relations with the united states and will have positive relations with all of the democratic world. as you know, we are coming from the freedom and justice party with an islamic background. so you will find is quoting the koran and a lot. this is a very important principle. we have created you all out of male and female and we have made you into a nation so that you may know one another or you may get to know is one another apparently are here to get to know each other. -- or you may get to know one another. we are here to get to know each

other. we would like you to have a better understanding of us. we are here to start a good and positive relations with the united states. let me start with a brief history of egypt the modern egypt, and what has brought us here today. before the revolution, as you are aware, we had been under tremendous oppression and human rights abuses by the mubarak regime. these things have impacted all egyptians. we have all been victims of this dictatorial regime. egypt has been suffering extreme

poverty. about 30% of egyptians are under the poverty line. we have very high rates of illiteracy. we have seen lots of nepotism and of course, deeply entrenched corruption almost in all states and non-governmental institutions. personally, i had no hope for a better future under the mubarak regime. we have lost all hopes of a

better future. i will tell you a story of myself which is that many egyptians suffered under the regime. this was part of my job. my name was registered in the airport under the security check. to me, that was a tremendous violation of my freedom of movement. i wanted to travel and i had been stopped arbitrarily by the security police in the airport. they interrogated me, they searched my bags, not they confiscated any papers that i had any because i was affiliated to an opposition

movement. i found this tremendously unjust and i reached a point where i was really disappointed and that was about a month before the revolution. i told the security police and the airports, i told them, i am tired. will you do this? whenever i travel. am i going to encounter that throughout my entire life? whenever i travel, i am intimidated. i am not sure whether i'm going to travel or not. i am not sure whether my belongings will be confiscated or not. he told me, yes, you will be interrogated all of your life as long as your name is registered on this list. i told him, so, i should have no

hope or i should have no solution to that? he told me, there is no legal solution, the only solution is for the mubarak regime to go and that is not going to happen. that was just one month before the revolution. that was in december of 2010. when he told me that, i was really desperate. but i had a slight hope. the revolution brought us back that hoped. of course, that changed history and it just brought our hope back. i became optimistic again that i can resume my career, i have the freedom upon which i can decide

on what i want to do. and this is an example and this has happened to many people and they had been treated it like this because of their opinion of the bomarc regime. -- of the mubarak regime. we wanted to topple the regime, we wanted it, we got it. mubarak stepped down. that is just the beginning. the demands of our revolution has been mainly freedom, dignity, justice, and democracy. in respect to our party

background, those of the samples. we are seeking to fulfill the demands of the un people who revolted in tahrir square and these demands are our priorities and we are committed to achieving that although this is a huge challenge, this is a very long-term goal, but we will do it. jim we are going to be up -- we are going to be up to the trust that the people have given us. [applause] >> let me give you a little background. he is a member of parliament and the freedom and justice party. he serves on the foreign relations committee. he holds a ph.d. in cultural studies from the university of pittsburgh and a b.a. in english, univ. of --

he is an adjunct professor at metra state in minnesota and he has authored several publications on bridging cultural and civilization of gaps. >> thank you for inviting us here. thank you all for being with us a little bit over a year now. millions of people had to go to the streets of cairo and the rest of egypt to stand against corruption, dictatorship, and oppression. i remember those who sacrificed their lives. and for those that came to meet today, i would like us to stand

in commemoration of those who sacrificed their lives in a peaceful revolution. >> thank you. the egyptian revolution, as egypt itself was unique in the way that it presented itself, and the way that it acted against oppression, a dictatorship, and corruption, and in a way that it is fulfilling its promises on the road map towards democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. the revolution was not against an individual, this was against

a system. and that is the most common word that americans would feel proud of. i saw babies at the age of 3, 4, 5 saying this. boys and girls stood up and declared that they were free now. they were working together. these were the principles of freedom, justice. the challenges are enormous. after the system collapsed in an amount that is a unique moment in the egyptian system. that is the unique moment. it is very difficult to find the oppressor and the oppressed together. i cannot forget that moment when

ashad was getting out of prison at the same time. the minister was getting in the same cell. that is an amazing moment and difficult challenge in e jets. -- in egypt. you have killer and victim together. the challenge is how can we create alternatives that brings back the rise of the egyptians that is unique. i always have this optimism about all citizens to come and visit and witness the great history of egypt. after we as individuals are becoming free, we would like to build and create free institutions.

egyptians are determined not to go back to the old regime by any means. not by governments or an attitude. egyptians are serious. voices will no longer be fired. i ran as a member of parliament. you cannot imagine the difficult dialogs we had to the people of in egypt. the new egypt was welcoming. this agreement, welcoming. they were willing to charting a course for the future. there is a need for a value

system based on freedom, justice, and dignity. we have a culture that supports a strong family tie. faith for us defines this value system. we would like for egypt to be part of the global economy. the state need to empower the young egyptians. we would like to focus on economic partnership, on the political front. free and interrupted trade and oil, energy supply, that nuclear disarmament and comprehensive peace are an important agreement of the political platform. we have a dream. the dream is that all egyptians have access to clean water, food, schools. we have a dream that the

egyptians will not be fearful anymore of speaking truth to power. we've would like not to have the ear of any more torture for political -- have any more more torture for political beings. we want a civil society that is strong. the stronger the society is, the better for everyone. we need to create a balance between the strength of society and strength of the government. the moment the government is stronger than society, it can lead to depression. we would like people of egypt to have the power in their hands. living for so many years under oppression, it created a culture of oppression. we have to replace it with a culture of democracy and freedom. we have a dream that visitors to eject can come safely -- to egypt can come safely. any time you visit egypt, make sure you stop and see the square.

living for some years under oppression, it created a culture of repression. we have to replace it 8 culture of freedom and democracy. we have a dream that visitors to egypt can come safely, to see our ancient civilization. we are adding another monument

in egypt, it is called tahrir square. any time you visit egypt, make sure you stop and see tahrir square. walk in the shadow of the the virgin mary church which is across the street. this is the egypt we have a dream for. we have a dream that others will be able to sail down and feel connected with 7000 years of human genius and creativity. of that is the dream we have a. we had a dream that is not limited to egypt but is open for the whole world where we can honor human dignity and respect our cultural differences that we consider as indispensable conditions for world peace.

thank you for having us. [applause] >> we will just do a brief introduction of two of the other people who will be joining in and responding. khaled al-qazzaz is an adviser to the muslim brotherhood on issues of national development and organizational performance. he has a ph.d. in organizational behavior and business administration from ohio state. khaled al-qazzaz is for an relation.

he serves as an educational consultant at a private and international chain in cairo. he is a ph.d. candidate at walden university. i would like to begin questioning with just onein the aftermath of the uprising, as we have seen in egypt and, though islam did not that went elsewhere. the question is whether that will demonstrate a willingness to pursue and build the democratic system and effectively depressed economic issues. what role will religion play in egypt's government and institutions? what impact will that have on the u.s.? those of you that are familiar

with the platform of the fjp will see some of that address. we will start here. >> hello. >> one question. look at the line. we are catholic but you cannot do trinity or three questions in 1. >> i will start with abdulmawgoud dardery. he said the united states and israel are the biggest losers. i wanted you to explain more about this. in november 2011, you said that if the united states did not like the results of the election, they can drink from them.

