practice of helping constituents in the past, why this policy has changed is beyond me. madam speaker, disaster is not associated with one political party and helping our citizens should be a top priority of both. i urge a no vote on the c.r. and urge the majority to bring a bill to the floor that fully funds fema and doesn't harm job creation and does the right thing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. rogers: will the gentleman yield? mr. engel: i'd be happy to yield. mr. rogers: does the gentleman realize that back in june, in this body we passed the homeland security bill which contained $1 billion for fema, sent it to the senate and it's been laying there for the last three months? doeshe gentleman know that? mr. engel: i know it and -- the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman's time has expired. mr. engel: if the gentleman will yield to me. i do know that and unfortunately it's been difficult passing things in the senate bause quite frankly the minority filibusters everything to death and getting the 60 votes is very, very difficult.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the very hardworking chair of the interior subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman whose subcommittee held more hearings than any other, i think 22 different hearings, we had 150 committeewide, but he won the award for the most hearings. mr. simpson, idaho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for two minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the chairman for yielding. you know, mr. speaker, many members of congress, myself included, recognize that we want to get our economy going again. we need to take steps to get our fiscal house back in order and provide certainty to the marketplace so small business and job creators can begin hiring again and until we finis the regular appropriations process for the coming year, we won't be able to implement the necessary spending reductions and policy reforms needed to get our economy moving again. while the house has me close to passing all of the appropriation bills out of committee and many of the bills on the floor, the senate has

passed only one bill so far. this c.r. gives us time to complete that work while cutting current spending. to me that seems like a much more reasonable solution than threatening another government shutdown which will only hurt the economy. congress has one responsibility each year and that is to pa the 12 appropriation bills by the beginning of the year. that job has been made harder this year by the fact that the previous majority did not complete the work by the end of en 2010 -- 2010. but i've got to tell you this debate has almost been bizarre to me today. people have asked whether we need to ofet emergency spending and i said emergency spending does not need to be offset but if you can find the offsets to do so, why not do so? and that's what we've tried to do in this bill. this debate seemso me almost devoid of the fact that we are $1.5 trillion in debt this year. the gentlelady from texas in the debate on the rules said we're nickel and diming those that are suering from disaster.

and that we shouldn't be nickel and diming -- in idaho $1.5 trillion or the billion dollars that we're offsetting here is not nickels and dimes. the gentleman from new jersey said, peopleeed relief now in new jersey. they are going to get relief whene pass this bill. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, said we are cannibalizing the program that we are taking the money out of. in full committee this amendment was offered on the homeland security bill, this amendment was offered. there was no objection to it. it passed on a voice vote. and now we are cannibalizing the program? we need to pass this so that we can get on and finish our appropriation bills. i thank the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 5 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington.

the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, my good friend, mr. hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. dicks: make it in america. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to this bill. now, all of us are for a continuing resolution which keeps the government in business. in the past on both sides of the aisle we have talked about clean c.r.'s. clean c.r.'s in the short-term that's going until november 18, to keep government running. i was hopeful we would have such a c.r. this time. so that we would not continue to give to the american public the feeling that we can't come to agreement. i was not in the appropriations committee, the gentleman, my

good friend from idaho says this was an amendment that was not opposed in committee. i don't know whether mr. price would agree with that. i don't know what the facts on that were. but let me say this, this is a pay-for that is extraordinarily controversial on our side of the aisle. because the message we got from america, as we were home and as we get today is we need to create jobs. we need to grow the economy. we perceive on this side of the aisle as having selected a pay-for which by the way paid for for fema disaster aid as i understand it from staff has never happened before. no precedent for doing this. and let me give you an example that will we'll all understand. your water heater -- that we'll all derstand. your water heater goes out at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. your family is going to get up

in the morning and you need your water heater right away. so you go out and buy the water heater, what do you do? you charge it. because it's an emergency, you've got to get it online. we have loot of people who have suffered -- we have a lot of people who have suffered an emergency assault by hurricane, by tornado, by fire, by earthquake and they need help now. and historically we have given help now and have not gotten into a debate about what priority do we undermine in that process. we respond to the true emergency. now, we've had a lot of emergencies and mr. rogers and i have been here a long time, they were not really emergencies, we

claimed they were emergencies so we didn't have to pay for them under our rules. but there is no one i think in this body or in this country who doesn't believe that irene caused a legitimate emergency. not feigned, not used for the purposes of justifying where we may go. longstanding precedent in both chambers has been to respond to disasters immediately by getti victims the help they need. just as a family can't budget in advance for car breaking down or the water heater or something as i mentioned, we have provided in the agreement that we just made just a few weeks ago for head room for exactly these kinds of emergencies. $11 billion. however, we did not provide that for 2011, but, again, 2011 is when the emergency occurred and when the money is needed, now. the senate just passed a disaster relief bill that adheres to this precedent and it passed with overwhelming -- well, not overwhelming, significant bipartisan support. unfortunately republicans here insistn breaking with this commonsense precedent and with their colleagues in the senate

and demand that responding to an emergency be offset by cutting elsewhere. again, let me precisely say on emergency, fema funding directed at disaster relief. now, the problem have is that the target for paying for this is what we perceive to be a job creator. so as a result i would ask that we reject thibill. we have some time left to do another c.r. that we ought to agree on in a bipartisan way. a clean c.r., short-term so, that, yes, we can, as the gentleman from idaho said, get on with our business. and i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two -- mr. bonner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is

recognized for two minutes. bonbon thank you. as a member of the -- mr. bonner: thank you. as a member of the appropriations committee i rise in support of this resolution. this c.r. continues government operations aan amount agreed to by the congress and the white house in the budget control act just a few weeks ago as it was nosed -- noted by the distinguished democratic whip. but make no mistake, the american people spoke loudly last november and the message was clear. we need to spend less and both the house budget committee and the house appropriations committee have been at the van guard of meeting that challenge. but the other message that many of us ceive when we go back home to our districts from our constituents is that they want this institution to function. they want their elected officis on both sides to put aside the partisan differences and to work to create an environment that fosters job creation and economic growth and that reduces spending and puts our nation back on a path toward fiscal solvency.

naturally i find it disappointing to now learn that some of r colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opposing this bill for purely political reasons. after signaling their support just last week. and to my friends in our own conference who believe we should make deeper cuts in this c.r., i say, we agree. the house has voted to reduce spending further on multiple occasions. and this appropriations committee has reported many bills to do so as well. sadly in this hyperpartisan political environment, with the republican majority in the house, a democrat majority in the senate and a democrat white house, the will of the hou alone cann rule the day simply because we wish to do so. this is a reasonable bill which pays for the disaster funding it contains and it holds the funding level at an agreed upon amount and allows the committee the opportunity to do its work in the remaining days of this year before fiscal year 2012 kicks in. i urge my colleagues to support is passage and i yield back my

ti to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, how many additional speakers do you have? why don't you have your speaker go and then we'll have the democratic leader and then you can close -- i think he has the right to close debate, isn't that right? the speaker pro tempore: yes, that's correct. mr. dicks: all right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the new member of our committee, he's doing a great job, from the state of arkansas, steve womack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: thank you, madam chrwoman, and i thank the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee, for yielding and i appreciate this time. ify heard it once when i was back in my district, i heard it dozens of times and that was the frustration of my constituents concerning our inability to get our business done, to get it done on time, without the panic and anxiety associated with

threatened shutdowns of government. this vote today is an opportunity for us to do jt that. fund government consistent with the amounts agreed to in the budget control act, giving the necessary time to complete 2012 appropriations and save america from the threat of another government shutdown. now, as wasrticulated by the distinguished chairman a moment ago, i'm a freshman and i realize i'm still learning the ropes of this chamber and how things get done, but let's just -- let's just go back in context. this funds government at levels consistent with the budget control act passed in this very room a few weeks ago. it addresses disaster funding and dozen so in a very responsible way -- does so in a very responsible way. it is not unprecedented nor is it unique to find offsets and this offset is exactly what this house passed in the homeland security appropriations bill. so what has changed? i suggest to you, madam

chairwoman, that the political strategies have changed and the emotions and hardships of people affected by these disasters are really nothing more than a political prop in this entire disaster -- discussion, design to make us look hard-hearted or insensitive. nothing could be further from the truth. just a moment ago the distinguished democratic whip from maryland talked about the water heater going out inhe middle of the night. you just simply go charge one. we, what happens when you go to charge it and your credit is denied? you've maxed out on your credit card. as my friend mike simpson said a moment ago, we're broke. we're $1.5 trillion in deficit. our plan, this c.r. provides the necessary funding, does it responsibly and consistent with already agreed upon numbers and i urge its passage a i yield back my time. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished mocratic leader from california who has -- whose state has suffered a number of major disasters over the years and she is well versed

on this subject. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from california is recognizesed for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, madam speaker, i tnk the gentleman for yielding and i congratulate him on his tremendous leadership as the ranking member on the appropriations committee and when he was speaking today i was thinking back to when i was a relatively new member of congress, not even here two years, we had an earthquake in the san francisco bay area. of course, it was a complete surprise, a terrible, natural disaster. very hard -- bridge -- the bay bridge was out of cmission. it cracked the -- the homes were on fire for days and days and days a true natural disaster. and when i came to the floor when this issue was brought up by the chairman of the appropriations committee, the honorable jamie witten of

mississippi, he came to the floor and with his words of comfort and assurance to the people who accepted the natural disaster, his comments made all the difference in the world. stening to him no one had any doubt that the federal government was going to honor its commitment, honor its commitment to the american people that when in time of natural disaster we will be there. we have a compact with the american people. how different the conversation is today when we're talking about saying during a time of natural disaster, and by the way, many more than the natural disaster than san francisco -- the san francisco bay area, loma priellta, would stretch

across california, but today we've had hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, forest fires still raging out of control in some parts of the country. texas until recently in that situation. i hope that it's under control now. or the rain we all pray for there is coming. and what do we do? we come to the floor and say, now we're going to institute a new policy that says in time of natural disaster we're going to have to find someplace to play for it. now, what's next? where are we going next to pay r it? the distinguished chairman has said, well, we paid for emergencies before and indeed we have. i'm talking about something of a much different caliber. i'm talking about a natural disaster. i'm talking about the fema disaster relief fund.

