at fourth, what about the interstate and regional of the structure requirements this nation has which need to be dealt with in the 21st century. four authorities, with a board of governors appointed by the president, all done under law, so it is democratic, but it cannot be lobbied. you cannot lobby the fed. wow, imagine, cannot lobby the federal resources board. a it could actually be independent. and he could not release it either. nobody sues the fed. why waste your time. why would it be used to the federal energy resources board, if we call it that? there is a solution there, ladies and gentlemen. i think it would be a model for the western democracies to follow. it would enable us to have ongoing, intelligent, productive

conversations with opec, arab nations, with china. because any democracy which we all know can be sloppy from time to time, in the process by which we get things done, we could actually get things done. that is what is needed for the energy future of the united states. if the western democracies go south, i don't think that will be impressive. that is what the arab nations are wrestling with, the will of democracy and their systems, and their governments. i don't think the western democracies want to see the chinese model repeated all over as the model for the world. so we asked, this decade it -- i will close or i started, chickens are coming home to roost this decade, ladies and gentlemen. we cannot extend these

uncertainties. we cannot produce what we need to produce in this decade without energy. we cannot resolve the economic requirements of the western democracies on the path we are on. we need it 21st century energy systems and every country. those kinds of investments are the huge investments which rejuvenate economies in whatever form of government they have. and i leave you with this thought. it is up to us as citizens to insist upon these decisions being made. thanks for listening. [applause] >> super. thank you, john. now the floor is open for questions.

this has proven through the years to be more effective in the sense that it avoids people grinned stating -- grandstanding and giving their own speech and the disciplines individuals to make their questions more pointed and brief. while the questions are being written and gathered, i will take the liberty to ask a few. these are how questions. how will this affect the energy production picture among major energy suppliers in the arab world and elsewhere, including the that states, and how would it likely affect global energy markets? >> liquefied natural gas it is, in many respects, a gift to countries that need energy who did not have adequate energy within their borders. it is transportable, it is affordable, clean, safe, and it can and will be prolific, which

is great news. the liquefied natural gas, coupled with hydraulic fracturing of shell gas, has really opened up to the entire world -- think of the continent of africa. africa cannot develop without energy. africa is short on hydrocarbon energy. other asian nations, short on hydrocarbon energy. hydrocarbon energy will and will remain an affordable tight. i have a big fan -- i'm a big fan of liquefied natural gas. i think we have to be mindful of the informant of risk associated with development of hydraulic fracturing, and i don't think we have all of the answers yet in regards to that. i think we have the answers with liquefied natural gas, but we also can see and it could

happen that liquefied natural gas can become a security issue if it is not properly guarded and maintains it and secured. >> what steps would you recommend to the forming of such an energy resources board? >> well, it will not happen if we leave the debate to the people inside the beltway. in washington, d.c. it's just will not. the idea of creating its energy resources board and independent regulatory commission, taking away from the executive branch, the judicial branch, the current authorities, that is not an easy conversation for people who hold those correct authorities to have. it is also not easy for k street or lobbyist groups because goes against what they stand for. you have all of the antibodies

living in the place where the decision would ultimately need to be made. it had would get it done? we did not start citizens for affordable energy as a hobby. that is a foundation my wife and i found that three years ago, exist for the primary purpose of educating all americans -- it could be applied to all western democracies, on the issue of energy and the environment so an informed electorate in a democracy can know better what choices they have. but talking about these issues in a straight manner, without a republican or democratic bias to the discussion, people get to see the cold, hard fact of war we are and where we are going. the consequence of that, i believe, because i believe it and a democracy and the educated electorate, that with an educated electorate on this matter that the demand will rise either through the natural intelligence and pragmatism of the electorate or, when we're

standing in gas lines and paying $7, $8 per gallon of when we can get a five balance that we can get, after hours we will have plenty of time to discuss the alternative form of governance, which is the independent regulatory commission. so we will be driven to it by emergency conditions if we're not driven to it by its simple, rational, pragmatic opportunity. >> if you can, please update us on the context and analysis of carbon tax and global warming and how they fit into all of this. >> as i described the issue in my book, rather than tackle global warming, rather than participate in the debate on climate change, my recommendation is let's go to the heart of the issue. let's go to the root cause.

let's deal with the recalls and a factual, sensible, pragmatic way. let's talk about weast management. w --aste management. because that is what we're dealing with. the waste management of a hydrocarbon product that produces waste. at that weast can be solid, as in the case of coal ash, it can be liquid in the form of water contaminated runoff, and a and b-yes. as in the emissions of not just co-2 but other forms of waste. i find it completely unproductive and therefore unsolvable to focus on climate change and global warming because of the "we" and "they." parties will never agree, as we saw in copenhagen, on solutions because of the variability in how people see the issues.

but if we tackle it as a waste management issue, civilized societies have learned how to manage waste . well. physical waste. we recycle a lot of it. liquid waste, we treat it, cassius weast, we capture it. -- gas waste, we capture it. i say the want to live in the stench and the mass and the degradation of your sovereign territory, or do you want to clean it up? i think most people would opt to clean it up. that to me is how this would be better handled, as a waste management notion, and the sooner the better. and the more technology we apply to it, the faster and less expensive it will be to clean it up. all across the board.

>> please comment on the gas pricing tax breaks and subsidies that were discussed yesterday on capitol hill. >> i think the five executives were pretty angry. i think the number of democratic senators were pretty angry. but let's put it in perspective for a moment. i thought the chairman did a good job of describing the problem and the dilemma the nation faces in that the nation does not have enough money to pay its bills. that has to be dealt with. i thought the executives were justifiably angry when they basically said, why us? why pick on us, my company? and to put that in perspective, if you live in a village of 100 homes and to the city council decides that it needs more money and it goes to the homeowners of the five largest

homes in the city and says, you have to pay more money, because you obviously have money because you have this large home, we're not going to the other 95 people because they will not like it and they are unhappy and we will only come to you because there are only five of you and you cannot stop us, that is the analogy that the five energy executives faced yesterday. why us? we know we have a problem. we know the nation is convoluted and its tax code. but instead of picking on five individual companies who have to explain to their shareholders why they remain a good investment when the call structure just goes up -- when their cost structure goes up and they cannot do anything about it, they are protective of their enterprise, as a homeowner would be protective of his house.

that is a natural inclination. so what i said during the hearing, on a couple of tv segments, going back and forth between ms-nbc and fox, i said let's talk about it in a different way. why not produce 3 million barrels more per day? that solves the government revenue issue. that is $20 billion per year, not $4 billion. isn't 20 bigger than four? and let's create 3 million jobs and lower the price of gasoline. doesn't anybody win in that formula? would that not make common sense and economic sense? probably, but it is not a political sense. that is the problem. the political sense is tied up in partisanship and the desire to determine the outcome based on the partisan view. and even one of the democratic

participants yesterday said, i doubt this will go anywhere. all much ado about nothing. so gas prices will fluctuate through the summer at a fairly high level until the china factor comes in. by 2012, 2013, we foresee a higher plateau because of the scarcity of product, the continuing demand, unless -- and this is quite possible -- we simply go back to recession. it is true, if you want lower gas prices, recession is a quick cure. we saw that in 2008. but there are other issues, like joblessness and recession. we cannot stand a much higher joblessness. lord knows the turmoil we have today and the bills would not pay. we need jobs, economic thought you creation, and lower gas prices, all three.

>> gas prices on another perspective. if it reaches $5, in some states that already has, how much it would be in rotterdam tonight, tokyo, london, brussels, elsewhere tonight, and the implications of those statistical facts in terms of how the united states is seen and becomes a competitive internationally in the eyes of friends and allies who look at us and conclude that we have the best arrangement with this commodity, access to it, and the pricing of any major industrialized country in the world? >> in general, the world pays the same basic food price. whether you are purchasing brent, which is currently more

expensive than west texas intermediate, they are affected by events. west texas oil price is lower because the infrastructure is not there to move it in the volume that is needed elsewhere, which means a lot of the east coast is getting its gasoline from europe. which drives the brent price higher. it is not to supply and the consequence of that is the separation of the brent and the west foxx intermediate. in general, other countries use gasoline for other social purposes and therefore put a different tax level on it. largely the european countries with excellent mass transit systems where people can enjoy global mobility without a personal vehicle. in this country, we can't. they have used the gasoline and diesel as an opportunity to

raise national revenues, and thus they have a higher price. and so consumers will pay $8 or $9 equivalent for what we are paying $5 for. so nearly twice the price. yes, the rest of the world looks at the u.s. at a retail consumer level, but when you get into the darker and deeper discussions at government level, there has to be fundamental resentment, because the u.s. is the major cause of the global high crude oil price . the u.s. uses 25% of the world's daily production. and it doesn't produce much -- or enough of its own domestic supply. the u.s. has the option of dramatically increasing seven to 10 million barrels. that is nearly a 40% improvement in domestic

production, that would go a long way of easing the burden on the entire world if the u.s. would come to grips with its own demand. the selfishness of the united states in refusing to produce its own natural resources, drawing the world's natural resources into the united states market raises the price for everyone. that is seen as unfair. >> could you address the implications of america's image along the signs of what you just commented on in terms of their taking 25% as a portion of -- as a portion of humanity,

we are 5% frfment a perspective, we would be consuming a finite depleteable commodity for material well being and standard of well being five times our share. if democracy is one person, one vote, one person, one moral share, how do you see the implications of these statistics? your statistics have been profound, but they do have implications, including america's image. >> in using 25% of the oil production every day, it does feed an economy that is roughly 25% of the global economy. so while there are only 300 million people in this country relative to the rest of the world, those 300 million people produce 25% of the world's g.n.p.