>> ok. >> that was a run on sentence. question concerning -- what's your video on youtube. >> there is no doubt in the minds of many egyptians, and that was by ex-president george bush that the administration supported a dictatorship for the past six years. to support dictatorships and the side of the administration, it is a shift toward the future.

the administration has detains egypt and tunisia and other places as well. notin the coming years if we succeed, building the create. egypt is not egypt of the president. egypt is of the egyptian people. no country should accept interference from any outside country.

>> then there was the second sea. >> that was during the political complaint. how about people who are asking to come out to mubarak? what if the united states does not like the election result? the united states can do whatever it wants. it is an egyptian decision. we are happy. if you do not like it, recanting from the red sea or the white sea. we have to -- you can drink from the red sea or the white sea. we have two sees. we have to make use of them. >> in and egyptian activists. i was disappointed with your statements. i would like to ask you that

the constitution cannot be written by the majority. mubarak is to do the majority rule. we should not use people from constitution. >> thank you for asking. it is a valid question. it is very important to know that this represents more than 47%. in spite of this, we became underrepresented. the people will choose those who would write the constitution.

committee writing the constitution. the middle and invite everyone to the addition. these are the committee's thatit belongs to the egyptians. the voices have to be included. writing the constitution is open for everyone. mewe welcome every voice. the people have a constitution that the egyptians will be proud of.

-- we will have a constitution that the egyptians will be proud>> i have two quick points. one is the direction of a electing the assembly. over 70% of egyptians voted for the parliament's. this was democratically decided. the party proposed when this came out. at the end of the day it was still open to suggestions. at the end of the day, the egyptians will vote on everything in constitution. thank you.

>> thank you for coming. my question is about your check affairs company. it is the only one on your agenda. insisted on seeing a list of the attendees. they put this out in a public e-mail. why did you insist on getting solicited attendees?

>> this is a miscommunication. in the past few weeks, the invitation is by the carnegie endowment for peace conference. since then, we have received so many requests to meet their out this week -- throughout this week. social things got pushed out. it is unfortunate that impact decided to announce it before confirming with us. it was good to talk to everybody but then the american society.

>> we are asked not to submit any names. we have submitted them to dhs on the other hand. if you're going to travel, good [laughter] >> i am a business consultant. brotherhood. why do they change the position all the time? is that he would not have a presidential candidates. when one of your members said that you would like to run for presidency, a you fired him from the party. at the same time, i do not think this is democratic.

are you going to adhere to the policy that you announced? is it going to be always changing positions from one to the other? >> i will start by saying that with the needed to does not matter any more. i want to realize that there has been a revolution with a certain set of values. if this violates it, we realize the next election will be punished. we know exactly what are caught this looks like. it is an offshoot of a movement.

our compass is not one that is internally in one looking. on the nomination of the president come here is thewhat happens is we engaged in discussions. it is running like the present authority in egypt to give this a specific message that your reign of the country starts with the parliament.

you would set the whole thing to fail. our nomination of a presidential candidates came at the heel of the staff refusing to allow the party to form a coalition government with other parties. some answer to the people. some answer to the parliament. i guess we follow the economic indicators. the muslim brotherhood is still waiting for that to happen. we still believe that the country cannot be run by one group. this is for very obvious reasons. it is a complicated situation in egypt. no one wants to take that burden upon themselves.

our sense is still the same. we would like to be important to everyone who can contribute to to saving egypt. we will not stand still. you do not have a right to be in the government. >> there was a second part to that question that i want to make sure the answer that. >> it came at a time where the group had a good policy. we do not want to be monopolizing all the positions. at that time, he said "i do not care, i will run anyway." it is a very different reality. i know how this looks. now that was months ago. >> the process itself was deciding the democratic process, whether he used consulting in a decision making body. hundred and 10 individuals spent hours to make the decision

at the end -- 110 individual spent hours to make the decision. the overwhelming majority of votes it about this. they attended ones. he is right. we have the utmost respect. if he decided to go outside this then it is his right. but it is also our right to continue on a different path. >> they look contradictory but science has shifted significantly. -- but signs have shifted to the densely. >> one of the candidates to is in the background seems to be really moving up. that also was one of the catalysts. can you address that? >> as we go there, it will be a difficult situation. we're looking into what is best for the egyptian people. we have things based on what is good for egypt in the short term and long term. what is good for egypt is

basically finding a candidates. now we need it from our end. who will make sure that each of follows a democratic path. >> thank you very much for being here and taking our questions. in your presentation and discussion, you talked a lot about values. there were broad strokes when it came to policy. much of your platform was based on those values. i'm curious what you think they need to do to develop its policy analysis developments, either within the government's to tackle these issues. this is for the egyptian people. what many have done is gone in and say "this is what you need and what you should have." what concrete policy things to the egyptian people need a? what is good is nominating a

candidate that will make sure that egypt follows a democratic path and it respect the democratic institutions. this may not be guaranteed in other scenarios. >> yes? >> thank you very much for being here and taking your questions. i'm from the british council. in your presentation and discussion, you talked a lot about values and faith. there were some broad strokes when it came to policy. it seems, rightly or wrongly, much of your platform is based on those values. as it will should be, but i'm curious what you think -- needs to do to develop its policy analysis development implementation processes either within the government for your party? we're starting to tackle those issues, the economic opportunities for the egyptian people. oftentimes, what western countries have done is gone and to say, "this is what you need.

this is what you should have." can you doete ily policy-wise in your estimation? >> do you want for our economic policy? or foreign policy? >> i think he said domestic. >> thank you very much. but he said all of it. >> just give one example. >> it is our reproduce one document that is circulating for discussions. we are biting everybody to contribute. specifically, it is best to give an example. this is how it is translated. we have distractive political

and economic institutions. we have a few that used to distract from the economy. they use it to a system that it means. it is through all kinds of protection through the governments. it is very funny real-estate deals and tax breaks. there are three industries in egypt that are concentrated. values are extremely high. this is the reality. that reality has created a very weak economy. the egyptian contribution to the global economy is less than