with all of the -- all of the disasters that are happening at once, we don't know when the next one will come, but what is frightening also is we don't know where this majority wants to go to pay for it. i have serious objection to the pay-for in this legislation. have a bigger objection that we would have to pay for a disaster. we never paid for the ta cuts for the rich. they never were paid for. we never paid for thears in afghanistan or iraq. they were never paid for, but all of a sudden we have to pay to try to make whole these people who had been affected, who've lost everything. i visited there. i wish you would. maybe you have. maybe you have. but it's not that joplin, missouri, is finished. it's not that as we go to a new disaster, we're fipished with the old one. it is just compounded.

someone mentioned earlier in the election, people talked about the -- the american people want, whether it's in an election or out of an election, they want jobs. and actly what this bill does is cut jobs. instead of creating jobs, the number one priority of the american people, this republican bill will cost good-paying jobs. it's amazing because the bill, as we're debating, will cost at least 10 good-paying jobs under the manufacturing -- american manufacturing jobs. make it in america. and perhaps 10's of thousands more by cutting the advanced technology vehicle nufacturing loan program. i'm not going to speak too much about it because our colleagues already have. they've talked about how this takes us to the next place in innovation and coetitiveness for our country. the next place in technology for cars that had reduce emissions which will help us

stop some of these natural sasters. these laws have proven to be effective. they've already created 42,000 jobs, putting america to work in cleaner and -- making cleaner, more efficient american cars. we shouldn't have to choose between creating jobs and caring for those struggling in the aftermath of the disasters like hurricane irene and the earthquake that preceded it and the floods that continue. one of the speakers, the gentleman whom i respect, said this is a political move. well, if there's anything that is not political in our country it is a natural disaster. you want to talk politics, when somebody is suffering a natural disaster, they just -- there is no place for that. at some place we walk on a ground that is more hollow,

more hallowed than the normal terrain in which we debate and that terrain is the terrain of the disaster that has affected the american people. if you looked in their eyes, you would feel so helpless that you cannot make them whole. you may not be able to have them have the personal effects of their families. seen it so many times. and will they economically be made whole? will their homes be restored in a way that makes it the hom it was before that they loved, that created a sense of community, one home after another? so we are in a very, very sad place for all of these people. we don't know who is next. and what makes me spicious about what the majority has put

into this is i want you to know this. we haven't paid for natural disaster assistance before. we're used this advanced technology vehicle manufacturing. they're taking $1 billion of it to pay for the disaster. and there is half a billion it dollars left. and they're rescinding it in this bill. they're eliminating it. so this isn't about paying for the disaster. this is about destroying an initiative that is job creating, that is innovative, that keeps america number one, that creates good-paying jobs in our country. it's really hard to understand what the motivation is for that. but one thing is clear. they are using the disaster to eliminate that initiative and that's just not right. but even if they had the best

offset in the world, i still think it is wrong for them to go down a path that says this time for your disaster we're using this technology program. what's next? when we may with all of the disasters that we have, where do we have the room to say, well, on those days at that spific time this is how we'll pay for it. let's instead do something that gives hope to people that creates an economic boom in these places that had been affected and not a discouragement that they are being treated differently than anybody else had in a time of natural disaer. i heard the distinguished chairman use the term emergency. it's a different story. it's a different story. it is with great sadness that we tried to meet the needs of these people at a difficult time. it's a great sadness that we

have to have a debate about it. that we even have to have a debate about it. i urge my republican colleagues to withdraw this bill, come back clean, let us vote together to address the natural disaster that has afflicted our country, recognizing that we don't know what's around the corner. and as one of our colleagues said, we said we were going to pay for everything. we don't know what god has in store for us for the next disaster. we hope and pray that whatever it is, i mean, to meet the needs of our people in a way that has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with america. with that urge my colleagues to vote against this reluctantly because i would love for us to join together but not in its present form and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. rogers: madam speaker, this is a simple bill. this is a simple continuation of spending until november 18. i would not want it on my record that i voted against helping the postal works keep their routes until november 18. we take care of that problem in this bill. i wouldn't want to vote no on that if i could help it. i wouldn't want to vote no to refuse to continue the government and all that the government does. i wouldn't want it on my record that i voted against helping people who have flooded the subject of wildfires, earthquakes and all other sorts of calamities.

a vote no on this bill says no help for those people. now,he gentlelady who just preceded me, the former speaker of the house, says that the we -- that we should not use offsets to pay for at least a portion of these disaster funds . in fact, while the gentlelady was speaker of this house, we did just that. we voted to offset the funding for hurricane katrina in 2006 and 2007. we voted for offsets for dister relief in 2008, 2009 and lastly in 2010 we voted to offset $10 billion for what was called the pelosi edu-jobs stimulus bill. the gentlelady voted for that offset.

and so i urge you to to vote for this bill. we will have plenty of time during the negotiations with the senate during the next six weeks to take into account the additional bills we're going to get for flooding and other disaster relief and we will take care of the problem between now and >> the temporary spending measure failed. our live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and resumes when they return at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> coming up next on c-span, president obama discusses the israeli-palestinian conflict at the un general assembly. followed by french president, nicolas sarkozy. later, the co-chairman eric

schmidt addresses antitrust accusations. when the joint deficit reduction committee, also known as the super committee, meets tomorrow, but consider changes to the tax code and measures to raise federal revenue. we'll have live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> watch live coverage of the book festival on booktv. sunday, douglas wallace on american spy master, wild bill donovan. christine miller on woodrow wilson of three first ladies. look for our entire national book festival schedule, including call in sweat isabel wilkerson at booktv.org.

today, the net obama addressed the u.n. general assembly worries said the israeli- palestinian conflict must be resolved through direct negotiations. the palestinian president is expected to formally submit a bid for full un membership. the u.s. has said it will veto the resolution. benjamin netanyahu and mr. abbas will address the assembly on friday. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, i like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart. war and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilization. in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weapons need that to death on a staggering scale. this killing compels of the founders. -- compels the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused, not just on ending one war, but on averting a others. a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict while also addressing its costs. no american did more to pursue this objective then president

franklin roosevelt. as he said that one of the very first meetings on the founding of the united nations "we have got to make not merely peace but a peace that will last." the men and women who built this new that peace was more than -- who built this institution understood that institution understood that peace was more than just an act of war. a lasting peace for nations and for individuals depends on a sense of justice and opportunity. of dignity and freedom. it depends on struggle and sacrifice. on compromise and on a sense of common humanity. one delegate to the san francisco conference that led to the creation of the united nations put it well "many people had talked as if all that

has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and frequently that we loved it and we hated war." no matter how much we love peace and hate war we cannot avoid having war brought upon this if there are convulsions other parts of the world. did the fact is peace is hard. our people demand it. over nearly seven decades, even as the united nations helped avert a third world war, we still live in one start by conflict. -- in a world scarred by conflict. it is plagued by poverty. even as we proclaim our love, it endangers us all. there are still convulsions in

our world that endanger us all. i took office at a time of two wars for the united states. the violent extremists during us into war in the first place. -- who drew us into war in the first place. osama remained at large. today we set a new direction. at the end of this year, america's military operation -- in iraq will be over. we will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of a community. -- of the community of nations. it will be strengthened. for its people, for their aspirations. as we end the war, the united states and our partners have begun a transition in afghanistan.