so there is, in my opinion a fairly balanced ratio of energy consumption and production. when you put it on a per-capita base, it swings it in another direction. that message doesn't get out, however. and so the u.s. is seen as an energy hog by much of the rest of the world. and the lifestyle of the u.s., nonetheless, is envied because of the creature comforts. i think a great part of what we are seeing in the dissatisfaction and disruption in arab nations is the relative deprivation that more and more people see, feel and understand. i would largely submit the economic deprivation that people are experiencesing. give tom freedman credit when he writes about the 50-year

gap. nation after nation after nation have seen economic growth and development coupled with a variety of other kinds of social improvement, whether it is education, whether it is technology, whether it is infrastructure, in which nations have expanded. particularly in asia. they have done a pretty good job. but with the advanced communications of today's technology, millions and millions of people are discovering how far behind they are, and they are not happy about how far behind they are. some countries in the middle east have dealt with this more successfully than others, and we are not seeing the so-called contagion spread to those countries because there is a recognition that that is being addressed by those governments. we really have to capture the importance of the economic value creation of energy production and then make sure that that economic value gets

with productively in societies so that everyone can see a way forward. >> i will ask several, and then you can choose the sequence in which you answer them. could you suggest the possibility of greater u.s. investment in alternative energies, and which of these would potentially reduce our dependence on foreign oil? what are the prospects for development of central asian reserves, and who are the competitors for same? and will shale gas be able to replace nuclear and inefficient old coal-generated power, and if so, how? >> in the last chapter of "why we hate the oil companies, i lay out a plan for the 21st century. it calls for use of all forms

of energy as part of that recreation. it calls for cleaning up hydrocarbons in ways that waste management can take care of. it calls for new expansion of nuclear with new nuclear technology, not the 50 or 60- year old technology we see in today's plants, including aging construction in those plants. and it is time for a new generation of nuclear technology. but in addition, massive research and development of natural sources of energy, wind, solar and tides. i was once asked on a talk show will we have have free energy? i thought it was a brilliant question. when we are surrounded by sunlight all day long, wind most nights,, and tidal movement that never stops because of the draw of the moon, that all creates a form of passive energy. why don't we turn it active? why don't we turn it into

electrons? we don't have the technology yet that can do that efficiently and effectively, meaning cost-wise, but why aren't we really concentrating on the ability to take that variable natural energy, find ways to make it not variable but continuous through storage, and as a national effort or an international effort, really concentrate the research and development, nano technology that can create the kinds of materials that can capture more energy from the sun, the kinds of devices that with minor tidal movements can continually generate electricity from tidal and river movement. there is part of a 21st century redesign that doesn't watch that energy just pass us by day after day. which takes the pressure off

hydrocarbons in many respects, takes the pressure off other riskier forms of energy such as nuclear. but delivers affordable, available, sustainable energy to people all over the world. in terms of central asia, the biggest challenge i think will be infrastructure and logistics, as well as geo political security fundamentally based on rule of lay. the resources are affirm. they could help the world distribute and use more energy. but there are a lot of risks and a lot of problems, and i think it is going to take time and really concentrated effort for nations that did not understand or use rule of law during the entire post world war period until recently, and for them to come to grips with the infrastructure. and don't forget, the distances are vast. so the cost of infrastructure has to be dealt with as well.

but across borders in some parts of central asia, there is not a real peaceful relationship with neighbors, and that adds to the joey -- joe -- go political risks. it presents problems of do we have a sustainable supply system here. i'm sorry, the third question? >> we will go with these two. the last five state of the union addresses by the president of the united states, the last two of the previous administration and the first three of this administration are vulnerable to the charge of pandering to some of the more base sentiments among american

voters in the sense of calling for an end of dependence on foreign oil or curbing our reliance on foreign oil, with foreign really being a code word for arab and islamic oil, and not canada, not mexico, not calling for a divorce from driving or transportation per se, but simply not doing it on arab or islamic oil. how do we get to this particular place, and what are the implications for the head of the united states not being the educator or the informed person and the communicator we know him to be, as you have been today? >> in the political world, rhetoric means a lot. rhetoric moves people owes emotions. it frames people's thinking.

but rhetoric is not a plan. rhetoric comes and goes. some are better at it than others. but the mood that swings around through rhetoric can be very dangerous. we have seen in american history the rise and fall of pupulism over our history. and pop lism has never gotten us where we need to get to as a society. politicians focus mainly on their election or re-election, rhetoric only blilingtses the society they try to lead. i think the pondering to certain gingoistic things is a

dangerous tactic. what we need is information. we need data. and all the information and all the data that i know suggests that full partnership, integration, accessibility, respect, are absolute essentials in today's international community. oil has been and will be a global commodity. it is fungible, transportable, and it is incredibly valuable. and the dumbest thing this country could do is alienate the source of $105 trillion of value as we look into the future. not sharing in that value, not participating in the development, the economic development, the social development of different parts

of the world in a democracy which aspires to lead is simply shirking our international role of leader. we have some best case examples to point to in american history that other countries could avoid not making our mistakes in history. we had a civil war. remember, we had par tied. remember, we still had religious fundamentalist issues in this country where religions don't respect one another and yet pray to the same god. these are serious issues, and pandering doesn't solve the problem. i am concerned about alienating any part of the world doesn't help. the fact that we would be divisive and suggest that we somehow can separate ourselves from a community where we know we can't doesn't make any sense at all. >> the flip side of that would be the question how did we get

from where we were to where we are in the sense that within the last 10 years there seems to have been a consensus that america's strategic imperative was energy security and having to do with strategic lines of communication, vital choke point waterways, from there to this proclaimed or recommended divorce, was there a particular date, event, action or reaction, or was is the sheer accumulation of bias, rhetoric and partisanship in the american domestic political arena? >> in my view, it is a combination of both. it is the intermingling of several dine mcdyess -- dynamics. one of mentioned earlier, the

growth of the military industrial complex. if you don't have guns, you have got nothing to shoot with. if all you have is guns, the answer to every question is shoot. that may be overstating the case a bit. but the reality is the military complex puts one nation in the position of superpour with the ability to use that power as it feels necessary, unilaterally. that is one issue. second issue, as the muslim population of the united states has grown, and as new cost opposite, new tradition dush new customs, new appearances and languages have entered into the american society, they have not been all that well received in certain parts of our society . there is a tradition there, and we have not taken the time to understand the difference. we have had trouble with dark

skin, african heritage, hispanic heritage and now muslim heritage, arab heritage in a multicultural society. so when people say diversity and multiculturalism is simply political correctness, they are wrong. it is part of life. we still have too many families that do not embrace or do not teach diversity and multiculturalism to their children as the fact of life, and i think we miss out on that. that is another dynamic that is added to it. and 9/11 was a particular offense against the territorial integrity of the united states, perpetrated by mastermind criminals. but i think it took on meaning beyond the mastermind criminals that did what they did, and it took on some cultural imply i

occasions -- implications and dimensions where the military industrial complex kicked in its contributions to the resolution of that, and the lack of attention and focus on mullity culturalism in our society have prevented us from finding the more pragmatic solutions in that we share one sky, we share one earth, and we ought to share the benefits of all the cultures, not just in our own society, but around the world. and take care of the criminals and treat them the way criminals need to be treated. >> where can one go to find out more information about your organization? >> citizens for affordable energy is a 501-c-3 foundation. it is not a lobbying organization.

it is non-partisan. it is funded only by consumers of energy. producers of energy are not permitted to make contributions to our foundation. in order for us to appropriately use the word affordable. producers of energy want profitable energy. that may or may not be affordable. consumers of energy want affordable energy, which means they can pay for it. and so while we respect producers of energy of all kinds, we choose not to take any of their money, which enables us to speak freely wherever we go without being attributed to the voice of an energy producer of any kind of energy. citizens for affordable energy has a website which is quite simply citizensforaffordableenergy.org . we invite members. we invite contact. we have quite a bit of nfl on the web. we invite you to sign up. it's all free. there is no charge.

you can be a member at no charge, and we welcome your membership because we do believe that grassroots is the solution for virtually all of our problems. and by informing grassroots participants across the nation of who we are, what we stand for, the fact that we are non-partisan and non-funded by energy companies i think puts us in a position to try to promote smart, practical, pragmatic, non-political solutions for our future energy system. also you can read the book why we hate the oil companies, straight talk from an energy insider. it will direct you to that website in the last chapter as well. thank you. >> question, do you have any plans or intentions to inject your rhetoric into the forthcoming rhetoric of the coming presidential campaign?