30% of 1% for a population that is 1.2% of the world economy. they're underperforming extremely. what we have proposed is to create the inclusive institution. we're taking to specific measures to include much more people in the economy. it increased the demand. it will hopefully improve social justice. one measure is to reverse the very specific measures that the mubarak regime has taken. in terms of tax breaks and so on and so forth. all of these things will be subject to very strict control and balances from the parliament as well as the other side. we are launching a very aggressive campaign. we are not the first to think of it.

many campaigns have been launched. they did not succeed. this is a technical issue and a political issue. we're trying to use the grass roots of our party to create an enterprise that will succeed. they want to stimulate the economy and create jobs. with this mentality, we hope the broad base will translate for equality and justice and so on. but thank you for coming. you guys were talking about the constitutional committee he were pulling you in two different directions perrin in

terms of human dignity and freedom, -- into different directions. in terms of human dignity and freedom, what is the position of the freedom and justice party on these issues? how much of them are influenced by the actual values in foundations of the parti? >> the values you mentioned are a matter of consensus. we have been signatories to different documents. they were explaining these principles in the main

principles of the egyptian constitution. we have assigned to documents, of the democratic alliance and the second was another document where we expressed our full commitment to those principles together with the rest of the political party. i do not think this is a matter of disagreement between us and the rest of the parties. even between us and christians. i think the differences had to do with the prose itself.

perhaps a had a political dimension. it had nothing to do with disagreeing upon those values. >> this characterization is liberal list of one side and traditionalists on the other side. this has been a struggle for the last 200 years. this holds which direction we go in. i remember egyptians thinking there is no way for this unless it is europeanized. we have nothing to do with europe. it has to come only from tradition. the freedom and justice party

is taking a middle ground. we have a tradition that needs to be respected. this is where we started from. we cannot ignore human civilization. europe has great things to offer. did the united states has great things to offer. we choose what we like and leave what we do not. >> go ahead. >> from the conflict resolution program, my question is this. what have you found are the best ways to negotiate and resolve this within your coalition and within other parties? thank you. >> don't be shy. >> it is very tough. a member we had at least 30 years of political life that was so dry that we actually do

not have any serious debates or process in place. all of a sudden, we are expected to decide the fate of our country there a very democratic process for which traditions and figureheads and histories are being billed as we go. it is a very tough process. what have we done about it? we try to get in team meetings come at mediators, come up with grounds and so on. is it working? not 100%. we have such a high atmosphere of around all of us, that even the simplest issues are very

hard to discuss rationally. everything in egypt nowadays is so hyped up. you are familiar with how past and the egyptian people are. if you've ever been to an egyptian funeral our wedding, we have won every single day on the political scene and now. -- one every single day on the political scene now. you feel that this is going to break the whole thing. there is another issue that is going to bring the whole thing. the issue has receded. i am not trying to market. this is characteristic of the post-revolution era. we need to embrace its. >> at the beginning of the revolution, i run a private

school with an american curriculum. at the beginning of the revolution, one small group of students came to me and said are you sure -- is said to make sure you read a piece a week. he is telling us that these are non patriotic. part of the big international movements. i think they were pushing me to fire the guy. i sit on a very interesting. what can we do about it? should i fire him? we will bring this teacher and whoever has another opinion and we will start a debate between both parties. it was a very interesting

debate. i informed the teacher the day before so it is a fair competition. this group came for me to fire him. they started discussing and debating with this. it is a beautiful debate. they wanted good for egypt. it was a healthy solution. these solutions are to the education. >> another challenges we face, when you come out of oppression, you cannot say anything to anyone.

if there's only one vote. all of a sudden, that voice disappears. you have so many different voices. i used to use the seventh habits of highly successful people. seek first to understand and then to be understood. we have two ears and yet one tongue. let's listen twice. >> my name is john anderson. i am an independent analyst. my question involves party finance and electoral campaign finance, particularly from foreign sources. since the arrest by the government's both u.s. and egyptian, a democracy promoters seem to be a healthy debate.

democracy promotion on the one hand eventually campaigns and party activities. my question is given the long history of support that the muslim brotherhood's funds from foreign sources, particularly from the gulf and perhaps elsewhere. not necessarily from governmental sources. what is the position of fjp in regard to foreign sources of political party activities, electoral campaigns? what specifically will the fjp do to ensure all egyptians have

accurate information with regard to political party activities in the sources of campaign funding? >> financing is a very interesting debate. there is a lot of debate on rules and regulations. there are different models. the idea is that the government propose something before the parliament that was done. they chose to run and regulate the parties. this is how we operate. this indicates that cannot receive international funding. even specifically with the gulf

countries, and the situation is even. we want them to invest in each it entirely. -- invest in egypt. hopeful that they will help their mother is in egypt. have any problems. to have a huge membership from within the muslim brotherhood in from outside the muslim brotherhood. 80% of the party members are from outside the brotherhood. we have a good representation even outside the muslim brotherhood's. we like to support our members.

they said this internationally. this involves a lot of intervention. we think international funding has the respect of this. they provide the respect of a rule of law. what we want to encourage generally is this. >> they're also making public the campaign funding. >>, will they make public to the egyptians and other their sources of campaign funding? >> the short answer is yes.

they have to. i would like to make clear that during mubarak, there is no right to any information. i initiated the discussions. it is being discussed. information has to be public. that is an important ingredient for any democracy to be successful. >> i am a retired federal employee. i like members to explain why with few exceptions christians are persecuted, their churches burned, they're forced to convert to islam. there are extreme restrictions on the buildings in which they can worship. one example of that --

>> you have made your statement. they heard it. >> i want to give them an example. >> this has to do it the egyptian situation. the first part of what he said they can. if they want to. they're primarily speaking about the egyptian experience. but sears talking got any other place other than egypt. -- >> may be were talking about any place other than egypt. it right come from, 80% of the coptic vote came to me. i represented the freedom and justice party. do coptic christians suffered under mubarak? yes. tremendously so. -- both christians and egyptians suffered.

there were not allowed to have churches under the last regime. 10 years ago, i was in a meeting with the president of the university that was a promising girl. she was a young coptic. she was to be appointed to the t.a. why not? because she was coptic. is said there were security reasons. it was a stupid statement from my side. i did not agree. i stood against president. i promised that any coptic would be treated the same as any other muslim. this is the history of the experience of muslim. this is the history of egypt. we have said this from the very beginning. people go to the church who want to people-- who want to.