between now and 2014,it is an increasingly capable afghan government and security forces will step forward and take responsibility for the future of their country. we're drawing down our own forces and building an enduring partnership with the afghan people. let there be no doubt. the tide of war is receding. i took office when 180,000 americans are serving in afghanistan. by the end of this year, that number will be cut in half and will continue to decline. this is critical for the sovereignty of iraq and afghanistan and is critical to the strength of the united states to rebuild our nation at home. -- as we build our nation at home. we are poised to end these wars

reposition of strength. -- from a position of strength. 10 years ago there was an open wound of broken hearts at the center. as a new power is rising at ground zero the symbolizes new york's renewal even as al qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. leadership has been degraded. osama bin laden will never in danger the piece of the world again. again. this has been a difficult decade. but today we stand at a crossroads of history with a chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. direction of peace. to do so, we must return to the return to the wisdom of those who created this institution.

the united nations' founding charter calls upon us to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security. article one of the declaration of human rights reminds us that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. those bedrock beliefs are the responsibility of states and the rights of men and women. they must be our guide. in that effort, we have reason to hope. this year has been a time of extraordinary transformation. more nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. more individuals are claiming their universal rights to live in freedom and dignity. think about it. one year ago when we met here in

new york, the prospects of a successful referendum in south sudan was in doubt the international community overcame those divisions to support the agreement that had been negotiated. last summer as a new flag went up, former soldiers laid down their arms, men and women wept with joy, and children finally knew the promise of looking to a future that they will shape. one year ago the people of -- when the incumbent lot, the world refused to look the other way. u.n. peacekeepers were harassed, but they did not leave their posts. the security council led by the united states, nigeria, and france came together to support the will of the people.

the country is now governed by the man who was elected. one year ago, the hopes of the people of tunisia were depressed. -- repressed. they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist. a vendor let a spark and took his own life. he ignited a movement. in the face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word "freedom." the balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those who pete ruled. now the people of tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them closer to the democracy that they deserve. one year ago egypt had known one president for nearly 30 years.

but for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued tothis has been a difficult -- were glued to tahrir square. they demanded their universal rights. we saw in those protesters a moral force of nonviolence that has -- we knew that change had come to egypt and to the arab world. one year ago, the people of libya were ruled by the world's longest serving dictator. faced with bullets, bombs, and a dictator who threaten to hunt them down by -- like rats -- they showed relentless bravery. we will never forget the words that the libyans said.

"our words are free now." is a feeling you cannot explain. day after day in the face of bullets and bombs, the libyan people refused to give back that freedom. when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocities that often went unchallenged, the united nations lived up to its charter. the security council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre. the arab league called on this effort. they joined a nato led to would look -- coalition that halted gaddafi forces in their tracks. in the months that followed, the will of the coalition group unbreakable. the will of the libyan people could not be denied. 42 years of tyranny was ended in six months. from tripoli to misrata, to

benghazi, today libya is free. this week, the united states is reopening our embassy in tripoli. this is how the international community is supposed to work. foron's standing together the sake of peace and security and individuals claiming their rights. now all of us have a responsibility to support the new libya and the new libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all of libya. this has been a remarkable year. the gaddafi regime is over. bagbo, bin ali are no longer

in power. osama bin laden is gone. the idea that change can only come through violence has been buried with him. something is happening in our world. the way things have been is not the way that they will be. the humiliating crypt of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. dictators are on notice. technology is putting power into the hands of the people. the youth are delivering a powerful review to dictatorship and rejecting the line that some races, some people, some religions do not desire democracy. the promise written down on paper -- all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights -- is closer at hand. but let us remember peace is

hard. peace is hard. progress can be reversed. prosperity comes slowly. societies can split apart. the measure of our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, liberty, and security. the united nations and its member states must do its part to support those basic aspirations and we have more work to do. work to do. in iran acquiescing a government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people. as we meet here today, men, women, and children are being tortured and murdered by the syrian regime. thousands have been killed. many during the holy time of ramadan.

thousands have poured across syria's borders. the syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice, protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values this institution is supposed to stand for. the question is clear. will we stand with the syrian people or with their oppressors? already the united states has imposed strong sanctions on imposed strong sanctions on syria . we support a transfer of power that is responsible to the syrian people. many of our allies have joined in this effort, but for the sake of syria and the peace and security of the world, we must speak with one voice. there is no excuse for inaction. now is the time for the united nations security council to sanction the syrian regime and

to stand with the syrian people. throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. in yemen, men, women, and children gathered by the thousands every day with the hopes that their determination and spilled blood it will prevail over a corrupt system. america supports those aspirations. we must work with yemen's neighbors and our partners around the world to allow for the peaceful transition of power. we need free and fair elections as soon as possible. in bahrain steps been taken to afford accountability. we are pleased with that, but more must be done. we will continue to call on governments and the main opposition bloc to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings

peaceful change that is responsive to the people. we believe the patriotism inspired by coming together must be more than the sectarian forces that tear them apart. it will be hard, but it is possible. we believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfil the aspirations of its people. america does not expect to agree with every party or person that expresses themselves politically, but we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this assembly. those rights depend on elections that are free and fair, on governments that are transparent and accountable, respect for the rights of women and minorities, justice that is equal and fair. that is what our people deserve. those are the elements of peace that can last.

moreover, the united states will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy with greater trade and investment so that freedom is followed by opportunity. we will pursue a deeper engagement with government, but also with civil society. students, author lenore's, political parties -- entrepreneurs, political parties. we will always serve as a voice for those who have been silenced. silenced. i know particularly this week that for many in this all there is one issue that stance as a test for these principles. that is the conflict between the israelis and the palestinians.

one year ago i stood at this podium and i called for an independent sacrifice. i believed then and i believe now that the palestinian people deserve a state of their own. but what i also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the israelis and the palestinians themselves. one year later, despite extensive efforts by america and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. faced with this stalemate, i put forward a new basis for negotiations in may of this year. that basis is clear. it is well known to all of us here. israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances

for their security. palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state. i know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. so am i.. but the question is not the goal that we see. the question is how do we reach that goal. i am convinced that there is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. peace is hard work. these will not come through statements and resolutions at the united nations. if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. ultimately it is the israelis and palestinians who must live side by side. ultimately it is the israelis and palestinians who must reach agreement on issues that divide

them on borders and on security. on refugees and jerusalem. ultimately pays depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. that is the lesson of northern ireland. ancient antagonist breached their differences. that is the lesson of celadon where negotiated settlement led to a state. that is and will be the path to a palestinian state. negotiations between the parties. we seek a future where palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own with no limits to what they can achieve. there is no question the palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. it is precisely because we

believed so strongly in the aspirations of the palestinian people that america has investor time and effort in the effort of the -- in the building of the palestinian state. but understand this as well -- america's commitment to israel's security is unshakable. our friendship with israel is deep and enduring. we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that israel faces every single day. let us be honest with ourselves. israel is surrounded by neighbors who of ways to repeated wars against them. citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their bosses.

ageel's children come of knowing that throughout the region other children are taught to hate them. israel is a small country of less than a million people. they look at a world where leaders of much larger nations threatened to wipe it off the map. the jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution and fresh memories of knowing that 6 million people were killed simply because of who they are. those are facts. the cannot be denied. the jewish people have forced a successful state in their historic homeland. israel deserves recognition and normal relations with its neighbors. friends of the palestinians do them no favors by ignoring these truths just as friends of israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution.

that is the truth. each side has a legitimate aspirations and that is part of what makes peace so hard. the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's issues. shoes.r's that is what we should be encouraging. that is what we should be promoting. this body founded as it was out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated as it is to the dignity of every single person, must recognize the reality that is lived by both the palestinians and the israelis. the measure of our actions must be whether they advance the rights of israeli and palestinian children to live

lives of peace, security, dignity, and opportunity. we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes. that is the project to which america is committed. there are no shortcuts. that is what the united nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come. now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize and remind ourselves that peace is not just the absence of war. true peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living.

to do that we must confront the common enemy of humanity -- nuclear-weapons, poverty, ignorance, and disease. these forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace. together, we are called upon to confront them. to lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. over the last two years we've begun to walk down that path. since our nuclear summit in washington, with taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists. terrorists. next march a summit in seoul will advance our opportunities for all of them. the new treaty between the united states and russia will cut our deployed arsenals to the

lowest levels in half a century. we are looking to achieve deeper reductions. america will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons and the production of materials needed to make them. we have begun to move in the right direction. the united states is committed to meeting our obligations. but even as we meet our obligations, we strengthen the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons. we must continue to hold accountable those nations that have them. the iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful. it has not met its obligations and it rejects offers that will provide it with peaceful nuclear power. north korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent actions

against the south. there is a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if the government meets its international obligations. if they continue on a path this is outside of international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. that is what our commitment to peace and security demands. to bring prosperity to our people, we must promote the growth that creates opportunity. in this effort let us not forget that we have made enormous progress over the last several decades. closed societies gave way to open markets. of entrepreneurship has transformed the way we live in the things that we do. emerging economies from asia to the americas have lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. it is an extraordinary achievement. three years ago we were confronted with the worst

financial crisis in eight decades. that crisis proved a factor that has become clear with each passing year -- our fates are interconnected. nations will rise or fall together in a global economy. today we confront the challenges that follows on the heels of that crisis. a round the world the recovery is still fragile. markets remain volatile. too many people are out of work. to many others are struggling just to get by. we acted together to avert a depression in 2009. we must take urgent and coordinated action once more. i have announced they plan to put americans back to work. at the same time as i am committed to substantially reducing our deficits over time.