>> if invited to give talks by candidates in different parts of the nation with respect to the non-partisan energy items we are talking about, of course i would take any opportunity i can to address populations or organizations on these issues. as a candidate, no. i have a serious objection to the funding of political campaigns in the united states, and if the current political system or the paid political system continues, i won't be a party for it. >> in bringing this to a close, several seemingly related questions. one is that 2011 already has proven to be an extraordinary year and not just in the united states, but globally and regionally, intraregionally,

nationally and many parts of the globe. between now and the autumn will be the 10th anniversary of september 11 and all of the emotion a lot and focus of that particular event. the same month will be the convening of the united nations general assembly. there is a movement where by the united nations general assembly will announce its recognition of an independent state of palestinian living in stability, peace and security aadjacent to the state of israel. it has already been an emotional moment in terms of what occurred in the past week after a 10-year effort, but there are other moves afoot that also have their implications. one is that while we have been speaking and meeting here, george mitchell, the

president's envoy for the middle east peace process, of which there really isn't a process, there is a diplomatic process, if one is charitable, has tendered his resignation in the last hour. this year, indeed next week, will be the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the golf cooperation council. but it is also the 40th anniversary of the united arab emirates. as an example of political engineering stands out as the single longest and most successful example of arab political cooperation, coordination and integration in modern history. it so happens that we have tried to have a confederation in place in the united states, each time with 13 members, and each time it failed.

so this is a part of the world from which we can learn a lot, more than just matters of oil and gas, more than just aspects of the peoples there being objects, but also actors. and more than these countries and cultures being blessed with mountains of money in a number of cases, as opposed to also part of the triad of jewish-christian-islamic culture and contributions to world civilization. what you have done today, though, is to keep us focus on this light source in terms of humanity's well-being and economic growth. we are much in your debt, sir. thank you. >> thank you. >> [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, the european parliament debates the immigration of africans. after that, a hearing on the

f.c.c.'s process for making regulation. then the presidential nounsment by texas congressman ron paul. >> this weekend on american history tv, former massachusetts governor michael dukakis on calvin coolage, and how he evolved --. the long-term restoration of the treasury building. and may 22, american tv will be live. have it e-mailed to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> members of the european parliament met tuesday to debate europe's border policy and how to deal with immigrants from north africa. an estimated 26,000 immigrants

from tunisia alone have reportedly arrived in italy. the countries of the european union are considered tougher border control louse. had this is about 55 minutes. >> move on to the next item on the agenda. this is the commission statement immigration flows, asylum and impact on the agreement. the schengen agreement. i would like to welcome the representative of the council and the president as well as the commissioner representing the european commission. i would like to give the floor to the president in office of the council. the floor is yours, madam. >> thank you very much, mr. president and hon. members.

the government in this other neighborhood are posing a serious challenge for the european union. that serve to underscore the importance of looking at the whole issue of how we manage migration and refugee flows. the council has been called upon to submit before the european council plan for the development of capacities to manage migration and refugee flows. the conclusions adopted by that -- on the 11th and 12th of april, 2011, is important in this direction. the presidency has convened an extraordinary meeting of the council on justice and foreign affairs for this thursday, may

12. in order to discuss the issue of the management of migration and refugee flows. we will have to prepare the meeting of the european council on the 21st of june which will address the same issues. we cannot of course stand idle in the pace of events on the other side of the mediterranean. the eu and the member states are ready [unintelligible] the latest developments in north africa and those member states most concerned. of the past few months, the eu and the member states have made available approximately 96 million euros of humanitarian aid and we are committed to continue to provide support as the situation requires. the council has invited all member states to continue their

support for international organization of migration and the red cross and all relevant actors, the efforts of which are paramount in helping those displaced as a consequence of projected violence in libya. those members staged more directly affected are receiving contributions of funding, equipment, and technical expertise. for example, the commission announced earlier that approximately 25 billion euros emergency funds could be made available for member states such as italy and malta. furthermore, the newly created european asylum support office, though still in the process of becoming fully operational, is also available to help. some member states including hungary have said already that they are ready to relocate refugees from malta and order to alleviate pressure on the

authorities there. apart from specific measures, the council remains fully committed to the further development of the common european asylum system. work is underway in councils and parliaments and some progress has already been achieved, despite the technical difficulties and the politically sensitive nature of this subject. in general, the management of the flows into individual member states requires effective management of borders. as far as the management of external borders is concerned, [unintelligible] providing operational support. in light of the latest developments in north africa, a joint operation was launched on the 20 the february, 2011, following a request from the cut

in government. this is aimed at preventing and protecting illegal border crossings. it is supporting the italian authorities might debriefing and screening migrants. the council also referenced the decision to mobilize funds to continue the planned joint operations. we have urged member states to provide further technical resources as required in support of the agency's operations. you know very well that the proposal is in the house and we have been negotiating its, and i count very much on the support of parliament for being able to put an end to this legislative proposal and have a successful negotiation. against the background of the recent migratory pressures from

north africa, it has become a high priority for the council. i would like to express my thanks for the good cooperation and i very much hope that an agreement can be achieved by june 2011 as was put forth by the european council in march. development in the mediterranean in relation to that tunisian migrants arriving has also raised questions about internal borders. the council fully agrees with the view held by almost everyone here that the freeing of those persons within the shinkin area is a major achievement. they have also underlined that

they were proposing this with the intention of -- in proving the governors of the schengen area is a means to this end. in light of the increased pressure of the external borders and calls for member states to strengthen the system , the council needs to look into how we can further guarantee the principle of free movement and at the same time, the citizens need for maintenance of a high level of internal security. at this thursday council, the president plans to initiate discussions on the schengen agreement that have been put forward on the communication on migration on the first of may. a mechanism concerning a

coordinated and temporary introduction of controls as a measure of last resort. based on objective criteria and respecting the community method. the council will also have a chance to discuss how to continue work on revision of that schengen negotiation to ensure more uniform implementation. our immediate priority is to deal with the effect of the dramatic events in the southern mediterranean, but we also have to draw lessons for the future. we need to put in place a strategy for the longer-term. some of the issues i have set out will help creating such a strategy. i look forward to discussions that can lead to comprehensive answers in line with our global approach to migration. along these lines, the prime minister has recently stated we

should clearly differentiate between economic need and political refugees. europe must have something similar to the marshall plan for the countries of north africa to treat a livable conditions -- to create liveable conditions. that will require consultations with our neighbors and partnership with the countries of northern africa and it will need to take into account a wide range of factors such as international protections, migration, mobility, and security. to conclude, from a wider perspective on our southern neighbors, all available means in a transition to open, democratic, and prosperous society. this is the best possible way of addressing the factors driving

immigrants toward our shores. thank you very much for your attention. >> thank you, madam president of the council. [applause] on behalf of the commission, mr. president, the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. president and distinguished members of this parliament. today we are here to debate migration and cross border movement of citizens. let me start by reminding all of us that yesterday was the 61st anniversary of the schuman operation that laid foundations. from that day, people have been willing to come together and put aside their differences to build a european continent without borders where our citizens can move freely between countries.