people who want to go to the mosque, they go. we want to foster this. similar to that of the spanish experience. we do them all as equal citizens in they will be able to move forward and present an alternative that is good not only for egypt but for the world. >> i want to piggyback on that question. the broader issue about islam is important. in a number of places from nigeria to tunisia there are issues. we intend to run a major program on that, but this is a different panel. given what you said, one of the questions that some raise is that in the platform, one talks about supporting a civil society that is neither run by the

society for theocracy. islam was a state religion. the number two person in the muslim brotherhood talked about the fact that it was clear that people want an islamic state. this language is important. in tunisia, the talk about civil government in either state is emphasized but the civil government. there are a number of words planning around here and some clarification would be important. >> for your information, the second man in the freedom and justice party is and what can. he is a christian. -- he is anglican. that is how open we are. this is more of an academic

distinction, the islamist state versus a civil list state. that is what the freedom and justice party is calling for. it is different than a muslim state. the islamic state is summer were christians, jews, muslims and others can work together, live together. a muslim state is inclusive for muslims only. it is important to make a distinction that there's also a discussion. do we put in sharia rulings? the three men justice party wants to stand on the objectives of sharia rather tahn the rulings because their root ltd. to time and space. the objectives are universal

like freedom and justice for all. these are the priorities of the freedom and justice party. >> in american literature, the way you describe that is usually just the opposite in terms of terminology. beckham also be true in terms of the europeans who would hear that phrase. let's go over here. >> the christians do not have the same opportunities to build houses of worship that are available to muslims. >> what they are saying is that the policy, there would be a change. the policy you are referring to did not happen because, if you will, islamic rule under mubarak. it existed hundreds of years ago. >> and joe, can i put something

under the record? if christians in my area needed a church, i would produce it myself in building a church. >> i just tried to draw on how we can do this. can we go in additional five minutes? i suggest that we do this. let's take a three questions, cluster them come and see if we can get to those and then i will take another three questions rather than one and one. you give a question and then we will give a question and you give a question there and then to the panel. >> i have a question about the stability and legitimacy of the freedom of justice party, specifically after the recent announcement of the presidential candidate. you have been getting a lot of support were not members of the muslim brotherhood, especially during the parliamentary elections. and now these people, a lot of

them, are rethinking their decision to vote for you after you change your opinion. also, we heard about -- >> so your question is? >> the announcement was a very close call between deciding to nominate him, and how will you ensure the rest of the egyptian public, both inside and outside of the jet, that you are internally to be egypt that it is pretty specific where egypt is going. >> what the freedom and justice party is doing to promote female political participation in egypt. >> i am an egyptian political activists. i was a tahrir square pattern >> question, please.

>> sorry, you either have a question -- 9 >> i do have a question. but i also have the right -- >> no, you don't. [laughter] >> no, you don't. that is rugged american individualism. >> given this set mr., i probably don't. -- given this atmosphere, i probably don't. several stages to stabilize the wondering what-- i was state of stabilization of the sharia law are we in right now? >> great, thank you. good question. ok, we got three questions. [applause] >> concerning female

participation, i would like to confess that we're not happy about the situation of women in egypt. we think the representation of women in the parliament as well as very engagement in society needs improvement. of course, it is part of our platform to engage women, both in civil society and in politics. in the next municipal elections, we are intending to field more women candidates. but we're also working to improve the situation of women in society and getting to the root causes of the problem of the marginalization of women. we are conducting research across egypt to know the scale of the problem of the violation

of women's rights and any kind of a marginalization of women. and we look for solutions to that. this is one of the objectives of one of our parliamentary agenda. >> how many candidates did the fjp run in the last elections? not having succeeded, but how many -- >> about 70. >> there were excellent lot more nominations by the party. it is the largest number of a party within the party. >> ok, to the other questions. >> the stability of the party, we're simply running in terms of dialogue within the party and the people around us. we certainly believe, at the end of the day, that it will be

stable as long as the stand that it takes still makes sense to the majority of the people. only will tell us if this is the case. i think that people will start understanding once they hear the facts. >> and the last question that was asked. >> in arabic, that means empowerment. so i am not really clear where the problem is. they were very busy with 100,000 of them in jail during his time .oul >> the question was referring to a speech that was plugged into the notion of -- >> tankim means it is empowerment and did this in

different ways. in the way we see our development, it is very interesting to use these terms and cliches without really understanding the meaning in the modern context. i do nancy hannity upset with the european union or the confederation of united states -- i do not see anybody upset with the european union or the confederation of united states or international forums where people talk to each other hawn similar platforms either on geographic are based on particular grain movement. there are different manifestations of parties and agreements together. this is simply the modern translation of this term. >> i only have time for to questions. so i will go here and here. i am sorry about that. but they have an incredible schedule.

here and here. >> my question is how you define famous speech and freedom of expression. does the fuhrman justice party believe in the legal right of egyptian citizens to criticize or doubt islam? [applause] >> ok, and here. >> i do not want to rescue as politicians, but as the islamic party. what are the islamist party that you're trying to deliver to the world? are you trying to have this come as democracy and open market? view balance between the universal and islamic values?

and in case you make a mistake in leading the country, do you not think this will affect islam? >> ok, we got to questions. >> concerning the first question, religion is a human choice and islam, christianity and others are based on love. you can force anybody to love a particular religion in people are free. there is a specific verse in a car on -- in the koran the says whoever wants to believe, let him or her believe. whoever does not, it is his or her decision. it is their responsibility to make. that is clear in this party and in a slump. criticizing islam or others, the islamic alternative is being criticized right and left. when to put in your political

alternative, you have to be able to accept the criticism. concerning the failure, make as forbid, we have really to make a distinction. we are not islam. we are muslims. i would like to present him a slim alternative that can succeed. and muslims have to be prepared and others will as well. this is a human experience. and in human experiences, you can succeed, but there is a 50/50 chance you cannot also to.are we want this for all egyptians a week can live in peace and really present an alternative that is not only good for egyptians or arabs or muslims, but for others in the world. >> excuse me.

thank you all very much for coming i want to thank the delegation. [applause] and i especially appreciate that this was the lunch hour could i had asked for a gourmet lunch for you, but my associate director canceled that. and i hope to see you again in the future. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> mike wallace, longtime correspondent for "60 minutes" died last night in connecticut at the age of 93. he served in the u.s. navy during world war ii before

working in number of jobs and radio and television, and he became one of the original correspondence for "60 minutes," helping to launch the show in 1968. back in 2007, mr. wallace was interviewed by his son chris, a host for fox news at the middlesex community college celebrity forum in massachusetts. the father and son talk about their careers in journalism, their relationship, and some of the issues of the day. this is 45 minutes. >> so my father -- because we felt that one of the things we would do is talk about one of our greatest hits -- brought along his greatest hits. would you like to introduce some of them? >> yes, as a matter of fact, another to mention it appeared >> good. that you mentioned it.

