get him." all of the things, the lessons, and the operation itself came from something that came before it. the elite special forces team did two and three rates per night when they're working in iraq and afghanistan, most like the same kind of compound. the operation was similar to other operations which gave them a high degree of confidence and combat experience and operational experience to pull off something that was a little bit trickier than the other.

that was an incredible feat. the agency's ability to keep getting closer and closer with sources of information or people who were wittingly or unwittingly providing information about patterns of life. our ability, electronically, to pick up such a small think that might benefit that whole operation. it all happened because we learned from what happened before. there is some notion this was put together at the last minute based on a few months or even a few years of planning is ridiculous. why that is so important is now that this success, albeit a very public success, they call had started for changing the shape of the intelligence business -- changing the mission in afghanistan -- changing how we do things. this is the only way we should conduct operations -- move forward when we are trying to break the back of al qaeda. we have to take the lessons of the '90s and apply them today.

we have all the tools that were laid out -- the patriot act. this year we will do a fiscal year 2011 bill that will allow the intelligence committees to do proper oversight in the first time. authorities and the leadership is important. leo panetta has done a wonderful job. not only did he engaged the chairman of the big eight level of the the process, but when resources were needed or were not needed, when we needed to move resources in order to accommodate, all that came from a working relationship. in the past few years, the committee became almost dysfunctional in its ability to provide that leadership and assistance and oversight to the community because of the intense partisanship. my ranking member and i said we would take partisanship as much as the committee as we possibly

can. there is a benefit of not having a reporter sitting in that office. those of us in the committee know how important that is, that you have that dialogue and that debate and come to an agreement before moving forward. we are going to look at all the successes here on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, including catching osama bin laden. we've had some great ones -- a network that was completely different. as we get focused sometimes on emissions, we forget that agencies are working lots of other very serious problem sets at the same time. the network from 2006 was a major coup for the intelligence community and stop a serious problem for us, our international security

interest, and the world. that network was growing rapidly. it had a very different flavor from any proliferation you might see out of north korea. it was culturally based. it was pride base. it was not necessarily cash based. it includes some of the failures we still have to pursue and understand what they happen. in iraq, the wmd assessment was wrong, but so was our assessment in libya. they had a very robust nuclear weapons program. they had a very robust chemical stockpile. they had a very robust biological weapons program. we did not know about any of it. we had a very limited view and analytical product about where libya was. wrong in iraq.

wrong in libya. wrong in iraq. it shows you that we must continue to integrate. we must continue to integrate technology. one of the biggest problems we have today, i in the last 10 years we have developed a way to obtain such information, we cannot get through it. we are going to have smart access for those who need access to material so we do not have the wikileaks disclosure and we are going to have technology applied to large databases that will allow us to have a software based analytical product so when human eyes take a look at it, it encompasses more information than they can possibly pull through in short order. it will stop the ability to be wrong on iraq. it decreases the opportunity to be wrong on iraq and wrong on libya. it increases our ability to be

right on iran and exactly right on north korea. a lot of speculation in the past few years about where they were. we see information every day that points to our analyst were right about iran's intentions. the same with north korea. while they're making a deal with us to stop their program and take food aid, there clearly engaged in pursuing weapons of mass destruction at an aggressive rate. again, one of the purposes for agreeing to do this was to put it in context about where we came from in history and how we got to where we were last week. we need continued oversight of the community. we have already seen pressure on the patriot act. one of the great analogies i heard on the way over is when

the doctor gives you your regiment of medicine, if you take half of it and think you are better, he would get sick again. this is about taking all of our medicine. al qaeda is alive and well. they are hurt and damage. they're inspirational and operational leader has been taken off the battlefield. it is a huge opportunity for us. the confusion for them is an opportunity for us. this is the opportunity to step on the gas and brake their back. we are going into the political season. there will be lots of people disclosing information they should not be talking about when we are continuing to pursue. at the end of the day, we will take this opportunity to analyze from stem to stern, are

our analyst doing the right thing? what is the problem? why did we miss of the times square bomber, the detroit, when we knew they were kettles of information that would have helped us in that. we are still not there yet. we will continue the integration with our analyst. we'll continue our ability to share information in a way that gives smart access. we will continue to make sure we are funded at the right level. this is the wrong time to back off funding the intelligence community when they are very close to technological breakthroughs that will make our analytical products exponentially better by getting analyst to far more information. our fiscal year 2011 makes that down payment. fiscal year 2012 intelligence bill comes out next month. we'll continue to make that investment. it is one of the few minor items coming out of the house that will be a slight increase

because it is an investment in technology and people. lastly, all the politics of interrogation have crept into our political space, it is important to understand that leadership on these issues from the top to the bottom was equally important to be osama bin laden capture. good on the president for taking a look at the information and authorizing the operation itself. at the same time, we need to make sure that all of the policymakers from the executive branch to congress understand that all of the things that led up to osama bin laden have to be improved upon and they need to have the leadership behind them so they can continue to produce the kinds of information that will get us zawahiri and continue to break their backs.