for regions like the one where we are now, here in strasburg, which is like alsace, it no longer equates to borders. the bet that extends far beyond these border regions. for the vast majority of european citizens, the right to move freely is the embodiment of the project. one of the most tangible results of the european union project. i am pleased to say, most europeans use their right to the full, making around 1.25 billion journeys as tourists within the european union every year. that would be completely impossible without the european union. i still remember when we had to overcome so many difficulties to go from portugal to spain. it is indeed great progress of civilization that countries are able to put borders down and to

freely lets citizens moved. [applause] moreover, for the economy as well, free movement is central to success of the single market and europe's continued efforts to boost growth and jobs. to put it plainly, free movement is to europe what foundations are two buildings. remove it, and the whole structure is undermined. last week, the commission presented of communication on a more sensitive approach to migration, referring to a portal on that schengen agreement. great intelligence and sensitivity in finding the right approach to such a complex matter. and concentrate on the governance of schengen because i've understand it is the most important concern here in the

parliament. there are many proposals, like a common european asylum system, but i hope will have other occasions to go deeper into that discussion. last year, the commission put forth proposals to preserve and strengthen the valuation mechanism of shenzhen, what is now a central project. last year, well before the recent developments, the commission found some problems in the governance of shinkin rigid -- schengen. resulting pressures have bin laden some weaknesses and coordinated the reaction in the management of schengen. in the wake of these exceptional circumstances, we urgently need

to reinforce the governments of schengen and the borders. we need better cooperation between member states themselves. while recent events have provided a spark of urgency to bring this to the table, the commission take this opportunity to address the longstanding inconsistencies and end result issues that provide the scope for some member states to act unilaterally and not necessarily within a european union perspective. it is time to stop this. the commission has already taken short-term measures to deal with the situation. in addition, the package would put forward last week urges rational reflection, taking into account short-term needs of strengthening borders as well as abroad a porsche -- a broad approach to migration.

evers to boost european competitiveness. this is not a knee-jerk reaction. this is and must be a broad scope of measures built on the foundation of a strong -- and defining the best interest of the european union now and into the future. at the same time, it tends to give relief to those members states who are trying to cope with an unfair share of the migration burden. and thousands of people writer on the shores of one country, it is not just because they dream of living in malta. is a because they are seeking a better life in europe. countries that are more directly exposed to massive migrant inflows cannot be expected to deal with them alone. the rules on free movement of citizens benefit all countries

in the european union. it is the duty of all countries to support countries under particular pressure at some time or another. this means that burdens have to be shared equitably. this means that all member states need to take their responsibilities seriously. when looking at burden sharing, all the pressures and contributions need to be taken into account. this is the very spirit of the european union, the management of crisis by solidarity and responsibility. solidarity and responsibilities are the key words in our response. emigration is the european challenge and requires a european response. that is what the commission's proposal aims at a step further of the governors of the schengen system, showing there can be solidarity between member states. it is about, and governance, not unilateral moves. this is part of an overall approach to strengthen a move to

a european system. allow me to make one point crystal clear. this is not about finding ways for member states to reintroduce border controls. a burly believe that to do so would catastrophically undermine not just what europe has constructed over the last 61 years, but to sabotage the ability of our efforts to build a prosperous and integrated europe for the future. moreover, member states already have the right to unilaterally reject the right has been exercised in the past in short- term, exceptional circumstances such as terrorist attacks or the movement of drugs. these exceptions show remain exceptions. i cannot emphasize strongly enough that reintroducing border controls is not a desirable development for europe.

they should be an absolute last resort. moreover, we all know that internal controls can be useful, but they are not part of approach on integration nor do they represent a cost efficient, long term solution. this has always been the case. the fact is that when faced with a massive arrival of migrants, no member state would be totally in a better position to try to deal with them alone. the proposals we put forward one year ago to strengthen schengen group and evaluation mechanisms and intensified coronation of border surveillance will help create a sense of union might discipline and shared guidance to the system that will ensure that in the future, countries

will not feel pressured to take decisions alone that affect all schengen signatories. this is not a new policy. it is a chance to strengthen it, a step forward for joint european governments, not a step back. we cannot be blind and not face the fact that there is a problem in schengen governance that we have to resolve. if we do not records existing mechanisms, member states will continue to act alone and be encouraged to act alone. this is why we think the best way to avoid putting schengen at risk is reinforcing the rules of governance of shenzhen and clarifying some of its aspects. this is not caving into

pressure from any part of europe. by announcing our capacity to deal with crises, it will put of work reverse -- more robust governments in place with better tools to resist extremist pressure in the future. it is not a proposal just to deal with short-term events. there can only be real confidence and long-term solutions if we show we can effectively address the short- term issues as well. it is not about turning back time. it is about getting governance right today for the challenges europe will surely face tomorrow. it is about strengthening the rules. i am confident that this house will approach are some -- support our approach in our efforts. united in our determination to keep up the principles on which our union was founded. we know is fashionable in some quarters to be extremist or

populists are sometimes to waive the flag of -- we will resist all these kinds of pressure. to succeed in this, we need to give citizens the confidence that we stand for on two things. first, and correcting the shortcomings of the existing system so that effective relief can be brought to situations of pressure and crisis. second, on ensuring on this basis the for respect of human rights and humanitarian principles on which our union was founded. people are ready to recognize solidarity if they are confidence their security concerns are addressed decisively and comprehensively. i count on the support of this house and call on the member states to quickly take the necessary decisions. our proposal is on the table. now is not the time to wait, it is the time to act.

i thank you for your attention. [applause] >> thank you. on behalf of the political groups, the european people's party. >> >> the schengen is one of the great achievements of the european efforts to the citizens the live every single day when they are traveling and it is the realization of the european dream, a europe without border controls. that is why looking at the last week, we must make it clear that in this house, we must make sure that this idea behind it is not going to be harmed through any change or debate. we will defend this principle in

the european parliament. 25,000 refugees in -- from tunisia have landed and we have been talking about -- look at sweden, they have 25,000 people who have accepted them and we see that others have taken even more refugees in the south of europe. nobody has the idea that because of this very difficult situation to question schengen, so i want to make it very clear that it is a pity that now as we face this challenge, we should consider having a schengen debate, when fortunately we have to. secondly i would like to express the view that we want to practice solidarity when we are talking about for example, we see solidarity expressed their.

also the basic principle which is the individual responsibility of states, and the commission should look at its if their records in europe where this can be taken out of for so that you cannot accept refugees in the first arrival states. then you should say how to deal with those countries that are not implementing this rule, at least that is the minimum standard for the european union and we would like to city commission becoming active on the preparation of the council. i would like to bring up three points. first on migration. ladies and gentlemen, we must look at the demographic development in the long-term and reckon on more immigration. we have high levels of unemployment. we must be very careful, and secondly, -- the early i am

appealing to everybody to ensure that the countries that are now outside the door of schengen are not forgotten at the background of this debate. we do not want lower standards for the extension, but if they comply to the standards, they should be allowed to join the schengen area. >> thank you very much. i do not agree when you say that the commission's communication is not good. i am afraid not. i think it is over the top. i think is actually erroneous in some respects. we are not talking about a crisis on our hands here in the european union. 400,000 people from libya wanted

to need a. that is a crisis for tunisia. 20,000 crossing the mediterranean to come into europe. that is not a crisis for europe. if we could do proper burden sharing in europe, we would not have this problem. you just mentioned the figures yourself. you never got excited about these figures previously. you talk about article 78, paragraph three of the schengen agreement. i wonder whether you know about it? it says if you have one or several member states who are confronted with an unexpected pressure of third country nationals coming into this country, then you may take measures. a proposal should be tabled by the commission and put to the council after parliament. bearing in mind in 2006 women

had the world cup for football, we decided to introduce certain measures to deal with border controls. there is absolutely no reason why we should cave in to the populist approach of the head of state of two particular countries. they have tried to find a different solution. we should not support them. what actually happened, president of the commission? indonesia, that all speak french, -- into an issue, that all speakers, but that is a good thing. they could just get off to france, that is fine by us. mr. berlusconi then meets with the french president, and obviously he reacts by saying

you cannot be serious about this. you cannot just ship them all to us, therefore we are going to close the borders. now they are saying we need to reintroduce border controls. the commission issues a communication, rather than saying this is absolutely the wrong way to go about things. i would have expected you to respect that. we are also losing our european spirit here. how can this be? one of our greatest achievements among the fundamental freedoms is freedom of movement for our citizens. that is one of our major achievements. we have here a marginal problem that could perfectly well be handled, but despite that, you have to match heads of government who get together and go against that.

here arbitrarily decided to suspend that great achievement. how can that possibly happen? for these people to win, it would be enough for us simply not to do enough to fight what they are trying to do. i just want to say one more thing. i live on a border. the migration problem in the mediterranean region, how can it be managed? would it be managed by my traveling between the border? can you explain that to me? very open and what about this. what we have seen the last weeks on this issue is a shame.

italy issuing temporary basis and permits to read these of tunisia and france reacting by producing internal border checks, as if in fact you suddenly did not exist anymore. let's be very open about this and say what it is. it was a ping-pong game by two governments, by it berlusconi and sarkozy on the back of refugees who are in fact in trouble. that is what was happening. [applause] a game that has been disastrous port schengen, but also disastrous for the european union and for the image of the european union. by rich reducing internal border checks, it contradicts the whole interest of the union and the basic principles.