>> good. >> barbra streisand. i tell you, i adored -- and new barbra streisand for years, since she was 19 years old and she came over from brooklyn to manhattan back in 1960, i was doing a show about television series, talk, entertainment, and more. we heard about a talented woman who was singing in greenwich village and i invited her to join us on the year. she came on -- i remember this so well -- and she sang "a sleeping bee"from the house of flowers in a heartbreaking yway. then she began to take yourself very seriously. difficult, temperamental, people were just beginning to realize

how extraordinary she was. and now interesting to talk about. the first time she came on, she had on a granny dress down to hear and she had a bunch of keys. i asked with the keys were and she'd come up "oh, i sit around." [laughter] i have to go home to brooklyn after swinging at bon soir. in any case, our paths did not cross again for some time after that. and she was a glorious voice. i asked her if she wanted to come on "60 minutes." she was at the time publicizing "prince of tides" and she agreed.

so i took her back to the unprepossessing walk up flat in manhattan that she lived in when i first met her and she had talked about her lover and i asked about the difficult relationship she had when she was growing up in brooklyn. let's take a look at barbara, please. >> i knew her when she lived on this street back in the early 1960's. she had left her family in brooklyn and 16 to come to the apple with dreams of greatness. and you live where? >> i lived up there. >> did you really? 30 years ago, when you slip there, did you know that you would be our stripes and -- barbra streisand? >> i knew that when i was 7 years old. there was no other way.

>> would you like to go upstairs? >> i would love. did you ever see the movie "i may pussycat?" it was done in a walk up like this one. >> how many rooms, do remember? >> 4. >> what did your mother think of you living here? >> she did not like to request since she mentioned her mother, i talk to her about the difficult relationship they had when she was growing up in brooklyn. >> i mother never told me i was smarter pretty or that i could do anything wanted. i asked her if she never gave me any compliments. she said she did not want me to get a swelled head. >> she said she was on, a skinny, and not pretty enough to be a movie star. and then she should be a typist. are you proud of barbara? >> who would not be? >> are you close?

>> we have not had time to be close to anyone. >> you know what your mother told me about your relationship with you. >> what? >> she said you do not have time to be close to anyone. >> did she say to anyone or to her? >> to anyone. and even now mom's judgment stings. >> you like that 40 million people have to see me do this. >> the fact of the matter is, yes, i loved it. >> and is going to say, how can you live with yourself? [laughter] >> the fact of the matter is she did not speak to me for years. >> i wonder why. >> when you have somebody like that on your television program and talking with that candor and

unguarded, that is interesting, isn't it? who have you got on sunday? >> john mccain. [laughter] he is not an entertainer, but he might be the next president pierre >> will you ask john mccain ap has conceivably -- would you ask john mccain if he has conceivably sold out in order to get the republican nomination? >> you have some more injured years -- you have some more interviews here, don't you? >> yes. >> he will have as interesting a time as al sharpton had. >> ok. i will be watching. >> the good. >> i think he is damn good, by the way. [applause]

he is really first-rate. where the hell was i doing? >> you're going to do your next interview, malcolm x. oh. back in the 1960's, while most and flowing may develop a great admiration for a man -- malcolm x. and we became good friends. i met him first in 1959 when i did a documentary about the nation of islam called "hate that hate produced." there were separatists back then, the black muslims pin they wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the white man. they preached that the white man was evil. earlier in his life, malcolm had

been a hustler, a con man, went to prison for it, but in his use inside, he began to read about a lot to mohammed and about black separatism, black pride. and when he got out, he joined the nation of islam. has the years went by, he became a major leader of that group. then the more he thought about it and the more he learned, he changed his mind about the white world. finally, he had a bitter falling out with alaja mohamad, which eventually cost him his life. here he is. taking a look. >> say what we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary. >> malcolm x was a man of intellect and courage. he came mata of the ghetto and relented against the white man.

>> these are the things you should want to find out before you say hooray, hooray, hooray. is that a writer wrong? >> but in 1965, he was assassinated. he was gunned down in the neighborhood by followers of the elijah muhammed. i had no idea how prophetic malcolm was months before he was killed. but he gave the reason why he had broken with the black muslims and with the elijah mohammed. >> he had six sisters, all of them were pregnant. i am told there is a seventh sister who is supposed to be in mexico and she is supposed to be having a child by him appeared >> do you feel you should take over the leadership of the black moslems? >> no, i have no desire to take your the leadership of the black muslims and i have never had

that desire. but i have the desire to see the afro-american in this country to have the same rights as the white jew. >> the fact is, he was a dead man six months after that. >> i show that because to have the privilege of having millions of americans and other people in countries as well, to have the privilege of having telling people about individuals like -- because you have an audience, because you walk the streets and have done the homework and it is hardly -- you do not do it by yourself.

you do it with a staff of researchers and so forth. chris knows. it is wonderful to be able to bring that kind of thing and there is no doubt in my mind --t malcolm -- face it martin luther king is a man, of all the people i have met and talked with and spend time with of years, is a man that i must -- is the american individual that i admire most evil. he is my personal hero. why? because martin luther king put his money where his mouth was. [applause]

back during the vietnam war, martin luther king was the -- the man who helped him so much to give it the black people, african-americans, call them what you will, get the black people as part of the community was really lyndon johnson. lyndon johnson, a southwestern president, and martin luther king worked together to help this country understand its black community and to become closer. and then came vietnam. and dr. king had the guts to say to his pal lyndon johnson, wrong

war, wrong time, wrong place. and he in effect did not turn his back on, but he called it and it was the wrong war in the wrong time in the wrong place. i do not want to go on excessively about it, but, in any case, martin luther king had courage and he did so much. i doubt very much there are a lot of black folks in the room tonight. what? what is the point that i am trying to make? >> know, that is all right. i know that we will begin to run out of time and we want to take some questions. let me talk a little bit about a couple of interviews. a bunch of you were asking year earlier about the bill clinton

interview which got a lot of attention. i will tell you the true story of the bill clinton interview. we had been trying for years to get bill clinton to sit down on fox news sunday and he finally agreed to do it as part of the clinton global initiative, which is an extraordinary program that he has where he raises literally billions of dollars since september 2006 -- he has been doing it for several years -- $7 billion for party and climate change. and we agreed, as did a couple of other people that who were interviewing him, we have 15 minutes. he could spend half on the global initiative and half on whatever else we wanted to ask. so i have looked at the other interviews that had been done within a and people had mixed up. not just the first half on the initiative and the rest on the other issues. so i asked him a couple of

questions about philanthropy and the powers of public life as opposed to the president in terms of the good you could do. but because there was a big fuss about an abc docudrama called "the path of 9/11." and clinton was very upset because some of the scenes were distorted or just made up and made it seem as if his administration had been asleep at the wheel with osama bin laden and this gathering threat was growing. i asked the president why didn't you do more as president to put osama bin laden and al qaeda out of business. i am sure a lot of you saw his answer. he directed -- he erupted and get very aggressive than personal and hyper partisan.