this is our chance to break the back of al qaeda. it is no opportunity for us to retreat. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [applause] if you would like to settle in, we will get it started with a few questions. one of the observations you made is that we do not catch all of them. he gave the example of the domestic terrorist incident. i wonder if we could focus for a minute on the committee structure on the hill. new committees had the homeland security responsibility. they are the ones who had a lead on some of the questions on the domestic, the integration of the fbi, etc.

how do you relate to the other committees that have a part of national security? what is working and what needs to be addressed in terms of congress' organization? >> one of the big complaints coming out of the 9/11 commission -- if you have never been in the executive branch, one of your big frustrations is the big committees. that is a long-term problem for congress to fix. we will have to deal with it eventually. probably not any time soon. those battles are some of the most fierce fights i have ever seen. they make other parts of politics look like child's play. what we have done in the committee, i changed the rules of this year for the first time to allow three members of the appropriations committee to be full partners without a vote into the committee.

they have declarants this. they sit on the committee -- they have the clearances. they sit on the committee. that is one step closer to what the 9/11 commission had intended. they participate in our classified briefings. it that way we can have a discussion with someone who sits on appropriation on all of the issues and programs in a way that gets us to a better conclusion. i think it helped us already on the 2011 bill and will help us on the 2012 bill. we have reached out and are doing joint efforts with armed services, which has not been done before, to try to work out the military intelligence portion, which is huge. it is sometimes larger than the national intelligence budget.

we have better integration. homeland security we do not deal with as much. it is a big switch to go from "i am going to put somebody in jail" to "i am going to look for this person for 10 years." it is something we have been working with. we have done our own outreach to try to solve that problem. i am not sure exactly -- i think it would take an act of congress to fix congress. i do not think we are ready publicly to realize this committee in the way i think it should be done. it probably will not happen anytime soon. >> you talked about the

successful integration across the intelligence of disciplines that were inspired by the lessons of 9/11, partly by the intelligence reform legislation of 2004, and the creation of the office of the director of national intelligence. the think that reflects well on topics other than terrorism? >> it had a rough start, i think. it had a rough assignment to try to bring together all of the intelligence services. there have been positive things that have come out of it. the president's daily brief is removed from the cia. now you have much more participation. i think you get a better product that the president has an opportunity to see. there is more input than there used to be. it used to be guided to the cia plans. i think that is a good outcome. i do think we have finally gotten it.

there was a lot of argument about how big it should be. we got back to what really is the mission of the office of the director of national intelligence? if we can focus that mission on the sexy things in the intelligence world, it could be hugely successful. when we get there, the size of that will come into line with what the mission is. we are doing a review and have to present that very soon. if anything came out of that, one of the things that congress said was that you have to share information better. that clearly has happened. the directorate said we are going to put this out there and share it. it was a little risky. we think we can fix that problem, but it promoted information sharing across the intelligence community like had never happened before. if those two outcomes came out,

i'd think that was very helpful. >> everybody is going to be expected to tighten their belts. you said at the end that you thought the intelligence budget could be stable if not increase a little bit. one of the issues that affects the tolerance for budget increases when everyone else is cutting is the level of public support. i note that all the diplomacy side, many people believe that because there is not a domestic constituency. military officers are seen as very heroic, but sometimes the civilian side is not necessarily popular. is serving on the intelligence committee popular with your constituents? had you think the american

public feels about intelligence? if it were the only part of the budget going up, the think the american public would support that? >> i do think the american public supports the intelligence services. nothing more exemplifies that than when you see something like the osama bin laden success. that was a 10 year success story. we invested a lot of money in the process of, not just that particular event, but the ability to do exactly that. i do think americans see that and interpret that as we are the number-one intelligence service in the world. politically, it does not do much for you. it is hard to go to a town hall meeting and say, "i am the chairman of the intelligence committee. i cannot talk about it." [laughter] i think americans do see it for what it is and the value. intelligence is playing a more important role in policy making

decisions then i think i have ever seen in my time in congress or before. it has the real time essence of how the world is changing. it means you have to take real time changes in washington, d.c. without good, accurate, well- analyzed intelligence it makes our job that more difficult and more likely we will make a mistake. it is critical that we continue a robust intelligence service. that being said, i actually brought in auditors for the first time to go through budget audits to try to find things we thought we could change, that we could get savings on. it has been very effective. we think we have saved a couple hundred million dollars this

year alone in merging programs enforcing programs to come together. we get to peer over all of the silos. sometimes you can see what one silo is doing and what the other silo is doing looks awfully similar. we have been able to merge that together and get some savings. >> i am going to open it up to you. >> thank you. welcome. i am enjoying my new service here. two things. first, in your remarks you did not mention the intelligence reform legislation of 2004, but alan ask you about it. it was passed over the opposition of secretary of defense donald rumsfeld and the

chairman of the armed services committee, duncan hunter. we had to make some compromises, but it was bipartisan legislation that originated in the house intelligence committee. your predecessor played a courageous role in pushing it forward. my question is this -- the director of national intelligence gets credit for helping him leverage and create the same business that was necessary to put the clues together that were the predicate for finding of somewhat bin laden. i think you would agree with that. i think you would agree that we need to continue to do that among other things. my question is, we seem to be much better at doing that horizontal late at the federal level. you are a former fbi guy.