it was absolutely out of proportion. 27,000 tunisia's is not a marginal problem, but he is right when he is saying that compared to the 350,000 people from coast to vote in the coast of all war, we are clearly not talking about -- in kosovo war, we are clearly not talking about a migration tsunami. the communication document will read the following sentence. to be used as a last resort in truly critical situations, a mechanism may therefore need to be introduced, allowing for a

coordinated and temporary reintroduction of controls. that is the problem with the whole communication. this means that the commission proposed an additional possibility to reintroduce border checks that is not foreseen in the actual schengen accord. i hope the whole parliament is fighting such a reintroduction. on the contrary, it means that the commission wants to restrict the current problem that is foreseen. national security, public order are the two elements in the actual schengen accord. it means it allows member states to reintroduce border controls, then you can support -- have the

support of the group for the full 100%. what i am asking you is to rewrite the communication. to rewrite the communication and more specifically, the sentence that is saying that a new mechanism shall be introduced. all you have to do is say that it will strengthen the actual proclamation. >> i and my group welcome this opportunity to debate the issues and problems that europe faces in the area of migration and the schengen system. the debate is long overdue. now is the time to focus not only in providing free movement, but better guarding the borders of member states and the it is

itself. rather than pushing for more legislation, we should be making the legislation that we already have were better and harder for all the citizens of the union. however, current concerns from member states are not reactionary, but instead, the inevitable consequence of over 20 years of ever-changing circumstances in europe and around world. there is no doubt that schengen has been a success in many ways, but europe is facing challenges that simply did not exist when the system was first created. large-scale unemployment, migration from north africa, terrorism, organized crime, and it will trafficking has provided us with problems for more complex. it is not an unfair assessment to say that the current system is now shown to be flawed and ill-equipped for the new circumstances we find ourselves in. we need to create an effective tool representing the modern needs of europe's member states

and able to improve the situation for all. this needs to be complemented by renewed strength in making sure the other agencies of the eu are there to support states in securing the eu's external borders and that the problems are not exasperated by for the countries that may join the eu and that are ill prepared to face the challenges. this is a problem basalt through communication and cooperation, but europe's cooperation and schengen policy require review, reflection, and then sensible reform. >> my dear colleagues, the one thing i do not understand here, 27,000 tunisian succumbing to europe. we are talking about insecurity. what in security? it is true that incredible

things have happened in tunisia and egypt and in libya. may i remind you that when we had a war in bosnia, we were handed out free temporary residence permits. in germany, they took hundreds of thousands of refugees. germany is still there. has not gone under. all this talk about the ship going under is propaganda and now you are telling us mafia and criminals as if they were arriving. they just walk in and you do not see them and they are here. stop telling us this stuff. the problem is quite simple. in north africa, there are people today. let's have a pack of solidarity between europe, at 27,000 spread around four hundred million. you cannot tell me that is a big

problem. let me tell you one thing, i am affected by this. the united states reduced the jews. there was a boat called the st. louis. i am fed up on hearing every time people are in difficulty that they are the problem. the problem is not them, it is us. it is our ability to show solid theology, our ability to throw open the doors. shut up, in all humble this. now, let me tell you something. let me tell you one thing. you know what happened in paris. yana tunisian at italian residence permits. the french police arrived and said you know what we are going to you would you?

they tore up their permits. they have a work permit officially issued by italy, and they say it does not count and they tear it up. if that is the lot in europe, then we are wrong. that is why i am asking you here today to put a stop to this, stop telling us that the problem is in north africa, security problems. it is a problem of the insecurity of the people who live there. let's share them out among us. let's allow them to stay here with temporary residence permits until things calm down. if you spread them around for europe, there will be no problem. if we agree to a debate on it schengen, if we agree to this populist pressure and racism,

you know what is going to be with these border checks. it will be a check on what people look like. all those people with the darker skins will be checked up on. then we will have a europe that is fine for the people with white skin but not the people with the darker skin, and we will fight against that. >> we have codetermination on the location of remedies and we have actually agreed on emergency measures, but now we see that one year later, we are

discussing it again. we have support for what we adopted at that time, but now we are talking about the distribution of refugees or the residents of representative duties. has got a lot more difficult but many are now dying at sea. i think we must decide what to do in the future to handle these refugees. there will be a lot of recipes, but it is not a huge number. we must protect the citizens. that also means that we must protect people elsewhere.

if they are in danger and also if they are lost at sea. we want to set aside schengen, and we cannot and we must not do it because it would be harmful to europe. there is no way that we can except it. on the one hand we must make sure that there is finding of the exceptions of refugees and we must distribute them, but you know how many arms we have been selling to give it -- to libya over the last few years? we are talking about more than 300,000 euros. hungary is the first country that has declared its preparedness to accept refugees, and this is the responsibility we must make to distribute the

refugees. >> in the courtyard here we had armed soldiers. we had imperial eagles. we had the flag being paraded and raised. it was a display of militarism and eu nationalism. i hope it was all just a bad dream, but today we have you. he began by reiterating the fact that the free movement of peoples is the embodiment of the european project. you then go on to say that it is the gypsy of member states to share the burden of migratory flows into europe. you advocate a common eu emigration policy, but of course you know that you are losing, because of the route that has blown up between italy and france shows that when there is a crisis, it is the nation's state that wins. so you are worried that you are losing. in your defense of your

position, you resort to intolerance. you resort to nationalism. you made me realize that what i saw yesterday was actually for real. you attack those who want to control their own border policies. you attack them as extremists. worst of all, you attack them three times for being populace. isn't that a dreadful thing? the power of the ballot box. when people dare to vote no in referendums, they are populist. when they want to control their own borders, that our populace. i put it to you, the populists are actually democrats. eric is. that flag has represented liberal democracy far more than any other member state of this

european union and it will go on long after your star spangled banner has disappeared. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you, president. schengen provides that there'll be no more inspections on internal bodies within the eu. schengen provides that inspections at internal borders in the e will be dropped. the problem is that the agreement has not been kept, because external bodies are not being properly checked. so we must recognize that 60 years after schengen was introduced, it has not been a success, and if you in providing

a solution, it is part of the problem. the member states must be given back the opportunity to protect without any inflow. we need other measures. you must tackle very hard these networks of people smugglers. the member states must of rewarding illegal immigrants with residence permits. we must really send them back home, the illegal immigrants and economic refugees. if that doesn't happen, i can assure you it is the end of schengen. i want to protest against the insults being thrown around, a populist, extremist, and all the rest of it for people who simply want to protect the borders of

their own country. there must be no more of this. it is not appropriate. the rules must be applied. nobody talks about applying the rules. we need to stop throwing out insults'. >> the schengen zone is indeed very important for american citizens and the message is coming out clearly from this chamber today that we need to fight together not just to preserve it but strengthen it further. we rely on the european commission to achieve that and it the european parliament will be behind the european commission in strengthening schengen. if there are two lessons we have learned in respect to what happened in recent weeks, it is these two lessons. internal borders within schengen, depends on a common

strategy, a common concern on our external border. if our extra borders are weak, then we will have problems on our internal borders. we need to look it that. italy burst under pressure, with 25,000 people. it gave them a temporary permit. they moved to france. france fell to pressure and has redirected national borders. therefore the external borders or a common concern. secondly, schengen need solidarity, and solidarity is also about sharing the responsibility. sharing responsibility is also relative to the size of the member states. the current system, people who arrive in one country remained in their country where they arrive because our laws, including in the dublin

regulation, insure that they have to remain in the first country of arrival. this clearly needs to change, because it is no longer tenable. 1000 people arriving in the smallest member state, my country, malta, or equivalent to four hundred million arriving in the entire european union. so yes, 25,000 are nothing, they are a drop in the ocean for the entire union, but 1000 people arriving in the southernmost member state are a lot. we need therefore to link schengen with solidarity. schengen need solidarity. thank you. >> are you ready to answer my question on blue card rule?

>> does it include the strengthening schengen's borders, and in particular, the border between greece and turkey? >> what are the conditions, -- one of the conditions to join the schengen zone is in the strengthening of the external borders, and precisely because they are a common concern, is the responsibility of all the member states to ensure that the external border is strong. one should fulfill those conditions, then you can join schengen. that is precisely what countries such as romania and bulgaria have done. this goes to show that strengthening

.

>> there's no point doing something in this area that's not based on fact and data and but wouldn't upheld in court. and we didn't want to put out a question that wouldn't be manageable for us, because it's a very complex area. and our team did a fantastic job to operate in a focused way to be able to make a determination on whether or not there's an issue that requires us to act, and if so, what appropriate actions to take would be. we're still in the first round of data coming in. after that we will continue to

work on it with you. >> so can you, next year, by 2030? i mean, what? >> i agree with you, well before 2030. [laughter] >> i agree with you. i can't say, because we're analyzing the data and i want the staff to do its job, because it does go to deployment. >> any other comments? >> i think it's important for us to get to a final resolution. when you're talking about this that's been making thousands a year and in the meantime companies are going broke.