chris, you and your conservative hit job. look at the cirque on your face. after it was over, the clinton people put out that he had not come looking for a fight. he was prepared and he wanted to show democrats how to fight back and that this was kind of a statement on his part to the democrats, a rallying cry in september of before the november election. none of it was true. as soon as he erupted, his press secretary came up to my producer and started jabbing him and saying turn off the cameras because the interview is over. we had 50 minutes and we only had four minutes at this point. clinton kept going and going. two minutes to three minutes later, the press secretary came to my producer off-camera -- i was and where this was happening at the time -- jet him at the

shoulder and told him the interview was over. but now we were at about 1.8 minutes. in any case, we continued on. the thing ended. gee, mr. president, i was looking for a fight. i'm kind of surprised. he did not want to have any part of it appeared he got up and left and our director happened to follow them out into the hall where he overheard the president say to his staff -- if any of you ever get me into this kind of situation again, you are all fired. so it was about as preplanned as a car wreck. the last area want to tell you about one of my interviews, i think it is one of the most memorable, in 1979. i was blessed -- it is really what my father says.

it is a tough business and you can be away from your family at times you do not want to be away. sometimes it is grubby you're you're in a state hustling for hours for a criminal to come out of his house or something. but there are other times you say there's no place on earth i would rather be and i am so blessed to be a good house able to spend a week with mother teresa of calcutta just after she had won the nobel peace prize. i spent it in calcutta watching her ministry to the poor and to the ill. the thing remember most is that she had said that something called the home for the dead and the guy anchored this is basically a hospice before there were hospices -- for the dead and dying. this is basically a hospice for before there were hospices. people were left in the street dying. she would collect them and bring

them to this town for the dead and the dying. no doctors, no medicine, simply to give them a little food, in the water, a place to sleep out of the elements and die with dignity. but because of the fact that there was no care for people -- this is back in 1979 -- of the 36,000 people that they had taken off the streets and brought into this home, 18,000 with just minimum amount of care had gone up and had gone well and had gone back to their lives. so she had saved 18,000 lives. [applause] and no matter how religious for secular you are, you could not spend a moment, let alone a week as i was blessed to spend in a profile of her, in this woman's presence without knowing that this was a seat on earth. i think that is one of the

things that joins both through all of the keating enteral the political arguments that we have. i think we feel so blessed to be able to report the story said to tell all of you about them. >> it is true. [applause] >> i think a couple of microphone stands have been set up where people can ask. i know that you have looked at network so-and-so's and said if i could guess that a question, i would. i know it is scary to ask the first question, but who would like to ask the second question? [laughter] year ago -- here we go. there is a microphone there. come on up to the microphone. yes, put the house lights. that is great. >> it is not on. can you hear me? >> yes.

i was a member of the first integrated black army personnel in europe in 1946-1947. [applause] this was initiated by truman. at that time, truman collected our group to represent an army on the by personnel's behalf. before that happened, we had separate eating facilities. we had separate quarters to live in. this is the u.s. army, ok? when this was initiative by truman, we were able to go into the cafeteria and eat with the

white soldiers. since i have been back in the united states, we have tried to get the story told. "60 minutes" is one of my favorite programs. [laughter] i have the status of musicianship. i toured with jack benny in europe, md. maxwell, phil harris during those years. the question is, when we get back to the united states, we went to pbs. we went to hollywood. one of my band members was a ranger -- was an arranger for a hollywood production house in california.

so he knew steven spielberg, to be able to speak to him about this thing. >> what is the question? >> the question is "60 minutes is one of my favorite programs. [laughter] and since you were here, i would like to know what you think can be done about that. >> don't worry about it. fox news will take care about you. [laughter] [applause] >> beauty evening. first of all, i -- good evening. first of all, i have to tell you how much i enjoy the repartee between father and son. it is absolutely delightful. both of you have a long history in the news reporting field. clearly, news today is very different than it was when you started in terms of the immediacy of the news to the

public and the access of the public to information that they never had before at the rate that they get it today. i ebeliev that it is creating a society that is much more fearful and anxious and also a society that season violence and action in an -- that sees a violence and action in any mediacy that tends to perpetuate it. i would like you to spit -- in an immediacy that tends to perpetuate it. i would like you to talk about how you relate to the stories you deliver? >> i think that the way the news is covered today, i mean, it is used to be 6:30 p.m. -- it is

abominable today compared to the way it used to be. why? because there is too much infotainment. there's too much attention to tabloid stuff. cable, in a strange way, has made it a race to the bottom rather than what it used to be, which was a race to the top, to get the finest, the best, the fairest. now, what has happened is, i -- i don't want to hear over and over and over again about anna nicole smith. [laughter] [applause] that kind of ceaseless crap -- and what has happened is, in my

way of thinking, is that it has diminished the coverage of the news in television. >> i hope to have a considerably longer career in television news business than my father. so i think they're doing a helluva job. [laughter] >> what time frame did the newsman, the reporter, the interviewer became the celebrity. what is the time from the you can recall? and was there a personality or two that you can think of that may have turned the corner when the news man -- when the news men became the celebrity? >> i will tell you when it turned the corner.

back in 1956, local. my name was myron wallace. no one had ever heard of me. i had an 11:00 newscast on channel 5 in new york. a good broadcast. and then come after that, we did a half-hour news program called "night beat." "night beat" in 1956 asked questions and had never been asked before. they were buzzing acquisitive, occasionally abrasive, occasionally confrontational -- and overnight, truly, everything changed as far exactly what you're talking about. suddenly, this and no name on channel 5 was -- you would walk

down the streets of new york and the cab driver -- that kind of thing. i do not want to sound like a self-serving damned fool, but that really did change the character of exactly what you're talking about. >> so you are to blame? [laughter] >> yes. truly, that is what happened. >> let's take a question over here. >> the wanted to know your perspective on how the ad and the internet media outlets and blogs with more and more people speaking, especially news that caters to their own personal beliefs, what effect will that have on the future of journalism? >> that is a good question. >> it also relates to the question that the lady asked before. to a certain degree, you can sit there and say it was great in the old days and now you have all news cable on three networks