you get the fact that we have to share intelligence vertically from the federal level down to our communities. from there i think we still have problems with over classification and less leadership then we might need because if we are going to find the next attack and hopefully prevent a disruption in our country, we need fully informed law enforcement at the local level. my question to you is how can we do better with vertical information sharing using the tools at hand and using the oversight that congress can provide? >> that is something that we wrestle with. the department of homeland security has tried to take this role and take classified information, put it in a format which is readable and unclassified, and get it out to joint terrorism task forces.

my only concern was that maybe we went too fast. you might have the joint terrorism task force and eight fusion centers within a few miles of each other in some places in the country. it is hard for local law enforcement to supply the people to these task forces. they are judged by assaulting burglaries, homicides, and other crimes. this is a more nebulous concept that we are going to help prevent something. i am not sure i know the answer other than we need to continue to take that information. i would argue that we need to look at how we do yet and have restructured them. we could probably do it in a more efficient way. i think we ought to have a hard look at it and see if we cannot consolidate it and find a way

to get information that is usable. we had what i called the need to know with whom to share. we got in a big rush that everybody had to know everything. that is not the right answer either. one of the systems we are working on that can help with that end game is having the ability for smart access systems. we probably really do not need to know what is going on in yemen unless there is a nexus. without the nexus, you could not get another wikileaks. that problem would go away, but it would still continue this notion that i have access to everything. you take that and try to find something that -- yes, it is something that is important for detroit. probably not something that is

important for maine. that is the next phase. it will look more efficient. >> back in 2005, someone was retiring from mi6. he said the time to exchange information was today. i was wondering if he shared that view with you are not. >> there has been some big changes in we share multilaterally. we could do a whole hour on that and how we develop the resources for better cooperation. we share information with people you may be surprised.

we have been able to get by on who the common enemy is. we tried to do that as fast as we can because we have found over time that with good relationships we get better information as well. our british, australian, and canadian friends are some of our best partners in the war on terror. this is that part of leadership i talked about. when there are problems, you can see it manifest itself in these liaison services. we have had experiences in the last year or so because of relationships with certain countries that filters down our ability to share information with liaisons'. it is a top-down leadership. you do not want to offend our british friends. they are important partners to

the united states in the war on terror. i have 300,000 to 400,000 pakistani males that travel every year. they are worried about it. that means we are worried about it. we need some robust relationships. they are integrated here in the united states. we are integrated there in the united kingdom. it works great. the problem is, we have to be consistent up and down the pipe, sharing information that should not be shared means that people stop sharing information with us. i am tried to talk around it the best i can. there have been instances when information was shared that caused the liaison partners to say if you continue to do this, we will stop talking.

>> i am from the atlantic council. i wanted to ask, did you know about the osama bin laden raid beforehand? secondly, i wanted to ask about iran. what in your view has been the most effective set of tools against the iranian nuclear program? where do you think they are? thank you. >> while. look at the time. [laughter] leon panetta has done an exceptionally good job at the cia. maybe it is a product of being a former member, but he is good about understanding how valuable a partnership can be with the intelligence committee. he has done that.

when i became chairman, i had a dinner and a briefing to come over and go over where we were back in january about what the possibilities were. at that time, it was 40% to 50% certain that that was do it was. he kept us in the loop. we had to move some money. all that was well done on behalf of the cia director. i think it was more effective at the end of the day. at the cia, i am sure general petraeus will do a great job. i told leon i was not sure i would talk to him anymore. on the second part, this is one of those interesting areas where early on there were policy differences about how you approach iran.

other equities who work for more aggressive, who were leaning far more aggressively, that maybe it did not line up with where the united states was a couple of years ago. there was just some misalignment about how aggressive we wanted to be. you can imagine how israel was. go around the rim and you get as many different opportunities and suggestions about how we go about this as you could possibly imagine. some of what you had seen over time, because there has not been at one single focused plan on how we get there -- i think that is a lack of u.s. leadership on this issue. we have to lead this effort. we should be sitting at the head of that table, discussing those ideas, and talking about it with our european allies, iran's neighbors, who are equally terrified as israel is.

i think we can come suit some approaches on this thing. we have not done that. i think that needs to happen i think there will be other things that may not be as coordinated as well as they should have. >> the gentleman in the middle? >> i want to be a little contrarian. he singled out the experience that american special forces have gained through operations in iraq that help prepare for their success in last week's rate. he also taught, i presume, about the enhanced interrogation methods that led to bin laden. what if america had not pursued a war in iraq?