>> five years. it's sort of like groundhog's day. we're coming up on the anniversary of the question for the results by 2007 and it's 2011. cell site-by cell site, building-by-building, incumbent providers-by-incumbent providers. the d.o.j. gathered this data. it's really not as daunting as it sounds. legally there might be an issue whether or not you can compel certain companies to sthride data, and that's where the problem has been. if the data is competitively sensitive and if you go to a

trade show where they are buying and selling special access from each other -- so it's not that hard to find, but that would give us a real snapshot of what does the market look like? and there's more competition in a market, we ought to de regulate, and if there's not enough competition, we can figure out what to do. >> one of the first meetings i took as a commissioner dealt with special access. when these same parties look at me, we don't even have to exchange words. so i agree with you that this is a significant barrier for enhanced service. so i am looking forward to continuing to work with the chairman in order get resolution here. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you for

your patience. >> we're going to go a second round. i know that's going to take a lot of time up on my side of the aisle. but -- first the top seven best hits of our memo. some of the ideas we kicked out there. i would draw your attention to the staff majority memo. if you have it. if not, if you can just give us your feedback on these seven items and i'm not trying to lock you into stupid restrictions. i'm just trying to figure out if there's a way to put in some good things. so that regardless of who is chairing this or the personality dynamics that may occur five, eight, 10 years from now, the food processes are there for the public, so i throw that out.

and i'm going to tie this to sort of a yes-no. the concept with a complex flexibility. does that make snens does that not make sense? or should that be a rule? >> i think when the commissioner needs more information, yes, but we're on the information exchange business. we have public notices and the like. so we get information. so when we need more information, yes. but in the case where we have sufficient information, i think it would delay the process. >> yes? >> yes. with flexibility that will not be abused. >> yes. but always remember there are crises and emergencies and things that demand action when you can't do that the. >> in general we do it. there might be mandates,

extensions, court remandatory or enough information to proceed. but i'm not for statue tori ranges. >> do you publish the -- should the proposed rules always be published? >> that's been our policy. we've gone for 38%, and -- >> any reason not to go to 100%? >> well, some cases where there might be a form or further rules are -- or we're seeking comment on a third party's part. >> sometimes people don't get serious until you get beyond -- well beyond the n.p.r. staming and then they tell you what they like, so it's not always practical. new data comes in and

flexibility for emergencies and things like that. but i would commend the chairman on the difference we made and making sure we do that now over 85% of the time. >> yes? >> yes, with flexibility that cannot be abused. >> necksibility that takes any kind of comment. >> what about supply cycles? >> i think if there's statue tori obligations sthrooveled might be problem atic with video relay -- video senseibility act we had a six month window so if you had problems that -- again, flexibility and dexterity are my words for the day. >> commissioner? >> yes. with flexibility that cannot be abused. >> yes? >> same.

>> i agree as well. the real issue is making sure the commission pursues best practices, and we look forward to working with you >> what about a hard shok or shok as a report -- shot clock as a report mechanism? your rates on trying to achieve those shot clock numbers. again, i'm not trying to tie your hands but in the past there's been issues. i talked to a group recently where they had a rulemaking commission for years, the commission, it was circulated last fall and it's still in some people's inboxes. >> i think it may make sense to use more shot clocks. >> commissioner cox? >> the shot clock helped break the u.n.c.-chapel hill babble

monopoly. >> i am always behind him and it's always problem atic. all transactions are created equal. so guidelines but not ruling the process is i think wise. >> ok. what about publication of final draft for an item issued, the f.c.c. could be required to make a draft so everyone knows what the commissioners are deciding to vote upon. >> i think it's voted by the logical possibility of it. and you end up with something where it's impossible for the agencies to act effectively. do a notice. put out rules, get comments. the agency deliberates. makes a decision. it's subject to further review, and i think that's how this general process works. >> people know, but you can't

keep doing this until you get the last i dotted and all that, at some point you have to be in front of the -- of a person who knows. >> i think that's a good idea. >> i wouldn't want to salvo an exchange that could take the place of an approval of an item. >> requireing a three-day calendar layover so everyone has a chance to do it, convenient, but it's the public's business, the public process. it would seem to me you would want them to see the final product. if i could just go through the remaining couple of items here. commissioner initiation of items. chairman, c.o.e. controls the agenda. but what about having a bipartisan group of commissioners being able to

weigh and put items in. we went through earlier, but seeing if the commissioner has been swayed by the evidence that's come out. >> thank you, but no. >> you don't want to be able to help set the agenda with a really bad -- >> i think i do that. i have that type of rapport. so that's why you -- >> you weren't there in the old days. commissioner mcdowell. >> yes. i support this type of concept. >> commissioner cox? >> i would just repeat what i say. i think thee commissioners sthouf ability to put an item on the the agenda, take it off. 95% of our decisions are unanimous. we work collaboratively and i can't imagine a situation where there's a problem. and i'm only aware of one historically. >> there are some others where

i think you-all -- the committee's been kind to let me work through those. we kick these out as discussion points. some of them are and some aren't from a statue tori standpoint. i would turn now to the gentleman from massachusetts. the always-colorful mr. marquee. >> thank you. i'll take that as a compliment. and most of all, here, today, we're at an historic juckture. there is now an announced plan by at&t to buy t mobile for $39 billion in the latest series of major transactions at the commission for you to review pursuant with your authority. the merger would reduce the number of national wireless companies from four down to three.

and then the next step would be the inevitable gobbling up of sprint by verizon. so we'd be back down to two. which would be kind of going into the telecommunications time machine back to 1993. before this committee wisely decided that two companies that had all the licenses, one was at&t, they had one license. and other people had the other one, we'll call it. but it was 50 cents a minute. it was analog. it was not a particularly robust marketplace and el people did not have cell phones in their pockets. so i thought we'd look back at the myths of mobile times so we

can understand where we were, how we got here, and why we really don't want to go back at all. this isn't even an open question, because we had more than enough time to learn how big companies view how fast you can move into the point of mobile technology. so back here in october. 1993. on a bipartisan basis, it was a beautiful thing. what this committee had with the lack of congress in the mobile area moving over 200 megahertz of -- the creation of the third and fourth and fifty and sixth license. you two big boys really don't need anymore. that was our message. they weren't particularly happy with it.

in fact the general, he was not happy with it either, but we said we'll figure it out. we'll see you. well, we need that robust marketplace and we want to be number one, so we had this incredible break through. so we move 50 cents per minute. within four years it was under 10 cents per minute. all the pursuant companies had to go digital, which is much more versatile. and it was quite a transformation. if you can imagine. this is where we were. we had this brick. anyone remember carrying this on the other hand your pocket? ugh? here's the brick. and by 1996, we had moved to the blackberry. brick to blackberry. huh? four years. this committee brought the insight. the those first two companies really didn't think they wanted

to move to this. in fact they told us in testimony they couldn't move this fast. it just wasn't going to tie into personal business. that was it. so again, now we have message voice. don't regulate. so the question is do we want deterrence to clock back to that? do we want to go back to the brick in terms of how fast companies abort to snovet do we want to only trust those two companies again to move faster? i don't think so. i think it would be an historic mistake for the f. crpt c. to approve -- for the f.c.c. to approve this merger and we would go back in a time machine to that point in time. we've already got at&t and verizon dividing the country into bell east and bell west, which is as manned, letting them have a national wireless

monopoly which is at stake. i have seen the movie before and know how it ends with consumers being tipped over and money shaken from their pockets. we wanted to make sure we ended that era and i think it's critical for the f.c.c. version of that. on the subject. this is not something where we have to go back to alexander graham bell. there are people within our own life times that we can go back to. they were still alive. and they can still be consulted as to what the state of that marketplace was. but all i can tell you is it would be an historic mistake to go back to that time with the promises to become the two ba home outsides after 100 years with alexander graham bell,

they do not innovate. and that's the key. they do not innovate. it's investment and technology, darwinian competition that ultimately leads to these changes that help consumers and exost, i had an hope you-all keep that in mind going forward, because this is going to be the biggest decision you make, and i hope you make the right one. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentlemen. i would remind members of the committee we have to be careful since this is the commission before them when it comes to the pillsbury rule. >> the pillsbury time right now? >> going back to the blackberry. >> is that a question? are we in the pillsbury time? is it constructed that we're

obstructed from presenting our views? >> it was suggested at another hearing in another context that we have to be careful in terms of how we convey our thoughts. >> well, i am a lawyer. and i -- and i think there are lawyers down this. we have, you know, so in the staff. i could -- >> are we in the pillsbury time frame right now? >> they are going to their blackberry. >> in the meantime we go to you for five. >> thank you, mr. chairman. while the lawyers are going back and forth, i don't know a time where members cannot express an opinion. mr. markee is not asking the commissioners for their thinking. their thinking on the matter he just raised. he expressed his opinion.