and you have internet and you have blogs and you have countless ways for how a thousand flowers bloom to get news and it is to rail against progress for the events of technology or maybe it does not progress. i'm sure there were people back in the days of the printing press or the gutenberg bible and said, dammit, when we used to do these illustrated scrolls, it was a better way of to vacation. now this printing press is getting that information out there -- better way of communication. now this spring press is getting that information out there quickly. [laughter] my son does not getting newspaper. he goes on line and goes to one of these things and reads compendiums of stories. one of the things that i always say to him and one of the joys of opening the front door -- i am sure you feel this way -- i gave israfil a beaming about

opening the door and going out in my bathrobe -- i gave this role feel about opening the door in going out in my bathrobe. >> and go to the can and reid. >> absolutely right. >> usually, for me, that is after breakfast and a cup of tea. [laughter] one of the great joys of that is that you see stories that you do not know to look for and you read stories that you do not necessarily agree with. but now you have custom-made news where you see the story that you want to see or the blogger that you read that agrees with your the columnist and you're not getting surprised. you're not learning the thing you did not know to look for. you are not learning contrary positions and i think that is too bad for american society and democracy. [applause] >> mike and chris, my name is

gary armstrong. i have been lucky enough to log almost 40 years in television news. back in the 1960's, began as a producer with abc news. mike, i have been lucky enough to interview some of the same people you have interviewed in your career. i just wanted to you to know that both jimmy cagney and katharine hepburn said that you were their favorite news reporter. [laughter] [applause] now they were kind enough to talk to a young reporter who was on his way up and they said i could do worse than following your footsteps. i did not follow in your footsteps. i figured you had your style nailed down. but one of the things i did learn from year -- and i was trying to remember the gentleman's name was the

director cbs radio news between 1962-1963. but one key thing that was pointed out to me was that you have to listen. don't go in with five questions and don't wait until you get an answer that you don't think will come up. listen to what the person is saying and that interview will fly. that is one thing that i think some people get caught up on what they believe is the mike wallace technique and they don't really listen or watch how you interview. i think a lot of people in the audience tonight and the people i talk to at one of the journalism seminars today should take note of that this man does his homework. and a lot of what you think is technique, that is just to get him in the door. the question i have for you as a follow-up on the question that was posed before. as a reporter at one of the boston stations in the early 1970's, i routinely got 13 minutes to do an in-depth story.

and if i had to do a stand-up, i could be on the air for 10 seconds. a lot of that changed when we went from color film to video around 1975. they wanted reporter involvement. slowly but surely, we had the erosion of content in the reports. when i parted company with my employer five years ago when they felt i was trying to put too much content in the story, the feeling was that a minute 15 seconds was more than enough to telling a story. and that is happening on the network level so. do you see that improving at all or have we seen the best of news in the past? [applause] [laughter] >> frankly, it is a big problem at the network and it is a lesser a problem at cable news because one of the great joys -- one of the reasons that i went to fox is that you go into the

newsroom, you go into your office at 9:00 a.m. and you turn on a tv so you can see what the news was paired you could not turn on abc, cbs, and nbc because there were in the quiz show and soap opera box. i will say, lord knows, my father is right. we spent a lot of time covering and and nicole smith. but when something big is happening, we covered that as well in a minute 15. >> tell me something, chris. people ask me about you. >> they ask me about you, too. [laughter] >> what persuaded him to

sellout? what they mean is they believe that you now believe, having gone to work for fox and you enjoy it, that you have left, that you're no longer objected, that the fox news operation is biased, right wing, not fair and balanced. you've heard that. what is the answer? >> we talked about this in the beginning. what happened to me personally was that, looking ahead at my career and, because i am lawless, i have 30 more years of my career even though i and 60 or will be 60 in october, i saw what was going on at the networks and saw them shrinking,

cutting bureaus, cutting staff, charging more and more money for smaller and smaller audiences and did not see this as a business plan for the future. so i looked around and fox news was the place and the television landscape that was growing. obviously, i had a concern mostly days, if i may say so, on ignorance because i did not watch a lot of it, that it was right wing and biased and that it did have an agenda. i met with roger ailes and i asked him about that. and he said, look, i like you because you're a tough interviewer appeared as long as you're fair to both sides, that is all i care about. i have been on fox news sunday for three and a half years. i have never had a question asked about an interviewee, i guess, about a question that i have asked, and i invite you all to tune in and watch a said 10:00 a.m. in boston sunday mornings. i think you will see that we are equal opportunity in going after

both the right and the left. >> do evening. my name is sandra fine gold. my son barry is running for the fifth congressional district right here. i bought the tickets before he was running. >> does barry approve this message? [laughter] >> right now, he is at the state house in voting on our budget. i get tears in my eyes thinking about it. my father was your age, mike, and he passed away in december. and chris, i am your rage so i can really relate. i get the newspaper every morning. my kids don't. they read online, exactly the same thing. having been involved in politics, this young man started at 23 and now he is going for the big thing. it is all he does. he is on the phone trying to raise money. his mother is out campaigning

and he is raising money. will it ever change or will it only get worse? it is how much money you get. >> what will change? >> the money in politics. >> the answer to the question is it will only get worse. and john mccain, in another case where he did not sell out because he has paid a tremendous price from the conservatives, back in 2002, pushed through with a lot of help in reaching out to democrats the mccain fine gold build -- >> he is not a relative. >> exactly. to try to regulate sloth money and restrict sloth money. the answer is that it is impossible. whenever regulations they set up, the money keeps growing and growing and, like a disease, find its way into every nook and cranny. i don't think this has been covered nearly enough. prior to the last election, all

presidential candidates always accepted federal financing. frankly, it was howard dean, a democrat combat -- actually, no, it was george bush in 2000, but the first democrat was howard dean in 2004 who decided he would probably finance and not accept money and then the cat was out of the bag and you saw john kerry deciding he had to do that because he needed to compete. and now everybody is not only accepting money for the primaries, but you see democrats accepting money for the general election. so hillary clinton and barack obama, they have not firmly said it, are indicating that, instead of accepting $70 million or $80 million from the fed of government or taxpayers, they're now talking about raising hundreds of millions of dollars. and the answer is, there is

initial care about it, is that the people that is due needy -- is donating that money, it is an investment. and if their candidate wins, they are expecting a return on their investment. >> we will take one last question. >> -short and sweet. first of all, you have a new fan. i can wait for your show on sunday because i action have never seen it. >> thank you, stacy. >> can i call you on sunday morning to wake you up to make sure? [laughter] >> i am watching all the other morning shows. >> big mistake. >> but i have a question for you both about some journalism. but i will still ask you this question. is there a liberal bias out there? what would you say to bill o'reilly's form of journalism?