we stand with our european allies as they reshape their institutions and address their own fiscal challenges. for other countries, leaders faced a different challenge as they shift their economies towards self-reliance, boosting domestic demand. we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly so that rising standards of living to create new markets to promote global growth. that is what our commitment to prosperity demands. to combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must act on the belief region from want is a basic human right. we have made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people feed themselves. our conscience calls on us to act. together, we must continue to provide assistance and support

organizations to reach those in need. together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and children. our common humanity is at stake. let us show that the life of a child in somalia is as precious as any of us. that is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demand. to stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our system of public health. we will continue to fight against tuberculosis, malaria, and hiv/aids. we will focus on the health of mothers and children. we will prevent, detect, and fight every biological danger whether it is a pandemic, a terrorist threat, or a treatable

disease. america sign an agreement with the world health organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge. today i urge all nations to join us in meeting the w.h.o. to make sure that all nations have the capacity to addressed public health emergencies in place by 2012. that is what the commitment to mustreserve our planet we not put up actions that climate change demands. we ought to save this resources that are scarce. all the major economies here today that we make together we must work to transform the energy.

the powers our economy. that is what our commitment demands. we must allow our citizens to reach there. no country can afford the correction. we must harness the power of open economies. with partner of countries around the globe. there's a new partnership on this to ensure accountability. no country should deny people the right to freedom of speech and religion.

we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere. no country can realize its potential if half the population cannot read to theirs. the united states signed a new declaration on women participation. we should announce the economic and political barriers the stand in the way of women and girls. this is what our commitment to human progress demands appear there's no single path. we come from different cultures and carry with us different histories care even as we gather here with heads of different government, we represent citizens to share the same basic aspirations, to live with dignity and freedom. dignity and freedom. beacon love and worship our

guts. -- we love and war ship our -- worship ouir gods. we're forced to learn these lessons over and over again. conflict and repression will endorse a long as some people do want to others as the would have been do unto us. combine this together. we can help us recognize ourselves and each other. those that came before us know that peace is preferable to war. prosperity is preferable to poverty. poverty. this is the message that comes

not from capitol spot from citizens, from our people. when the cornerstone of this building was put in place, president truman came here to new york and said the united nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man's aspirations. the moral nature of man's aspirations. that isve in a world changing at a breaking pace. we must never forget it. it is hardly know it is possible. together let us take -- make peace that will last. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2011] he and president and not to talk to reporters. he would give his speech friday. >> i want to welcome prime minister netanyahu. but to the united states and a york. it is unbreakable. united states commitment to israel's security. it is unbreakable. it is fair to say that our security cooperation is stronger than it has ever been. i am looking forward to a did -- good discussion with prime

minister netanyahu. also the developments that have been taking place. these have to be negotiated. it shall achieve neither a state dinner self-determination. they are working through these very difficult issues that have kept the parties apart for decades dell. this will achieve the ultimate goal of all of us. it is two state side by side but peace and security. recent events remind us of how fragile peace can be and why the pursuit is more urgent. as you pursue that, they recognize that the commitment to

israel will never waver. our pursuit of a just and lasting peace is one that stuck on a competitor -- compatible but put it at the forefront. it is a great pleasure to have the prime minister here. we want to thank him for his efforts and cooperation. i am looking forward to a great discussion. >> i want to thank you for a standing here and supporting peace. i think this is the only way to get to a stable and durable peace. you have made it clear about

this. this state has to make peace with israel. they would give the membership in the united nations. palestinians want to achieve this. they are not prepared yet to give this to israel in return. my hope is that there will be other leaders in the world who will keep your call. i think that avoiding these negotiations are bad for the palestinians. i know this from personal experience.

the automatic majority is against israel. standing your grounds and facing this position is the right position to achieve peace. this is a badge of honor. i want to thank you for wearing it. i hope others will follow your example. i want to thank you. thank you everybody. >> in his address, nicolas sarkozy said french would oppose the palestinian independent and urged them to take u.n. observer status.

>> mr. president, mr. secretary general, when we met here in september of next year, who amongst us that some barely one year the world already convulsed economic crisis who have undergone such changes. and just a few months, and the have given rise to extraordinary help. extraordinary help. for too long they were submitted to oppression. they rose up, and lifted up their heads.

their hands they faced violence and brutality. those that proclaim that they are by nature with human rights. we do not have the right to destroy their dreams.

they have not announce their desire to set islam against the west. it is an appeal for justice that has shaken the world. the world cannot respond to this appeal for justice by perpetuating an injustice. it reminds us of our moral and political obligation to find a solution to the middle east crisis. we can wait no longer. i choose my words carefully.

this has failed. let this change the method. let us stop believing that a single country can resolve so complex a problem. they have been sidelined for the efforts to succeed. efforts to succeed. no one could have imagined the process could succeed without the year. no could imagine that this would six seats with of the members of the security council. no one could imagine the look out the involvement there are the chosen peace. a collective approach is now.

to offer real guarantees. no one can claim this. we must help them. the method is no longer working. together that by setting preconditions for negotiations we do ourselves to failure. preconditions are the opposite of negotiations. if you wish to enter into negotiations, there must be no preconditions. let's change our ones. all of the elements are unknown.

there is the road map. there is the road map. the tests ceased are endless debate from the parameters. let's begin negotiations. precise anda ambitious timetable. let's have one month to read them -- resume discussions. one year to reach a definitive agreement. france proposes a hosting a conference so that the palestinians can complete the discussion of their future state.

we should not look for the perfect solution. there are no perfect solutions. let's choose the path of compromise. it is not a pronouncement. forward step by step, stage by stage. for over 60 years the palestinians have been waiting for their state. hasn't the time come to give them hope? for over 60 years, israel has suffered from being denied the right to live in peace. for over 60 years the question of peaceful coexistence of the two peoples has continued to fester. we can no longer wait to take this.

of course it is. who does not see that a democratic and viable and peaceful palestinian state would be for israel the best guarantee of that security. as put ourselves and the place of the israelis. of the israelis. is not their demands for after 60 years of war and outrages to have guarantees for this long piece legitimate? piece legitimate? threats made are unacceptable.

they will not accept it. today we are facing a very difficult choice. each of us knows. must not be critical about this. be diplomats to for a day here. each of us knows the recognition of the status of the united nations member cannot be obtained immediately. did the first reason is the lack of trust between the main parties. let's tell the truth here. who could doubt that a veto in the security council would not risk engine during this cycle. who could doubt that?

must we excludes an intermediate stage? why not offer palestine the status of the nine today since -- of the united nations? this will be an important step forward. forward. after 60 years , we would be giving hope to the palestinians. giving hope to the palestinians. furthermore, they must commit to avoid using that news that is to undertake actions which are

incompatible with the negotiations. we only have one alternative, negotiations going nowhere for negotiations going nowhere for an intermediate stage which can give hope to the palestinians. give hope to the palestinians. the ultimate goal must be mutual recognition for to peoples established on the basis of the lines with equivalent exchanges. for this general assembly, it has the power to decide to move ahead and to move out of this

paralysis. the exchangers states in mind. try to understand the other rieslings. he must be ready to make concessions. i would like to say with a deep and sincere french think of the israeli mothers greeting for their chill jim killed in terrorist outrages occurred i say this with deep friendship for the israeli people, listen to what young people of the arab spring are saying.

long live free them. long live free them. we cannot remain in mobile when this democracy is blowing in your region. a say this with sincere friendship. they suffered so much at the time. the time has come to build for children and palestine. children and palestine. it to be too much if they did not seize the opportunity to wake up the arab peoples to the service of democracy in order to address a problem that is making them happy but are condemned to live alongside each

other. if we take a compromise if we take a compromise solution, we will rebuild trust and give people hope. i say this with the utmost gravity. we must assume a historic responsibility. it is the general assembly of the united nations that must not miss this appointment with history. the solution is on the table. let us take this compromise solution over the blockage. that might satisfy everyone here. it will create violence, the tennis and opposition. the so both imperil the weakening of the arab people.

the tragedy will cease for a simple reason. it has gone on for too long. thank you. >> tomorrow, dennis on the federal budget. the republicans on the un vote on palestinian independence. also a personal finance reporter talks about how the new consumer protection bureau regulate the credit scoring agency. it begins live each morning at 7:00 eastern.