what if they had done the interrogations on the persons in custody? do you think it would have taken the united states 10 years to find information on bin laden's whereabouts? beyond that, the policies of the united states that had been pursued over the last 10 years, whether it be the unbridled support of israel and it's very controversial region, how do you see your role in looking at american-born policy and whether different approaches may have led to different conclusions? >> that would be great if you messed everything that happened before the 1990 bombing in new york. as i said, the african bombings, the uss cole -- the way we were operating then did

not work. they're getting more aggressive and more bold. they were recruiting. they were using those successes. the barracks bombing -- we dealt with that. all of those successes led them to be more bold, to recruit more people. there was no guantanamo bay. there was no interrogations'. there was not much of anything going on against al qaeda, bin laden, and his network. we felt it was going better, stronger, and more sophisticated. 9/11 was a result of, i argue, not having an aggressive policy and not understanding the threat of al qaeda and what their true intentions were to, not only the united states -- they have killed more muslims than they have killed westerners.

there is some notion we are going to go back to the way it was and that somehow this is going to go away. i think it is a naive at best. that is why we have found such good partners in muslim countries to say, "you are right. they have to give." they are as dangerous to a muslim family as they are to an american family. that has been our success. i did not talk about interrogation techniques. you brought it up. but all the interrogations that were conducted over time -- if you take someone off of the battlefield, you are going to talk to them. i am a former fbi guy. all this interrogations' netted and vote that helped us get smarter about who they work. everyone that you talk to, they give you the opportunity to solve that next big problem for our efforts to break the back of al qaeda.

yes, i thing we should be interrogating people. having this policy that we are prosecuting the cia officer to engaged in interrogations lawfully and then celebrate the fact that that information may have contributed to the fact that we got bin laden is ridiculous. we do need to have a place to put them. if we get them off of the battlefield, where do we put them? guantanamo bay is the one facility that is not only protected from people getting out, but also from outside people getting in. in afghanistan, they took 500 fighters out of a tunnel. i think we have to shake ourselves out of this notion

about political cycles when we talk about information. this is been a decades-long problem. we saw how it worked under the old system and we see how it works under this system. under this system, osama bin laden is dead. >> thank you, mrs. chairman. given that there is an investigation going on right now and to whether or not there was official pakistani complicity in the harboring of osama bin laden, do you think it is incumbent on the administration to publicly acknowledge if there is evidence produced of pakistani complicity, that they should make that public? the american people have a right to note that the man who was responsible for 9/11 was being harbored by another

government? should that be made public or, given the nature of the u.s.- pakistani relationship, should that evidence remain classified and not released? >> interesting question. pakistan is one of the most confusing relationships we have with another country. when i talk about the liaison relationships, they are very important. the army is in the tribal areas for the first time since it became a nation. the tribal areas are treated as a semi autonomous area under the constitution. there have been thousands and thousands of casualties in that fight. they have helped us arrest some 600 al qaeda and at taliban leadership. everybody from bomb makers to finance years to weapons dealers and everything in between.

those are the days you think, this is a good ally. this is somebody we need to be a partner with. at the same time, they signed a treaty with someone who had immunity status. unbelievable for a country who wants to join the rest of the world as a law-abiding country. you have at least the notion about bin laden and why was he able to -- clearly he had a logistics network. what they knew is something we are asking lots of questions about. we do know that the frontier corps is riddled with sympathizers to the taliban, mostly because it is familiar. they have a family ties across the tribes in the area. that has presented a huge problem.

we know that certain i.s.i. members have a sympathy towards the taliban and other networks. you have all of those problems all going on at the same time. it is a confusing place. our national interests have not lined up. pakistan has not come to the conclusion that the taliban and al qaeda is a bigger threat than india. they believe india is their problem. that has been our struggle all along. they look at this as, "we would like to help. we are going to try to help. had elected india lately? that is a real problem." that is the struggle we have had with pakistan. we need to understand. i think it is inherent as our relationship continues that we know who, what, when, and why about osama bin laden being in this compound for as much as five years. we should all understand that.

i will tell you that today from all the information i have seen, we cannot conclusively say that somebody senior new and promoted safe haven. delete that even if the the other way, but we cannot say the institution near and what the other way. we will know that, i believe. this is a good opportunity for pakistan. this was embarrassing. let's move forward. there is a lot we can do together. >> with all due respect, you have not answered my question. >> i think i did. we do not know. this is washington, d.c.

when does something not become public? clearly i think that information will be made public if it is true. i do not think you can contain it. >> we have two more questions. >> many years ago i helped write the law requiring the president to notify congress when there will be a covert operation. do you think that law should be broadened to cover operations conducted solely by defense department personnel? >> that is a great question. it is one that i said early on that we would take a look at. title 10 vs. the title 50 --

military operations obverses intelligence operations -- intelligence operations -- i believe we need to do some work. the osama bin laden operation from stem to stern was a title 50 operation even though it required a special -- special forces unit. there are other places in the world about whether there is confusion of whether it should be a title 10 or a title 50 operation. we will review that. we will go case by case pretty carefully. there are some we cannot talk about and some that we can. i do believe that you have to be very careful about empowering the military to do things under title 50 without the same reporting and cavort action. we watch that like a hawk.

we have a quarterly briefings on covert actions. we do it pretty frequently. this is something that we do not let get too far away because it is the most sensitive and is fraught with the most opportunity for something to go wrong. we watch it pretty closely. the military peace seems to be missing. we are going to try to close that -- that gap between title 50 entitled to an operations. -- and it title 10 operations. >> thank you. my question -- pakistan is telling the people that they had shared information with the u.s. at some level leading to a osama bin london -- bin laden.