so god help us if members of congress can't come in as members of the committee and express an committee. i understand that mr. marquee's opinion may be menacing to some or discomforting, but it is an opinion. i think it's an important opinion, and whether pillsbury or anything else gets in the way here, i'm not a lawyer to make that determination, but i don't think that's the question. most frankly. let me see. cheryl general cows can i some have expressed concern recently that the f.c.c. has slide away from using a notice of inquiry, the first set of broad issues

rather than proceeding straight with the proposed rules in a notice of proposed rule-making. do you think a c.d. with an inquiry could be an effective approach and have you analyzed more often under your chairmanship under previous administrations? . >> so i think of how foits of rulemaking have been preceded by noai's and especially when it's a fresh issue, it's a food place to start. when we're dealing with mandates and commission has vast experience coming out of prior issues, and public safety is not a place to go. we have been talking about how to get the balance right between developing a full inclusive public record, and moving in an exme dishes

manner? >> i don't think it is now or should be a firm requirement. >> i don't have any other questions, mr. chairman. i do think that if i might, the list of suggestions that you have today, your punch list that we have, the commissioners all respond to them. >> yes, i asked them to do that. >> but i think it would be helpful if after you've given some time to get -- give some thought to it, that we get back to it. >> in the interest of eating lunch, i have no further questions. >> all right. with that, and i want to thank both our committee members who

participated so well in this committee hearing and the f.c.c. commissioners and the cheryl, thank you for your thoughtful approach on this and we look forward to continue to work with you on a process i know we share. >> first, has the commission staff been able to identify whether or not a pillsbury? >> we have not yet begun. >> do you want us to wait until we get an answer or can we go ahead and adjourn? >> i think you raised the issue and out of the comments, i just want to know if my congressional prerogatives are in any way contradicted by any prerogatives of the f.c.c. and if they are, i would want all members of the committee to know how we are all restricted.

al recommendations to the commission, and i just don't want to committee hearing to end until that is accomplished. because that is quite a statement made from these. >> now let's not overtake what i said, ok? what i said is i just would caution the committee. this is not an issue before the king and a each have our own rules. i should say this is not about you or you. we will probably have an issue, and rightfully so. i just know in a different subcommittee with a commission, we would not try to affect the decision, so this was in general context. that's all it was. >> if the gentleman would yield. is the intention of the hearing you're going to have in any way

effect the decision made by the f.c.c.? >> you're saying if it does not advisory rules? >> i won't hold it. i think that's an important thing for -- so rather than saying you're going to have the larrying, you should say i am going to have the hearing if it is not a violation of the pillsbury hearing, because i don't want any influence of any member going on right now. and i can live with that, and in fact, if that's our committee policy, i would like to have that established and every other member -- >> slow down. take a breath. i am -- >> i am not the person who made this accusation that this is a violation of the pillsbury violation. >> nor am i. >> yes, you did.

>> you said was it the intent? >> if it was assumed that way, i take that back. i'm just trying to do everything cautiously and not get everybody in trouble. the commission the next time is nowhere to us. with that no other business coming before the scommee, we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute]

>> next the presidential candidacy by ron paul and then newt gingrich talks to republicans and then live, your calls and comments on

"washington journal." then john boehner gives the commentsment address at the catholic university of washington, d.c. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the 112th congress. including committee assignments and information on the white house and supreme court justices and governors. all that and more on journal@c-span.org. >> next, ron paul announces his candidacy for the republican nomination for president. he made his announce meant that new hampshire, the site of the primary. this is just over an hour. thank you, thank you.

thank you. thank you very much. we are on a schedule you know, but that was very nice. jim, i certainly wt to thank you. i am very pleased to call and center. chris, thank you for your efforts. i want to the knowledge all of our special guest behind me. thank you very much for attending. thank you for coming. i am so delighted to see you involved in our revolution. [applause] i have one of data about the

revelation. the revolution is spreading and the momentum is building. the momentum is here today not because of what i have done, it is necessary that the grass- roots people understand what the issues are, in a generation of people need to know. i am delighted that the young people are with us in this revolutionary. that we have. [applause] a lot of other work has been done. it has been the intellectual work. i am convinced that a nation does not change just for partisan reasons. what has to happen is there has

to be an intellectual revolution to energize people and get people to understand the problems from economic and political terms. that is what has been happening for ite a few decades. there is quite a bit of difference about attitudes, economics, foreign policy today than it was in 1976 when i was first elected. there is a big difference. involves a lot of work from a lot of people and now that so many people in this country have come to understand that government to so far in its pretense that they can take care of us from cradle to grave and police the world, it is so evident that this crime number of people that government is not the solution. government has created the problem. [applause]

our opponents say, you people do not want any government. you know, in our society, with our constitution, there is a role for government. the constitution was written explicitly not to restrain your behavior and your life, it was written to restrain the federal government. [applause] because of the educational efforts and the work that so many have done, all those strong evidence there is a failure of there, especially since we saw what happened with the housing bubble and that was a predictae event that the housing bubble would burst. it did, and because of all that, people are now listening

to this revolutionary spirit that is spreading across this country. [applause] is great that i'm able to announce in this very special state, i am very pleased that i am once again able to say that i am a candidate for the presidency. [applause]

there are many who live to belittle this effort to, but let me tell you, there is an old saying, 3 is the charm. [applause] the conditions have certainly changed even from four yrs ago. when i think back over the first year that i came up here, it must've been the end of 2006 or to a dozen 7, the atmosphere was a t different grade -- the atmosphere was a lot different. it did not make all of us to believe in liberty all that happy. there has been a said it didn't change. the people have awoken and they have sent a message and elected a lot of new people to your state legislature. i will tell you what, i am convinced that liberty is alive and well in new hampshire. [applause]

there is a lot of talk about what you should seek in a president. i am not one that is prone to talk about, i did this, i will do this. but i can tell generically about what i think the president should be able to do. one thing the american cable want -- the american people want, they want a strong president. the question you should ask, where should those strengths be directed? should this trend of the president be directed toward building homeland security and policing the world? the strength and the character of the individual should be directed towards standing out for freedom standing up for liberty, and restraining government. that is for the strength should

be. [applause] there's been a lot of challenges already today and yesterday and this last week because of certain positions. i find one very fascinating. that has to do with the drug issue. it is so symbolic of understanding what liberty is all about. when you think of my position, my position is that you have a right to a freedom of choice with your lives. that i believe is basic principle of liberty. what does that mean? if you have civil liberties and write your life and your property. it means that you can make a very important choices. for most of these, most americans agree with that. yes, the most important thing in my personal life is that i and my family and others, we make

our decisions about our spiritual life. about our salvation grade it cannot be done by government and we have to provide the maximum out of freedom for individuals to make those decisions. the government should always but out of our spiritual lives. [applause] also, intellectually, we are fairly good at that. the political correctness movement has tried to undermine a, but most americans believe in the first amendment and say that we have a right to talk about controversial issues. the first amendment was not written for us to be able to talk about the weather. it is written so that we can discuss controversial issues and read aangerous literature,

especially the literature that promotes big government and socialism. we recognized that to be the case. all the sudden, people have lost the understanding of liberty and we have conceded way too much to the government to decide what we put into our own bodies, if we can control what goes into our spiritual life,t goes into our intellectual life, watching we can see to the government that they decide everything that we should do with our own bodies? [applause] i take a strict constitutional position and the government has very little authority to get involved in our economic or personal lives. that excludes the federal government from being involved.

the federal government should not be involved. that does not prohibit the states from doing some of the things that they do not go even though we might disagree with it at the national level, states have more prerogaves and more choices. if we look at education as an example, the constitution gives new authority for the federal government to run our educationalystems and they should not be doing that. [applause] at the state and federal level, we suld be guaranteeing the protection ofreedom of choice. we should always be aware of the fact that it is very important that individuals who want to opt out, we have to protect the rights of individuals to own

school and go to private schools as well. [applause] this freedom of choice should be two other choices about to -- about what we put into our bodies. for instance, your right to take things into your body, such as nutritional substances, should never be regulated by the federal government and absolutely never regulated by the united nations. [applause] i do not know what is so bad about giving the federal government out of the business of regulating unpasteurized milk. weiss and we be so intimidated if they want to use the issue of somebody using hard drugs as the reason we have to give up all of

our freedoms? it is better to defend the position and says,id you have freem of choice, but you also have to have responsibility for what you do and if you do harm to yourself, you cannot go crawling to the government to penalize your neighbor to take care of your. [applause] i see this position of the government controlling all of those decisions as detrimental to progress in medicine. so often, there are alternative treatments for cancer and other diseases that are not approved for years and years and years because we have to have this fda deciding when and what we can do. we ought to decide about all partner did care as long as people are up front and tell you the truth. [applaus

in all that i just explained, everything that i he done in politics, i of never introduced a bill to emphasize heroin. they take all of what i said and turned around and say, he would legalize heroin. you know, the plain truth is that pearland was -- carol when was legalized and there was no abuse of this. is in our recent history. there was a long time where marijuana was legalized. i happen to have a personal disgust with the abuse of drugs, but it is all drugs. physicians prescribe way too much medication and get to a medieval addicted.