>> this weekend's, american history television. the literary life from the 2012 national conventions. karen on dreaming of dixie, how the south was created in american popular culture. also a visit to the installation between independence the stores and publishers. toward the 11th president. a discussion with the civil rights leader charles jones on his experiences stirring the 1960's counter. this did the gold mine.

it is first discovered in america. sometimes it is at 2 and 3. >> eric schmidt responding to accusations that his company operates in an anti-competitive manner. give his own services priority in search results. we will also hear from executives at rival cincinnati -- internet companies. >> good afternoon. we need to consider an issue that affects everyone. we will examine how the world's dominant internet search engine gives its results to consumers and treats the businesses it

competes with. and whether google does its best to censor its consumers as it claims. i come to this hearing with an entirely of a mind without any prejudgment of this issue. i provide them a foreign. we recognize the incredible achievement of google and the need to avoid stifling the creative energy. we need to be mindful of the hundreds of thousands of businesses that depend on them to grow and prosper. we need to recognize that as a internet search, google has special obligations at our antitrust laws not to deny the market power. there can be no question.

google started in a rush -- in a garage and has done nothing less than organize the billions of internet web pages into an e. from electronics to clothing to hotel's two restaurants. businesses rely on google to find customers. the founding was that it would build an unbiased search engine that consumers would see and

that it would not be influenced by the commercial relationship with google. it is to get it off the home page as soon as possible. as larry page said in 2004, we're happy to send it to the other sites. that is the point. as a because a major channel of the commerce it appears it may have changed. in the last five years, if you go has been on a binge acquiring dozens of businesses. it culminated with the mobility. it now owns numerous businesses.

this has transformed google from a mere search engine into a major internet conglomerate. these raise a very fundamental question. is it possible for them to be both unbiased jurors engine and on the web page of products and services. does it create a conflict of interest tax and the last few years, internet businesses that compete with the new products and services have complained that google is not behaving in a way contrary to free competition. they admit that they're trying to leverage their dominance in key areas of internet commerce where it stands to capture from the competitors billions of dollars in advertising revenue. rhythm fairly presenting this, they claim google has begun the

buys search results in favor this has the attention to harm competition. it can retard innovation. this is not about picking winners and losers. is about posturing a fully competitive environment as more of its moves to the internet, it should be the highest priority that the internet remain free competition as it has been since the founding. we need to protect the ability of the next cool to emerge and the next application being developed we like to hear what you have to say. >> thank you. internet search is critical to economic growth.

google has been a dominant force. americans google so frequently that the name has become a generic version of the means to search the internet. they control 65 of the general arina. a more than 75% most internet based businesses rely on google for a substantial share of their traffic and revenues. last year they generated nearly $30 billion in advertising revenues. the first few google search results attract nearly 90% of all user clicks. it has enormous power of the information users find, which websites receive traffic.

this market power has made the goal and monopoly gatekeeper. whether not a formally qualify as a monopoly, one thing is clear. given the significant ability to steer google is in a position to help determine who will succeed in he will fail on the internet. google is the biggest maker on earth. google has used the advertising revenue to branch out into a multitude of secondary businesses. larsa by acquiring more than 100 different companies. they now offer you to and a host

of services including shopping, places, and flight search. with the recent purchase of motorola, they're now poised to get into handset manufacturing. with the expansion into so many areas, a large number of businesses and consumer groups have raised concerns regarding activities suggesting they may be acting in deceptive and anticompetitive ways. this committee has oversight of antitrust ones. from its inception, bugles goal was to have users believe the website as quick -- google's goal is to have users to leave the website as quickly as possible. now they have changed it to their own competing services. they have worked hard to cultivate the public perception.

there is growing concern that they have more visual displays. it is to the detriment of specialized search site and other businesses. there's evidence that they have taken information from competing search sites and use that data as part of its own services and demoted the rankings from which they acquire that information. some reports suggest that google has taken steps to impede search engine since from returning -- engines from returning search results. this is crucial and critical to enabling other engines. there are allegations that they have achieved the dominance in search by imposing exclusivity restrictions. perhaps in an effort to block

the search tools. this includes a broad array of search syndication deals. it is the agreement that they became the default search. the contracts with advertisers apparently imposed limits on the advertisers' ability to transfer data. studies by a harvard professor said it is to reinforce the tendency of small and medium term appetizers to use it to the exclusion of competing platforms. they're scared they're competing to prevent customers who wish to use the android platform.

in assessing each of these concerns, the primary focus should be consumer welfare. they're saying they're using at the expense of competition. such a bias would deny users traffic and revenue to competing sites, depriving them of resources needied to do this. it also leads to increase prices for consumers. as a conservative republican it favors free-market, i believe ensuring robust one will spur innovation. it will lead to job creation.

i believe that preserving attended of markets today competitive market helps. thank you. >> i would like to introduce our first witness. mr. eric schmidt has served since april of this year. from 2001-2011 was the chief executive officer of the company. we will introduce our second panel before they testify. senator feinstein of light remarks in order to introduce our witnesses from california. >> thank you perce i appreciate the special privilege. did the three gentlemen come from the heart of san francisco bay area. i have known the chairmen of google for many years. i've always known him as a forthright man filled with integrity.

he's at the helm of a number of companies. he has been with google since 2001. he helped google grow, to 28,000 employees. it is a 45% growth in employment, even in the most difficult times. he had 5000 new hires. he has been helping business there out the united states. the ceo of nextag is from san francisco. this is a price comparison website that allows people to

search for projects and see prices for the projects. he has extensive experience in the internet and travel industries, having held a variety of experiences. he is the ceo of orbitz. he holds a master's degree in science. finally, the co-founder and chief executive officer. he is joining on the second panel. and joining will be the ceo of a small and innovative company from san francisco whose web site allows people to search

for local businesses or types of businesses and find profiles of them. including customer reviews and rankings. he worked as the vice president of engineering and paypal before dropping out of harvard business school. as you can see, you have three very well qualified citizens. i hope they tangle rather than tain bo -- i hope they tango rather than table. >> we like to thank all the witnesses who are appearing here today.

i like you to rise and step forward. do you testify that you will say the truce and nothing but the truth? >> we like to hear what you have to say. >> thank you for inviting me here today. i want to take a step back. a firm setting the world on fire. it is synonymous with innovation. i was an executive. they have a absorbed the lessons of the era. it is a very short message about our company. we get the lessons of our corporate predecessors.

this is fine. we as the help us answer that it means the focus and that we can continue to create jobs in building products that delight our users. i like to start by explaining how we think about our own business in the principles that guide the decisions that i am sure you will want to talk about. always put consumer's purse. last year we made more than 500 changes. this is not an easy task. it means that not every website comes on top. there are definitely complaints of businesses to want to be first. focus on loyalty and not locked in.

we do not track our users. if you do not like the answer, he can switch to another engine with literally one click. a lot of people do this. if you want to use google services -- if you want to leave other google services, you can do so and take it as a witty without any hassle. we are innovating and making our products better. we do not want to say because they are locked in. open technology includes open sores, meaning that we release and support those that help grow the internet. we worked to create the standards. we share more of information about how our products work in any of our competitors. we give advertisers detailed information about performance and return on investment. 10 years ago no one would have guessed, certainly ire anybody else that vocabulary in economics look what it does today.

no one will know what it looks like in one year or five years. despite what others say, i think our featured in america is very bright. there is no doubt that we are facing difficult times. there's never been a more exciting time. floss' some have given up, google is doubling down. we are investing in people. we had fewer than 1000 employees. earlier this year we announced that 2011 will be our biggest part of the year yet. we are investing in mobile. just look at our plans to acquire more. we believe that this is good for competition and the american and economy.

we are confident that this acquisition will lead to growth and mobile technology. we are investing in local. 97 some of the people look online. only 63% did not have a web site at all. this is a missed opportunity. we started an initiative to help small businesses get online. last year alone, it provided $64 billion in economic activity to other companies and not private for the united states. we are very proud. it is the most dynamic part of the u.s. economy. the internet was responsible for fifteens term of america's gdp

growth in the last five years. the internet is home to some of america's most successful companies. we compete hard against each other. we welcome the competition. it makes us better. and it a competitor better. in means that your problems for our users. it is google turn in the spotlight. we respect the rule. i do as you remember that not all companies are cut from the same cloth. be company's pact might another's future. we live in a different world. the open internet is the ultimate level playing field. we believe it will reveal an enthusiastic company filled with people who believe we have only scratched the service of what is possible. the passion to do venture will serve our nation well. it'll help create new jobs and economic growth that are wonderful country needs. thank you for this time. >> thank you. we appreciate you have to say. we hear you say you want for by consumers answers to questions not nearly link to the but size that provide the answers.

what do you say to those of argue there is a fundamental conflict of interest between only providing unbiased web links and not providing answers? the 0 many of these services providing the answers. would we expect google to favor its products and services of in providing these answers? >> i am google is a rational

business trying to rationalize the projects. as we addressed, google is run under a set of principles that are really quite profound than the company. one of the most important principles is solving the problems the consumer has. 10 years ago, the best answer may have been the ranks -- the links we saw. think of it as if you are looking for an answer. he want the answer quickly. speed matters, especially at the level we are at. >> is another way to say trust us. we will do the right thing. it is rare the sufficient given your clear business incentives to maximize the value of your company.