how does the united states think that intelligence was shared? the you'd think there is a need for pakistan to be sincere with the united states? how does the relationship with pakistan make it difficult for the congress at this particular time? the pakistan government -- it is difficult to aid the military of pakistan in the fight against terror. thank you very much. >> pakistan has been helpful in the past. it should come as no surprise to anyone for them to say that they have shared information in the past and led to a somewhat bin laden's whereabouts. i would dispute that.

the problem has come up with the fact that if they knew he was there and if they did not pass along that little tidbit of information is a huge problem. again, they have been on-again and off-again. they have been helpful. some detainees they take into custody we get access to fully. some we do not. that is the frustration with dealing with the i.s.i., the government, and the military. we will look at the for reince 6 on this so we have a full and complete picture. i hope we do not spend a lot of time on that particular portion. it is time for pakistan and the united states to say, "a done deal. osama bin laden is gone.

we have lots and lots of work to do. there are still suicide bombers in the fight for afghanistan and, we believe that they may have some logistical role in the bombings in india. all those things are still going to happen. taliban leadership is still a threat not only to our u.s. soldiers and allies in afghanistan, but i argued to the settled areas. this is the first time they have been inside a settled area of pakistan. we want to be your friends. we want to help you, but you have to have a chance parent, opened relationship where we both understand the threat of the taliban and al qaeda. that is where i hope we will take the opportunity to get there. you probably know better than

any of the internal political debates that are happening in pakistan today. it is not a heck of a lot of difference between a knock down drag out presidential election season. pakistan is suffering the same thing. the smallest thing gets blown up into a bigger? proportion event and causes pakistan to make bad decisions about cooperation with the united states. >> we have run out of time. on friday the next event will be the ceo of the volkswagen group, jonathan browning. all like to thank the chairman for a fascinating hour. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> but next, a hearing on the proposed merger of at&t and t-

mobile. later, washington journal live with your phone calls. >> on tomorrow's washington journal, texas congressman joe barton on offshore oil-drilling and tax subsidies for oil companies. adam schiff discusses u.s. intelligence strategy in afghanistan and iraq. bill allison on foreign government's lobbying efforts in the u.s. washington journal why the 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on a booktv, governor deval patrick recalls his life from chicago's is outside to the massachusetts governor's office. afterwards, william cohen shares

his insights on money and power, held goldman sacks came to rule the world. but for the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> let me be as clear as i can be -- without significant spending cuts and changes in the way we spend the american people's money, there will be no increase in the debt limit. >> all of the debate on the debt ceiling as lawmakers continued to work on the economic issues on line at the c-span video library where you concerts, watch, clip, and share every event we have covered from 1987 until today. it is washington your way. >> the c-span network. we supply coverage. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media and networking

sites. find our content any time at c- span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our local content vehicle. it is washington your way, pcs and networks. now available in 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> the heads of at&t and t- mobile war on capitol hill today. cio appeared before the senate judiciary and antitrust committee. he said the merger will lead to increased competition and fewer dropped calls. cso said at the merger was approved, it would combine the nation by the second and largest mobile companies.

>> at&t and the horizon will control 80% of the national cell phone market. abigail creating this market share -- a company creating this market share -- best become the main way we communicate. there are over 300 million subscribers. cell phones or the main way millions of consumers to connect to the wealth of information

found on the internet. as anyone who knows, we are fast becoming a nation addictive to be bright screens of our mobile phones. i just a few years ago, cell phone competition with a bright spot for american consumers. consumers had a choice of no fewer than six companies. as a result, competition led to declining prices and the rollout of new services. today the situation is quite different. this bill will lead -- leave us with only three national companies, two of them will control 80% of the market. there is a real fear that the third, spratt, will fold into one of the two and we would wind up with a cell phone duopoly. an industry that was once a monopoly in the last century is in danger of reverting into a

duopoly in this century. the decontrol of such a vital economic situation is good for our country. we will examine the critical questions -- what will reducing the number of cell phone companies mean to consumers? will they see higher phone bills, especially for critical services? what will the absence from the market mean? while at&t and of horizon gain a stranglehold? emerging companies argue that the proper way to analyze this merger is that local level where the presence of regional carriers adds to the number of competitors. we must remember that these are mobile phones that consumers use for traveling. these regional companies must pay roaming fees to connect their customers to the national

networks owned by their competitors. does the fact that the small regional companies have to pay at&t and verizon on their ability to compete? they often do not have access to the newest and most in demand smart phones and that consumers want. can they compete with the national science without offering the most up-to-date phones? at&t says this bill will enable them to serve more rural areas. we must ask whether it is necessary for at&t to merge with one of its three competitors in order to do this? did it achieve these goals by spending some of the $39 billion to acquire t-mobile to expand its network instead? for competitors are better than