-- too many people addicted. [applause] the line at caught a little bit of attention down in sth carolina was when this cam up and they wanted to paint me as a monster about colyn, i did not get a chance to say, i never mentioned that word. i talk about liberty and freedom. the interpretation is correct that i do want people to make choices of. in my less than 30 seconds left to make my point, i said, all right, if it would happen to become legal, how many of you would all the 70 using heroin? people make decisions and they make good decisions before the most part. i do not like when the government makes the decision and it violates the principles of liberty. is a blanket decision and it affects us in everything that we do to the point where you do not

even know if you are allowed to drink the milk that you can buy from the farmer. [applause] when they challenge you and say -- and want to paint a negative picture, stick to your guns. defends liberty, defend our constitution, defend state's rights. there are a few regulations in the state on alcohol. is different in different states, but at least there are different states that handle this. the kids in high school today can get a hold of marijuana easier than they can get ahold of alcohol. it is not like you just turn it lists and down the out there in the streets. ultimately, even that does not solve the problem. what solves the problem is a

good family relationships, families that keep the it -- that teach their kids right from wrong. [applause] because of my understanding of the constitution and economic anmoral policy, i've taken a position that i do not let the federal agencies breathing down our necks and regulating our property. for this reason, i have opposed the federal government insurance programs because they cause moral hazard. the one that they quizzed me on today was the insurance is that take care of everybody in the midst of a natural disaster. natural disasters are very bad and they're very damaging and i

believe that they can be taken care of without the federal government going further into debt not go through the system of liberty and separate the government and the state government, because the point was abo flood insurance. i lived near the gulf coast and i used to have a house right on the beach. you cannot buy private insurance because it is dangerous, too expensive. they have to tax you in north carolina to a guy can have a beach house in texas. they want to turn that into saying, yodo not care about the people suffering from a natural disaster. free-market economic lot really helps us sort these problems out. if you want to build a house on the beach, and you love it, yes, by insurance. that is giving you a very important economic lesson. it is dangerous to live on the beach. [applause]

the people that do not live on the beach should not have to pay for those of us to take the risk and live there in a guarantee from the government. our society and our country has been very generous. when people really get hurt, we go to help people around the world. when there are earthquakes and other things, we have been very generous. that is going to end because our economic policies in this country is destroying our walt. we will not have money to take care of ourselves, let alone help the world. i am convinced that if you think these -- think things through, you can figure out how sound economic policy and morality will help us. does that mean -- they should

not be destroying your property rights, and they should be protecting your property rights. obviously, one of the most important property rights that we should always beat -- defend is the right to own a weapon to defend ourselves. [applause] other questions had to do with foreign-policy. i am so radal but i want to go back to the constitution and have a foreign policy which is a pro-american foreign-policy and not do the things that we're not authorized to do. because the status quo has drifted over to the assumption that we have to be the policeman

of the world. i do not think the american people ever fully endorsed the idea of. even in recent history, our candidates, he ran on a -- not going into nation-building. that is what i am running on. i believe it and we should do it. [applause] a lot of people would like to label less. you are a bunch of isolationists. if you believe in freedom of choice, you believe in trading with other people, believing that you have the right to buy goods from anybody want. id is your money. -- it is your money. it just means that we stay out of the internal affairs of all the conflicts and the civil wars

and e religious civil wars, especially going on in the middle east. if we do not have to be involved in that. we make more enemies for it, and it is very nice down finaially. therefore, we need to reassess it and have a new foreign- policy. [applause] it gets a little trickier because when bad policy brings bad events to ourselves, such as what happened on 9/11, it is very difficult to say, if we would not have had that foreign policy that wead, we would not be under such attack. we have been attacked, there are limits. no matter how many mistakes we made in the past, when a country is attacked, a president and a country and a congress should respond. for that reason, i did respond foreboding for the authority --

for voting for the authority to go after the individuals that were responsible. what happened was the authority was abused. it was abused and ignored. @ osama bin laden was allowed to get off the hook and escape. there are nuclear weapons and indicted, so we have to go in and fight this war in iraq. what did we end up with? 10 years of thousands of our people being killed. tens of thousands have been wounded the serious injuries. there is information coming out now about the persian gulf war syndrome is going to have massive number of people with those conditions coming back.

head injuries, we have a big problem on our hands and that is a cost, trillns of dollars, thousands of lives. to go after a gup of people who deserve to be gone after, but the cost was way too high. [alause] though i supported that authority, i had reservations and feared that it would be misused, and i was looking around for another option. that is when i reviewed what i have learned about the constitution, and they have a provision in the constitution that maybe we can have a narrow defined or. we cannot declare war against the government when it is a band of criminals that are attacking us, that is when they provided the principal of a letter of

mark and reprisal. target the enemy, go after them, and get them. the good example of how this might work is what ross perot did. he had se of its employees to take him into hostage in iran, he did not go to the federal government and say, attack them and declare war. he got some special forces, retirees, he got in his people and got them out and brought them out. [applause] it this principle had been ingrained in our system and we had used it, we could have paid $500 million or billion dollars to capture the individuals that were responsible. yet we did not do that. that would've been cheap compared to the trillions of dollars involved. not only do i see some of that as a conflict, every time we

occupy a country, every time we killed a civilian, civilians get killed, t they get angry at as. what would we do with that happened? we have to go get them. at the taliban is not the al qaeda. the taliban are a group of people who are very determined that they do not want any foreign occupation. that is their religious and politicabelief. we joined them when they were so annoyed with the soviets occupying afghanistan. we're on this side of those is said, no occupation. if we e involved over there, that is what happens. if you want to demonstrate the futility of reform policy, i think about pakistan. we are lobbing bombs into pakistan, innocent people are getting killed, at the same

time, and we give them billions of dollars. we give the money, our problem in this country is that we have only to foreign policies, -- two reign policies. in this case, we are doing both. there is a lot of room for a sensible foreign policy. it goes back to the constitution. not only is this a detment to us militarily and for our national security, it is a great detriment to us economically. you cannot ignore these dollars that we are spending. ic politically the real opportunity is cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of the military industrial complex that does not help our national defense. [applause]

then we do not have to take this politicallynpopular stand that many have on our side and say, we need to cut medical care for the children. that is not a good point to make. it is more difficult. all the programs should be cut. i did not vote for them because they are uonstitutional. synthesizing big cuts overseas, you could alleviate some of these problems in a political way that would be more acceptable. this is glenn to be worked out in congress. they're trying to figure out how it -if we should raise the national debt. if we did not come to the rescue and bailout all the rich guys comment that would be a depression. it would have been a depression for walltreet, but the depression was dumped on the people instead. [applause]

instead of making the correct economic policy changes, we had all these problems from too much spending and too much taxing and regulation, we are in trouble. the bubble has burst. we have to put more money, spend more money, borrow more money, regulate and print more. we're not out of the recession. we are still in recession and it is going to get worse. foreign policy is a significant amount of our spending and the printing of money is an important thing in. there'll be a lot of talk about inflation. inflation is here. it is very important that we define inflation the way that the pre-market economist do. inflation is when the print money and increase the money supply.

the consequence of inflating a monetary system will be higher prices. unpredictable, where the money goes, and when it happens, and to what degree, because there are a lot of elements built in. when you devalue the currency, the prices will go up. we are at the beginning of a big seat on inflation. they say that we have to vote for the the debt increased. by the way, i am not going to vote for the debts increase. [applause] their argument is, that there would be a disaster if we defaulted. it is aisaster if we defaulted, but we are in the midst of a default and we have done it before. we hav done it from the beginning of our history. we defaulted with the greenbacks in a civil war. we defaulted in the 1930's when the american people were denied