shouldn't we be guided by the words of a great president ronald reagan has said trust but verify? >> i completely agree. i hope this is in process. the ultimate correction against any mistakes that google made is how consumers be paid. we live in a great fear every day that consumers will switch extraordinarily quickly to other services. one of the consequences of the open internet is people have choices they did not have in previous generations. in every site, it is available if you type the name into the browser.

in all cases, we are trying to say that our customers want quick and accurate answers. it is if they switch. because we do it so well, we think we are in that position. nevertheless, when we do that, we found that we actually know, we do side-by-side test to know the we producing what customers want. >> there is a conference in 2007. one of the goals top executives discussed of google placed its products and services on the search results page. when we rolled out of this, it puts the google link first. it seems only fair. we do all the work and all these other things.

we put it offers. that has been our policy since then. it is the first link. it is raining by popularity. when she made the comments, she was speaking accurately. had the measure what she says ben? >> i was not there. maybe i should use my own voice on this question. there is a category that are not well served by be answered. people what a map right then and there. they have also invested hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in producing what we think of the best map the products around.

when somebody types in the address, click actually want to have a map. we show it to them quickly. it would be difficult to do that with another model. we would not be able to do that kind of innovation. they would have similar products. >> let me say she said lead for the economy rolled it out, we did put blinkers. it seems only fair. >> we implemented the way i

described it. we started off by providing google links. we decided it would be better to have a simple tool. wii licensed that technology from the nasdaq. that was the source of her answer. we moved from the standard answer to this simple answer. ad hoc what happened after that is right below it.

you see all of the top engines. it to be below are answers. this to be the most popular. the yahoo! answer comes after this. it is easier by to describe it. after that we will show you links to yahoo! finance. i disagree with the characterization that somehow we read discriminating against the others. >> thank you. >> thank you for being with us. >> [unintelligible] >> they are when they are in ranking.

the core question that both of you address in your opening statement was this question of where we sympathize are come up with an answer to question. if we know the answer, it is better for the consumer to answer that question so they do not have to click anywhere. we tended to use that resources on our own. we cannot engineer if any other way. >> i am not asking whether you are giving the right information that you regard as most helpful. it is whether your own secondary services that google offers. are they subject to the same standard as all the other results of an organic -- algorithmic search? >> i am not aware of any strange biases. you will see everything intermix in a way that is often in.

comex i would like to show a visual aid. >> this is a chart that reflects a search of a study that shows the ranking of the popular price comparison sites. there are various shades of green. the google results are depicted in red. issues a vivid variation ranking first for some and near 50 of four others. google has a very success rate.

it is virtually in every single instance. your testimony that these rankings almost exclusively are in the third spot are the results of the same algorithm as the rankings for the other comparison sites. >> there are two video different things going on the in study. i shall not comment beyond that. there is a difference between sites that to prod comparison and those that offer products themselves. this is about getting you to a

project. -- product. we looked to the product rather than the comparison. that is why it is ranked. if you did the same city with all of the other products sites, you find a different result. >> if we call the result a google product results, that is not subject to the same of the terrific -- algorithmic results. >> i apologize. we do product search rankings, things like the price comparison shopping. there are different animals. they are important. they do different things. this is about searching for specific products. it is something similar. this is why it exists. >> it seems that this is an uncanny statistical coincidence. there are a few ones first. you are here is the 11th.

you're never 12th or 50th. every one of those others will find themselves everywhere along the spectrum, everywhere. you are always third almost every time.

.

[captioning made possible by bloomberg television] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

if consumers are not picking on it, then it is going drift down over time because google is going to be ranking higher the things that the consumers are actually ranking on. >> i have a couple of questions to ask of mr. stoppleman and mr. katz. i'm a firm believer in the free market. i'm also a -- an almost lifelong fan of robert bork. in high school i once drove across town just to hear him speak. consumer welfare was always his emphasis and anti-trust law. what in your view does google currently do that most harms consumers and what can google do by way of voluntary action to

help alleviate any problems they might have caused in that regard, starting with you, mr. stoppleman. >> thank you, mr. senator. what can google do? i think the key would be separating out distribution from its own properties. that's most important issue. your chart i think is very definitively shows that it is over wide variety of quareys. -- inquiries. it is picking upmost of the real estate with its own property that it only recently decided what is the most relevant, then that is the big problem. >> mr. katz? >> i would say, you know, the giggede principle is really a

level playing field. if they were happening, i would not be here today. there are a few things google could address if they really wanted to. i would argue it is in their interest. they clearly don't agree with that. if they are going to put a placement or a link anywhere on their cage, it should be without becoming something that we are not without getting access to that link. today that is not the case for roughly the top half of the page and for the best ad units they sell on the page, we cannot get to it. the units you pulled out that are top dead center of the page. not everybody can be there and consumers really don't know what is behind the scenes. they will never find benefits of nextag or another site because the first half of the page is where everything happens and

lastly, i just emphasize level playing field, level playing field, level playing field. simple concept. if they get it, they will make it happen. >> thank you. senator franken? >> thank you, ms. creighton, you worked very closely on the microsoft case over 10 years ago. there are many parallels on that case what happened google is doing today. you might not agree with that but i think you would agree that isn't enough for google to just say trust us. in fact, i think you said that. they need to explain to businesses and consumers what they are doing and why. in the microsoft case, a technical committee was created to help monitor and enforce the obligations in the final court order.

to be clear, d.o.j. hasn't filed a suit against google and i'm not suggesting that they should but i do see some merit in google taking the initiative of creating a committee oftologists and other small businesses that could review the algorithm of tweaks and ensure google is treating everyone equal. what do you think of that idea? >> i would have to defer to company in terms of whether that is a good business idea. i would be extremely concerned about that is just another word for regulation. i don't know if you had a chance to see mr. barnett's -- i think it is in his written testimony. he had a search for milwaukee doctors. i would encourage you to run

that same search on yahoo!. it looks exactly the same. it looks different on bing. i think the real question that we have is whether or not if there is research that microsoft and google have done and it is public, 58% of all users actually want an answer returned. one of the things you probably heard, microsoft advertises it everywhere. google only returns links. microsoft returns answers. i think the question we have to ask is whether or not we want to say google can't compete or it is going to have to go through a regulatory committee before it can be responsive to that demand. >> i guess i was suggesting something voluntary. >> i think, senator, that google, because consumers can switch, their incentive is to do exactly what you're describing today. >> to do what i just described?

>> they have an incentive to be returning what consumers want, not to be biased and favor their own content. for example, i think there might be a misunderstanding as to what happens if you click on one of those places pages. google actually is deflecting advertising revenue away from those pink ads on to a places page but that places page is itself a set of natural search results where consumers go on that page 2/3 of the time, they actually click through to the website to have company they are searching if. another 25% of the time they go to review sites. they only click 7% of the time on the actual ad. google is actually losing money with that in the short term, but the long term, the reason it does that is it is competeing with yahoo! and bing and everything else. the way you get a consumer back

and make money over the long-term is providing those answers. >> you're saying doing this voluntarily. >> is what they do today. >> no. i said that they would do -- i'm sorry. it is over time. there is just a misunderstanding here to create a technical committee to review what they do is what i would like in the microsoft case, which you worked on. that's what i was -- >> yes, senator. i'm sorry what i meant to say is that they actually -- as mr. schmidt, i think, explained a little bit. they actually run live tests with us as their guinea pigs. they will do side by side and do you like this or like this? i think -- i'm not sure i understand -- >> ok. you worked on microsoft and you

know that as part of the settlement to comply with one of the settlements that they formed a technical committee to review this and you said that would be regulation and i said what they did voluntarily and after that, we kind of lost the strain of what we're talking about i think. >> i'm sorry, senator, i'm sure that was my confusion. let me try again. in short, i think google already changes its algorithm 500 times a year. i think a technical committee would be too slow to keep up with the technical changes in the market. >> thank you. thank you ms. chairman. >> i understood his testimony to be that he felt that google did have a special responsibility by virtue of its size and i wanted

to just express my appreciation for as i acknowledgment and receptivity to do better. mr. barnett, you have had very significant anti-trust enforcement experience comparable to ms. creighton, yours at the department of justice head of anti-trust and i wonder whether you could tell us what you think and you no responsibility to answer this question, but if you were in that position now, whether you would -- or -- bring a case? >> i guess i can start by saying in that regard, ms. creighton referred to her background.

i don't think anyone would accuse me of having been overly aggressive or prematurely pulling the trigger on bringing monopliesation cases but there was a case that we looked at, although i won't go into the details. google wanted to enter into a transaction with yahoo!. whether the dependent looks specifically at the department looks specifically at the cases and -- we were about to file a suit to challenge it in court. i can tell you based on my experience there is tuscaloosa one instance where i think -- there is at least one instance where i think they have crossed the line. travel search is another issue. i think the department was right to challenge that, which they did. in this context, i'm more than willing to say that i would certainly open an investigation.

and indeed, that is a really important point here. a lot of the hard questions, many of the things we're talking about having to do with deceptive display have nothing to do with the search algorithm but there have been a lot of questions about what does goog doll with this search algorithm? to my knowledge, nobody outside google has ever looked at it. i'm not talking about posting the algorithm on the internet. i'm talking about in a confidential investigation enabling an enforcement agency to gather facts. i would certainly want to gather the facts and based on what i have seen, i would be very concerned that there is harm to consumers. >> i want to thank you for your testimony. i invite any of the witnesses to comment on the market analysis, related questions. most especially on the question that has been raised by myself

and others. as to what google might voluntarily do because certainly enforcement actions as both you and ms. creighton know are costly, time consuming, cumbersome, blunt and inexact instruments of protecting competition and far better to have voluntary actions that can avoid even the appearance or complaint about anti-trust violations and again to emphasize, i form no conclusions myself, whatever that is worth, about the merits or the issues of fact and law here. so thank you for being here and thank you for sharing your perspectives and views. >> thank you senator blumenthal. today's hearing demonstrates the importance of open competition

on the internet. we need to continue to consider whether google merely does its best to serve consumers' interests as it claims or biases its search results to distort competition in its favor as its critics argue. we'll continue the examine these issues. we very much appreciate you being here. you have added much information on this very important topic. and this hearing is now closed.