three. the more competitive providers of cell phone service, the better the quality of service, the lower the price, and the more innovation that results. we must keep in mind that the cell phone industry is a highly profitable and rapidly growing business. the burden will fall on at&t and t-mobile to convince us how this merger is desirable, how it will benefit consumers, and to put aside our concerns that you are not out to harm competition. i nell -- i now turn to our ranking member, senator lee, for opening remarks. >> given the large number of witnesses we have and the complexity of the issues, i will keep my opening remarks as brief as possible. the mobile phone market is a critical component of our nation's economy. according to some recent

estimates it is directly responsible for more than two much as 50,000 jobs and generates over -- 250,000 jobs. it accounts for nearly $25 billion in capital investments. it is difficult to overstate the importance of mobile devices. many people rely on wireless phones as a principal means of communication. more than a quarter of the population has become wireless only households. mobile devices are increasingly a primary means by which individuals access the internet. next year, smart phone sales are expected to be greater than the combined sales of desktop and laptop computers. this explosion in demand for wireless services has led to significant capacity restraints that affect the entire country. most of us are familiar with dropped calls to help the industry and occasionally

sluggish data at speeds. the strength of available wireless networks is vital to individuals, families, schools, businesses, public safety organizations, and virtually all aspects of modern communication. the obama administration introduced eight goals to lead the world in mobile activation -- innovation with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any country. a question before us today is whether this merger is a positive step towards a path of world class of wireless networks to help the united states. there are a number of reasons to believe the merger could contribute to this goal. at&t and t-mobile have a well matched grid. a merger may provide significant

and immediate efficiencies that will enhance service quality, fewer lost or drop calls, and increasing data at speeds. ultimately the entire wireless industry will require an additional spectrum to keep up with growth. until that spectrum is made available, this merger will allow at&t to roll out their new network. at&t has agreed to provide this network to 97% of the population. in addition to offering better service and speed, these increased innovation and the enhancement of data-rich applications. the u.s. wireless marketplace is less concentrated than in other industrialized nations. some suggest our national interest would not be served by

restricting the marketplace. to a number -- at the same time, i share some of the concerns expressed by my colleague, senator kohl. i believe is our responsibility along with the department of justice antitrust division and the federal communications commission to ensure the proposed merger will not damage anti-competitive effects. this merger would create the largest wireless carrier in the nation. it would leave the market with only three rather than for major nationwide carriers that account for the vast majority of subscribers in america. a critical question is whether the smaller regional carriers can effectively compete in a post merger market, helping to discipline prices, preserve consumer choice, and promote

innovation. two potential roadblocks deserve special attention. first, regional carriers with wheat -- regional carriers must rely on the larger carriers for access outside their own local areas. major carriers are mandated to have that data roaming agreements. these determine whether smaller carriers can become a true competitive force in a nation- wide market. second, regional providers all are often at a competitive disadvantage in gaining access to the most popular and -- to the most popular and desirable assets. in seeking to adjust these and other issues relating to smaller

and regional carriers, we would do well to remember the antitrust paradox -- competition must be understood as the maximization of consumer welfare. our analysis of the proposed merger between at&t and t-mobile should be guided by what will be best for consumers in the form of prices, service quality, and ultimately range of choice. >> we turn out to the chairman of our committee. >> thank you. i thank you both for holding this hearing. i will ask that a number of my questions be submitted for the record. we are also doing a hearing in the appropriations committee on a military matter of some interest these days. i have to be there, but when we

talk about the competitive impact of at&t's proposed acquisition to combine the nation's second and fourth largest providers of wireless communication, it goes without saying it will have a lasting impact on the wireless industry. at present, for companies controlled nearly 90% of the wireless market. this acquisition would further consolidate an already concentrated market for wireless communication. i am particularly concerned about what this acquisition may remain in the rural parts of the country. vermont is primarily rural. some parts of my state still do not have wireless service. i love 5 miles for the state capital. it was only very recently i was

able to get a modest form of a high-speed internet. the two communities on either side of meat each had it. my town did not. that is typical of so many other places. at&t began providing service just a few years ago after the department of justice required asizon to sell it's spectrum part of another merger. the scrutiny of that merger allow for people in vermont to have access to the i phoned for the first time -- iphone for the first time. wireless carriers contend a shortage in up available spectrum makes it difficult to expand service.

in vermont, we were told both at&t and t-mobile have large blocks of unused spectrum in rural areas. per month citizens have more job calls and fewer cellular options in places where emergency responders have no way of communicating. still, but at&t and t-mobile argue that their spectrum allow more consumers than either could independently. at&t represented to me that within two years this acquisition will result in 250,000 more vermonters would have more service.

knowing how slowly things have moved in the past, i hope you'll forgive me if you're still a bit skeptical. my questions i will have on this issue, i would urge at&t and others to respond in writing. i look forward to hearing more details as a basis for that representation. i want assurances that at&t will fall -- will follow it through. most vermont cellular customers have never considered t-mobile as a viable option. they have little retail presence in my state. they owned a great deal of wireless spectrum across the green mountains. a spectrum that was being built out by t-mobile in an effort to increase its footprint in vermont. it is still a spectrum that is

not being used. i will give them a complement for that. many rural areas in our state will be left behind with or without this acquisition. if we are going to create jobs in many parts of our state, one of the first things we hear from companies who want to go in there is what kind of wireless do we have there. there is no doubt that at&t and t-mobile are at the forefront of innovation. each company has a history of developing amazing ways to enable consumers to communicate wirelessly. i do applaud their work, but as the history -- but this history of innovation highlights the importance of the antitrust laws. i am concerned about jobs, not

just for vermont, but for our country. i expect the department of justice and the federal communications commission to conduct an exhaustive and careful analysis of this acquisition, its impact on competition. certainly the committee will push them to do that. as it also include the impact on consumer prices, choices for cell phones and plans, and whether it will stifle or promote innovation. i expect the justice department is wary of a market where companies need to merge it to survive. i thank you for holding this hearing. i think it is extremely important. >> now we turn to our ranking -- ranking member. >> thank you for holding this hearing. this is a very important matter and will get more attention as time goes on.

i appreciate the arguments i have read it in support and arguments that oppose the merger. i think in grassroots america it that people are beginning to take notice of this. in three of my 33 tell meetings i had during the spring recess, people ask me what i thought of this issue. it was just announced that that particular time. in characteristic of may, i have an answer to most of the questions, but i did not have an answer to that one. i ask each of the people who ask that question whether they work for or against it. none could venture a guess of whether they were for or against it. i did not learn from them either. [laughter] this is something that is point to get attention. i look forward to the testimony we will receive today on the proposed merger. i hope that witnesses can

explain the impact of a combined at&t-t-mobile will have on consumers their prices, competition, and access. there are many rural areas that are concerned about service, particularly in my state of iowa. i want to hear how the merger will help people in my state gain access to faster and better wireless service. all also have questions along the lines of whether it will increase rates and whether it will help spur more consumer choice. mr. chairman, i am it will be back and forth between this committee and the finance committee. we have a hearing on the colombian free trade agreement, but i would like to come back and ask questions. thank you for your attention on this. >> thank you. we would now like to introduce our panel of witnesses. our first witness will be randall stevenson.

he is the president and ceo of at&t. the we'll be hearing from president and ceo of t-mobile. he has served as chief regional officer of t-mobile international. next we will hear from the ceo of sprint-nextel. our fourth witness will be the president and ceo of cellular itself and was recently elected chairman of the board of the rural cellular association. next we will be hearing from the president and co-founder of public knowledge, a public interest organization dedicated to promoting innovation and protecting consumers in the digital age. finally, will be hearing from

the president of communication workers of america. we thank you all for appearing at this hearing to testify today. we asked our witnesses to rise and raise their right hand as i administered the oath. do you all affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> mr. stephenson, we begin with you. we ask that the panelists limit their comments to 5 minutes. mr. stevenson. >> thank you, chairman kohl. i am randall stevenson, chairman and ceo of at&t. i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about the consumer benefits that this acquisition will provide.

this transaction is about consumers. it is about keeping up with consumer demands specifically. it is about having the capacity to drive innovation and competitive prices. most important, it is about giving consumers what they expect -- fewer dropped calls, faster speeds. whether they live in a large city, small town, or out in the country. in the last four years we have seen a major revolution in wireless. smart phones and mobile applications and exploded. mobile internet usage has soared. innovation has cycle at an amazing place. consumers and the economy have benefited. our network, more than any other, has carried the load. our volume shot up by 8000%. to meet this demand over the same four year period, we invested more in the united states than any other public

company. $75 billion in capital. we continue to address at a very aggressive pace. the next wave of demand is already on us. it is on us in the form of tablets and services like high- definition video. in 2015, four years from now, by the middle of february in 2015 we estimate our network will have carried as much mobile data traffic as we carried for the entire year in 2010. that is 10 times higher than where we are today. that is an indication of how fast the mobile internet is growing. about the only thing we know what they can slow the cycle of innovation is a lack of capacity to meet that demand. that is why there is a focus on spectrum. i applaud the fcc and congress for their leadership on this issue. as the sec chairman said, "if we

do nothing in the face of a living spectrum crunch, many consumers will face higher prices as the market is forced to respond to supply and demand and frustrated service." i do not think any of us what those things, but even with focus an effort, it will be several years before significant amounts of new spectrum are placed into service. that is reality. to meet growing demand, we have to find a way to get more capacity in the existing spectrum. that is what this domination will do. our two companies are very conscious image -- complementary. combining us will create more network capacity. more capacity means better service, fewer dropped calls, and a faster, more reliable internet experience. it is a basic concept. the greater capacity is a fundamental driver of competition and innovation.