>> up next on c sparnings president obama discusses the israeli-palestinian conflict at the united nation's general assembly. and then deficit reduction from the american journal foundation and then "washington journal" live with your phone calls. when the joint deficit reduction committee meets today, they will be considering change os to the tax code and measures to raise federal revenue. we'll have coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on crmp span 3 and c-span.org.

>> in my opinion, i think that the downs of academic freedom have just been pushed too far. >> in the faculty lounges, naomi schaefer rooly suggests that the current mentality needs to go . >> there are professors of cooking, nutritional study who have teen your now. -- tenure now. when pressed, they will say oh, well, we need someone to have tenure and security studies so they can talk about immigration even though it is controversial. and someone in nutritional studies needs to be able to say something controversial about obesity. >> that's why you won't get the college education you paid for sunday night on q & a. >> the joint cheeves staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one's sexual orientation from future versions

of the enlistment application. >> this week marked the end of don't ask/don't tell. more than 14,000 discharge service members can reapply for reinstatement. today, president obama addressed a meeting of the u.n. general assembly where he said that the israeli/palestinian conflict must be resolved through direct negotiations. friday mahmoud abbas is expected to bid for full u.n. citizenship. president obama is expected to veto. abbas and netanyahu will address the assembly on friday.

>> it is a great honor for me to be here today. i would like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the united nations. the pursuit of peace. in an imperfect world. war and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilization. but in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weaponry led to death on a staggering scale. compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused not just on ending one war but on averting others. a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict

while also addressing its causes. no american did more to pursue this objective than president franklin roosevelt. he knew that a victory in war was not enough. as he said at one of the very first meetings on the founding of the united nations, we have got to make not merely peace, but a peace that will last. the men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than just the absence of war. a lasting peace. for nations and for individuals. depends on a sense of justice and opportunity. of dignity. and freedom. it depends on struggle and

sacrifice. on compromise. on a sense of common humanity. one delegate to the san francisco conference that led to the creation of the united nations put it well. many people, she said, have talked as if all that has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and frequently that we love peace and we hated war. now we have learned that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of the world. the fact is, peace is hard. but our people demand it. over nearly seven decades even as the united nations helped

avert a third world war, we still live in a world scarred by conflict. and plagued by poverty. even as we proclaim our love for peace and our hatred for war. al qaeda organizations remained at large. today we set a new direction. at the end of this year, america's military operation in iraq will be over. we will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. that equal partnership will be

strengthened by our support for iraq, for its government and for security forces and for its people and for their aspirations. as we end the war in iraq, the yates and our coalition partners have begun a transition in afghanistan. between now and 2014, an increasingly capable afghan government and security forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country. as they do, we are drawing down our own forces while building an enduring partnership with the afghan people. so let there be no doubt, the tide of war is receding. when i took office roughly 180,000 americans were serving in iraq and afghanistan. by the end of this year, that number will be cut in half and it will continue to decline.

this is critical for the sovereignity of iraq and afghanistan. it is also critical to the strength of the united states as we build our nation at home. more over, we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength. 10 years ago, there was an open wound and twisted steel, a broken heart in the center of the city. today as a new tower is rising at ground zero, it symbolizes new york's renewal even as al qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. than ever before. its leadership has been degraded. osama bin laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries will never endanger peace of the world again. yes, this has been a difficult decade. but today we stand at a cross

roads of history. with a chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. to do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. the united nations' founding charter calls upon us to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security. article one of this declaration of human rights remines us that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights. rights. those in in the responsibility of states and the rights of men and women must be our guide. in that effort, we have reason to hope.

more nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security and more individuals are claiming their universal rights to live in freedom and dignity. think about it. one year ago, when we met here in new york, the prospect of a successful referendum in south sudan was in doubt. but the national committee overcame all division in support of the agreement negotiated to give south sudan self-determination. as a new flag went up, former soldiers laid down their arms. men and women we want with joy and children finally -- wept with joy and children finally knew promise of looking forward to a world they will shape. one year ago, they approached a landmark election and when the

incumbent lost and refused to respect the results, the world refused to look the other way. the security council led by the united states and nigeria and france came together to support the will of the people and it is now governed by the man who was elected to lead. one year ago, the hopes of the people of tunisia were suppressed. they chose the dignity of peaceful protests over the rule of an iron fist. a spark that took his own life but he ignited a movement. in the face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word "freedom." the balance of fear shifted from the balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled. now the people of tunisia are preparing for elections that

will move them one step closer to the democracy that they deserve. one year ago, egypt had known one president for nearly 30 years. but for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued to the square where egyptians from all walks of life, men and women, young and old, muslim and christian, demanded their universal rights. we saw no those protesters the moral force of nonviolence. we knew that change had come to egypt and to the arab world. one year ago, the people of libya were ruled by the world's longest serving dictator.

but faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who threatened to hunt them down like rats showed relentless bravery. we will never forget the words of the libyan who stood up in those early days of the revolution and said our words are free now. it is a feeling you can't explain. day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the libyan people refuse to give back that freedom. when they were threatened by the atrocities that often went unchallenged in the last century, the united nations lived up to its charter. the security council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre. the arab league called for this effort. arab nations joined and halted gaddafi's forces in its tracks.

in the months that followed, the coalition proved unbreakable and the will of the libyan people could not be denied. 42 years of tyranny was ended in four months. lib wra is free. yesterday the new leaders of a new libya took their rightful place beside us. this week the united states is reopening their embassy in tripoli. this is how the international community is supposed to work. nations standing together for the sake of peace and security and individuals claiming their rights. now all of us have a responsibility to support the new libya, the new libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all of you.

so this has been a remarkable year. the gaddafi regime is over. osama bin laden is gone. the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him. something's happening in our world. the way things have been is not the way things have been is not the way that they will be. the humiliating rift is being ripped open. technology is putting power into the hans of the people. the youth are delivering a powerful rebuke of dictatorship and rejecting the lies that some people, some ethnicities do not desire democracy.

all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. it is closer at hand. but, let us remember, peace is hard. peace is hard. progress can be reversed. pros pair tay -- prosperity comes slowly. progress can split apart. the measure of our success must be whether people can live and sustain freedom, dignity and security. the united nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations and we have more work to do. in iran, we have seen a government that refuses to

recognize the rights of its own people. as we meet here today, men and women and children are being tortured and murdered by the syrian regime. thousands have been killed. many during the holy time of ramadan. thousands more have poured across syria's borders. the syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice protesting peacefully standing silentfully the streets dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for. the question for us is clear. will we stand with the syrian people or with their aagreesors? already the united states has imposed strong sanctions on syria's leaders. we supported a transfer of power. many of our allies have joined in this effort, but for sake of

syria, and the peace and security of the world, we must speak with one voice. there is no excuse for inaction. now is the time for the united nations security council to sanction the syrian regime and to stand with the syrian people. throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. in yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. america supports those aspirations. we must work with yemen's neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a transition of power. a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible. and bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and

accountability. we're pleased with that but more is required. america is a close friend of bahrain and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition block and pursue a meaningful dialogue that will a meaningful dialogue that will bring about peaceful change. it will be hard but it is possible. we believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfill aspirations of its own people. america does not expect to agree with every person that expresses themselves politically but we will always stand up to the universe sl rights that were embraced by this assembly. governance that is transparent and accountable.

respect for the rights of women and minorities, justice that is equal and fair. that is what our people deserve. those are the elements of peace that can last. more over, the united states will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy. with greater trade and vems so that freedom is followed by opportunity. we will pursue a deeper engagement with government but also with civil society, students and entrepreneurs, political parties and the press. we have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to our country. we sanction those who trample on human right ace broad and we will always serve as a voice for those who have been silenced. now, i know particularly this

week that for many in this hall, there is one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for american foreign policy. that is the conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. one year ago, i stood at this podium and i called for an independent palestine. i believed then and i believe now that the palestinian people deserve a state of their own. deserve a state of their own. but what i also said, if a genuine peace can only be realized between israelis and the palestinians themselves. one year later, despite extensive efforts by america and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. faced with this stalemate, i put

forward a new basis for negotiations in may of this year. that basis is clear. it is well known to all of us here. israelis must know that any agreement proviced insurances for their security. palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state. now i know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. i assure you, so am i. but the question isn't the goal that we seek. the question is how do we reach that goal? and i am convinced that there is no shortcut for the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. peace is hard work. peace will not come through the sames and resolutions at the united nation -- statements and

resolutions at the united nations. if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. ultimately, it is the israelis and the palestinians who need to live side by side. it is the israelis and palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on issues that divide them, onboarders, refugees, jerusalem. ultimately peace depends on compromise, among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. that's the lesson of northern ireland where they bridged their differences. that's lesson of sudan where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. and that is and will be the path the palestinians take, negotiations between the parties.

we seek a future where palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own with no limit to what they can achieve. there is no question. the palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. it is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspiration of the opinion people that america has invested so much time and effort in the building of a palestinian state. and the negotiations that can deliver a palestinian state. but understand this as well. america's commitment to israel security is unshakable. our friendship with israel is deep and enduring. and so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that israel faces every single day. let us be honest with ourselves.

israel is surrounded by neighbors that have wage repeated wars against it. israel citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. israel's children come of age knowing throughout the region other children are taught to hate them. israel, a small country of less than 8 million people look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off the map. the jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution and fresh memories of knowing that 6 million people were killed simply because of who they are. those are facts that cannot be denied. the jewish people have forged a successful state in their

historic homeland. israel deserves recognition and normal relations with its neighbors and the friends of the palestinians do them no favors by ignoring the truth, just as friends of his rail must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution next to an independent palestine. that is the truth. each side has legitimate mat aspirations and that is part of what makes peace so hard and the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes. each side can see the world through the other's eyes. that's what we should be encouraging. that's what we should be promoting. this body, founded as it was out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated as it is to the dignity of every single

person, must recognize the reality that is lived by both the palestinians and the israelis. the measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the rights of israeli and palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. we will only suck pseudoseed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and fears. that is the project on which america is committed. there are no shortcuts. that is what the united nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come. now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also

recognize -- we must also remind ourselves that peace is not just the absence of war. true peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. to do that, we must confront the common enemies of humanity. nuclear weapons and poverty, ignorance and disease. these forces corrode the prospect of lasting peace. together we're called upon to confront them. to thrift spectrum -- lift the spectrum of mass destruction. over the last two years, we have begun to walk down that path. at our nuclear securities summit in washington, nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure

nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers. next march, a summit will advance locking down all of them. we will cut our arsenals to the lowest level in half a century and our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve even deeper reductions. america will continue to work for a ban on thing of nuclear weapons and the production of material needed to make them. and so we have begun to move in the right direction and the united states is committed to meeting our obligations. but even as we meet our obligations, we have strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons and to do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations. the iranian government cannot

demonstrate that its program is peaceful. it has not met objections. north korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the south. there is a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations. they have continued on a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. that is what our commitment to peace and security demands. to bring prosperity to our people, we must promote growth that chris opportunity. we have -- creates opportunity. we have made enormous progress. innovation and entrepreneurship

has transformed the way we live and the things that we do. emerging demress asia to the meshes economies from asia o to the americas have lifts people from poverty. it is an extraordinary achievement. three years ago, we were confronted with the worst financial crisis in eight decades. our faiths are interconnected. in a global economy, nations will rise or fall together. today we confront the challenges that are following on the heels of that crisis. markets remain volatile. too many people are out of work. too many others are struggling just to get by. we acted together to avert a depression in 2009. we must take urgent and coordinated action once more.

here in the united states, i have announced a plan to put americans back to work and jump-start our economy at the same time reducing our deficits over time. we stand with our europian allies as they address their own fiscal challenges. for other countries, leaders face a different challenge as they shift their economy toward more self-reliance, boosting domestic demand while slowing inflation. we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly. that's what our commitment to prosperity demands. to combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must react on the belief.

the united states has made it a focus to help people to feed themselves. our conscious calls on us to act. together we must continue to provide assistance and support organizations that can reach those in need. and together we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access to that we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and children. children. our common humanity is at stake. every child in somalia is as precious as any of them. that's what our commitment to every human being demands. to stop disease across borders, we must strengthen our system of public health. we will continue to fight against h.i.v. aids,

tuberculosis and malaria. we must come together to prevent and attack and fight every kind of biological danger. whether it is a terror threat or a treatable disease. this week america signs an agreement with the world health organization to meet this challenge. today i urge all nations to join us in the goal of making sure all nations have more capacities to address public health emergencies in place by 2012. that is what our commitment to the health of our people demands. to preserve our planet, we must not put off action that climate change demans. we have to tap the power of science to save those resources that are scarce.

we must continue our work to build on the progress of copenhagen to that we follow through on the condominiums that were made. together we -- through on the commitments that were made. the -- we must support others as they move down that path. that is what our commitment to the nextgen ration demands. to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs. no country can afford the corruption that plagues the world like a cancer. together we must harness the power of open societies and open economies. that's why we have partnered with countries from across the globe to launch a new partnership on open government to help ensure accountability

and helps enpower citizens. no country should deny people the rights, the freedom of speech and freedom of religion but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere. no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs. this week, the united states signed a new declaration on women's participation. next year, we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls. this is what our commitment to human progress demands. i know there is no straight line to that progress. no single path to success. we come from different cultures and carry with us different

historyries. -- histories. let us never forget even as we gather here as heads of different governments, we represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations, to live with dignity and freedom, to get an education and pursue opportunity. to love our families. and love and worship our god. to live in the kind of peace that makes life world living. it is the nature of our perfect world that we are first forced to learn these lessons over and over again. conflict and repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. and that is precisely why we have built institutions like this. to bind our faiths together. to help us recognize ourselfs in

each other. because those who came before us believed that the peace is preferable to war and freedom is preferable to suppression and prosperity is preferable to poverty. that comes from our citizens, our people. and when the corner stone of this very building was put in place, president truman said the united nations is an expression of the moral nature of man's aspirations. the moral nature of man's aspirations. as we live in a world that is changing at a breath taking pace, that is a lesson and we must never forget. peace is hard but we know that it is possible. so together, let us be resolved to see that it is defined by our hopes and not by our fears.

together let us make peace but a peace most importantly that will last. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] thank you. >> on c-span today, a discussion about the politics of deficit reduction from the new america foundation. and then "washington journal" is live with your phone calls and later today's live coverage of the u.s. house. >> william jennings bryant, one of the best known speakers of his time and the first politician to campaign from the

backs of railroad cars and automobiles ran for president three times and lost but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series "the contenders." friday at 8:00 eastern. learn more about the series and our upcoming programs at c-span.org/thecontenders. watch our live coverage of the national book festival this weekend on book tv. saturday's highlights include eugene robinson on black america and isabel wilkerson. sunday douglas waller on wild bill don van. christy wilson on first ladies. look for our entire national book festival schedule including call-ins at book tv.org.

>> the new america foundation recently held a series of discussions about the federal debt and deficit reduction. they are calling on the joint deficit reduction committee to go beyond their mandate to sign $1.5 trillion into deficit cuts. they looked at the politics of spending cuts and the reaction to the deficit committee's recommendations. this is an hour. >> put the lights down, we'll see the next video. >> aside from doing a deal, you have to do an excampaign. you to have a president in particular who is willing to go on tv with charts and show what the facts are. >> i do think american people would be behind us. i think they need to be educated. i think they need to be a part

of the discussion. i think they need the know just how severe the problems are and why the super committee and the congress and the president are going to have to come up with some frankly painful solutions. but i think when they know the facts that they will have -- that they will be behind us because the average american is very sensible and we're going to have to have sensible plans to deal with this very big problem. >> none of us lyght like to tighten our belt but i think the american public understands that we have a tough challenge confronting us and they want to see that we're tough enough to do so in a productive, successful way. >> if you tell people really what you're doing and why you're doing it, you explain it to them and the process of how you got to the numbers or the decisions that you're making, even though they may not like them, they will respect that process and they will respect you. >> i think our political system

-- have to reach a fiscal plan. the question is will they do it in a preemptive and prudent manner and before we have a debt crisis or will washington typically wait until a crisis is on our doorstep and we have to take dramatic and draconian actions to stabilize the markets and restore stability? >> there is no perfect plan -- of each party. everybody has to give something. isn't that what america is about. about us coming together as a community. isn't it about doing what we need to do to make sure that the future that our children and grandchildren have is going to be better than the one that we had? >> i think -- optimistic, yes, we can come together as a