the u.s. marketplace is one the best in the world and will remain so after this transaction. u.s. wireless prices have come down over the last decade. with this transaction we are also committed to providing mobile internet service to more than 97% of the u.s. population. that is 85 million more americans than the pre-merger plans and more than any other provider has committed to at this point. we understand the benefits that will bring to small towns and communities in terms of education, health care, and development. current customers will be able to contain -- retain their existing right plans and will be able to access service that t- mobile could not give to their customers. this transaction has won strong

support from unions as well as several industry experts. thank you for your time. >> thank you, chairman. good morning. i am be ceo of t-mobile usa. i joined the company in july, 2010 and became ceo in november 2010. t-mobile was facing declines for two consecutive years. the management at limited strategy aimed at leading the company back to growth. the results were mixed. returning the business to growth will not be sufficient to secure our strategic future.

as basic usage continues to explode, spectrum has become a constraint to our business. we do not expect to see spectrum to be resolved in the next couple of years. it will not allow us to [unintelligible] in addition to these unresolved strategic issues, deutsche telekom is not in the position to launch investment in the u.s. for us to remain competitive. the combination with at&t allows us to address these challenges as well as to realize benefits for our customers. the combination brings together two uniquely competitive

companies, achieving synergies, while benefiting the american cannot -- while benefiting the american economy. we have identified at least four major benefits for our customers. the first, mobile customers will enjoy improvement in the coverage through access to at&t broadband spectrum. with the acquisition by at&t, we will be able to offer to all of our customers access to 850 mhz at&t systems which will significantly improve service. customers will be able to take advantage of these improvements shortly after the transaction closes. second, the transaction will result in quality improvements for mobile customers. as a result of at&t and t- mobile's technologies, the

combined company will be able to quickly merged networks in a few seconds. operating deficiencies will be achieved. this will mean better coverage dropped calls. calls \ third, this transaction would give the combined company the resources to deploy next generation service. t-mobile does not have sufficient spectrum. by combining the spectrum of both companies, the entity will be able to use the new technologies. it will allow us to reach more

than 97% of the population as stated by at&t, which is something we have not -- we would not be able to do on our own. fourth, the transaction will allow the combined company to increase capacity and significantly reduced costs which will drive prices down and enhance opportunities in the competitive market. the marketplace is very competitive. competition has been -- will ensure that consumers have a broad benefits. we expect increased competition. by contrast, to conclude, i am,

the debt that our customers will have benefits both immediately and a longer-term. the competition that has characterized the industry will continue and be even stronger post transaction. thank you for your time. i welcome any questions you might have. >> good morning, chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to address the potential negative consequences that at&t's proposed takeover of t-mobile

will have. i am not here to ask for a special break or conditions. i am here because sprint has a stake in the impact these actors that -- this acquisition that will have. sprint was born out of competition. we operate in an open, competitive environment. an open competitive environment is something that benefits our company and any person who owns a wireless device. it took 100 years to build 1 billion fixed phone lines but only 22 at 5 billion mobile subscribers. at the end of 2010, there were over 302 million wireless subscribers in the united states, representing 96% of the

u.s. population. one-quarter of all adults live in wireless only homes. the impact of wireless competition on our economy has been profoundly positive. in 2010 at the wireless industry accounted for nearly $160 billion in revenue. if the industry remains competitive, productivity gains over the next 10 years will amount to almost $860 billion in additional gdp. creating an entrenched duopoly will reverse this progress. in the mid-1990s, congress and the fcc opened the original duopoly competition. competition made a noticeable difference. at&t's acquisition will turn

back the clock. it will put ma-bell back together again. two companies would control over 80% of u.s. contract customers. two companies would control most of our vast wireline infrastructure and the critical last mile that the rest of the industry needs for quality service. it would discourage device manufacturers from partnering with anyone else for the next generation of smart phones and tablets. two companies were largely control industry prices. they would have significant, and check leverage to increase prices for voice and data. spratt and team mobil -- the

regional providers at&t refers to as competition have less than 5% of the total subscribers and cannot affect prices. beyond what they would control, this acquisition does very little to provide the benefits at&t claims. even without this transaction, at&t has the largest license spectrum holding them in the wireless carrier in this country. rather than build it, at&t is warehousing it. t-mobile stated it had sufficient spectrum to meet its needs until 2015. they are using their spectrum heavily in the same high demand areas in which at&t claims of new capacity. at&t does not use the spectrum it has and adding the t-mobile spectrum would not give at&t the relief it says it needs.

adding t-mobile extents at&t's reach to only 18% more of the population. if at&t is permitted to devour one of the two independent wireless carriers while the rest of the world achieves advances in technology and innovation for the 21st century, the united states could go backward to last century's ma bell. i respect them for maximizing value for their shareholders. unfortunately, there are only three beneficiaries of the transaction. the fundamental problems of duopoly cannot be fixed with the best years of conditions. this is invincible. the only way to preserve competition is a vibrant

wireless market. we ask you to just say no to this takeover. thank you for holding this hearing today. we urge the department of justice and the fcc to say no to this merger. i thank you for your time and am prepared to answer your questions. >> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you for inviting me to be here today. i have been in this industry for over 23 years. with a lot of help, we have rebuilt our company but the ground up. the u.s. wireless industry is at a pivotal point. policy makers will determine the fate of the industry with their decision. over the past several weeks we have carefully reviewed the proposed takeover. we can find nothing good about it. it is bad for consumers. it is bad for jobs. it is bad for