>> bill o'reilly is a conservative. i hate to ended on a defensive note, but the argument would make is that i think you make a mistake if you mix up bill o'reilly and sean hannity with fox news. but where do they appear? on fox news and bill o'reilly is the most popular show on fox news and sean hannity is the second most popular show on fox news. i would argue that our basic news coverage during the day, in the morning, during the day, early in the prime time, shepard smith -- you can like him are not like him -- pretty straight. it is only beginning at 8:00 that you start to get political talk shows. but the others have done it. nbc has keith government at 8:00 p.m. that night who is a very left wing liberal. fine. people have decided that, at

that hour, people want talk and opinion. but honestly, i do not think that is the basic mission at fox news is. he is a conservative. no doubt about it. >> i have a question that is unscientific. how many of you think that conceivably mitt romney is a good, sensible candidate for the president? [applause] and is there somebody who can synthesize what the objection to him is? let's face it, but was not -- >> i was good to ask the second one parent how many of you don't think that mitt romney is a good candidate? [applause] >> good. good. all right, please tell me why. understand that heuld

is going to interview mitt romney tomorrow and he is going to say the the people love low hate you. [laughter] >> wait, did the microphones go on? >> [inaudible] >> he says they left him a billion in debt and that is why they are trying to vote him out of the state house. >> pandering? i will not repeat this. [laughter] governor romney, we would like to have you on fox news sunday. i will tell you afterwards the horrible thing this man said. >> did you get enough information to lead you into tomorrow? >> certainly.

this is first-rate cram thank- you very much haraha. >> ladies and gentlemen, we will invite you to book signing in front of the auditorium parent and we thank more again chris for a great evening at -- and we think mike and chris for a great evening. thank you very much. [applause] ♪

>> the house democratic steering committee last week heard testimony on the impact wall street oil speculation is having on gas prices. the committee heard testimony from former trading director at the commodity futures trading commission and the president of the independent connecticut petroleum marketers association. according to aaa, the national average for a gallon of gas last week stood at $3.93. that is up more than 65 cents since the beginning of the year. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am pleased to call to order this important meeting of the steering and pulsing committee with appreciation to our share,

congressman from connecticut, who will preside over today's presentation. i am also pleased to be joined by the chair of our caucus, congressman john lawson of connecticut, and the ranking member on the natural resources committee, the former chair of the energy securities select committee. also, we are joined with congresswoman don edwards of maryland and chairman since 11 of the ways and means committee. when i think about today's proceedings, one title in my mind and give it is "the agony and the ecstasy." the agony of our consumers over the press at the pump and what that means to them, especially when you have people having trouble making ends meet and how the high cost of the price at

the pump is an obstacle to them. it is not just a luxury. it is something they must do and they have to make ends meet. the agony is for them. the ecstasy is for big oil pared the rate in a record profit of $137 billion in profits last year. that is $261,000 per minute. and they are on track for another year of astronomical profits. experts have been clear. wall street speculators artificially driving up prices at the pump and causing pain to millions of american consumers. we will hear more on that from our expert witnesses and from our colleagues. i thank my colleague for joining us. i appreciate the presence of dr. guilfoyle. >> i want to welcome everyone here today. it is a privilege to do that.

and i thank you for calling the hearing and a welcome to my colleagues on the panel. high oil prices affect every aspect of americans' lives, not just the cost of traveling, but heating homes and other purchases. there is a reason for fluctuation in the price of oil, some of which is the tension and uncertainty in the middle east. the president is working with the international community could saudi arabia said they would ask to lower the cost of prices. that means that the prices have rampant speculation in the oil market. it was speculated that speculators increased prices. even the head of exxonmobil conceded that the price of oil should have been "$60 to $70

range" when it was at $100 per barrel. we are holding this hearing to examine how we can do a better job of curbing excessive speculation in the oil market. market. dodd-frank legislation gave the cftc broad authority to investigate manipulation. last year the commodities trade commission charged five oil speculation with manipulating the crude prices in 2008, letting -- netting more than $50 million even as oil prices climbed toward record highs. this house republican majority has tried to get the ctc at every turn. the bill of last year provided only $172 million in funding.

44% below the president's request meaning it is 100 tricky 9 less cuts. we fought back and got that up to $205 million and the final 2012 budget, it is not enough for the cftc to perform as it should. their request was for $208 million. we're here to represent consumers, not speculators. we're here to assure the cftc has the resources it needs to do its job and it is doing it and we should be strengthening its ability to combat rampant speculation, not working to undermine it. i have introduced legislation with congressman boswell and welsh to provide the seed-cftc with a reliable source of funding. the wall street accountability, this will bring the cftc in line with other regulators. the sec in the nfc -- to

authorize the collection of user fees to offset the cost of their operation. to decrease prices, in several of my colleagues have asked the president to release oil from the strategic purpose -- petroleum reserve. it holds $696 million -- 696 barrels and is up to 90% of its capacity. even releasing a small amount can have -- help to discourage speculation. i hope we can discuss the best ways to continue moving forward against excessive speculation. last month, president obama reconstituted the oil and gas price working group to investigate manipulation in the oil and gas market. what should this working group be doing to make a difference and to the current market conditions warrant the use of the cftc's emergency authority

to set margins and position limits? the cftc has had authority from the beginning but has refrained from getting involved since 1980. those questions and others i know our panel is going to address. thank you for coming and we look forward to our discussion today. with that, let me yield to my colleague from massachusetts. >> thank you so much. thank you for holding this. thank you for conducting this very important hearing at this time. thank you, chairman larsen for convening this. we're at the very important moment in the u.s. relationship with the oil market place. right now, the national average for the price of gasoline stands at $3.93 a gallon nationwide. within the next week, the

average american driver could be staring through the windshield at $4 a gallon and. the republicans would like you to think this is president obama's fault. and deflect any blame away from the real culprits. they're wrong. the current spike in gas prices is not about obama. it is about opec. the oil companies, and wall street speculators. we could take steps right now that could address this situation. deploy oil from the strategic purpose -- petroleum reserve as well as [unintelligible] last week, the u.s. and others -- oil dipped on the mere threat of using this weapon against speculators. the reserve is to speculators what kryptonite is to superman.

republicans opposed this uniformly. they believed the oil market is a free market. it is not. we need to stop wall street speculators from their yearly gains that turn the oil market into the crude oil casino. last year, house republicans tried to cut the budget for the commodities futures trading commission. the agency that serves as the cop on the wall street oil speculation be in the republican majority has moved the legislation intended to delay the reforms by the democratic congress that would diminish the power of wall street trading firms to manipulate the market. wall street's lobbyists have gone so far as to suit to block these reforms. you should be fully are harming the wall street cops and making sure they can crack down on the gasoline for gamblers in the marketplace.

the republicans are wrong. we should end the expectations of american energy resources. the number one export was fuel. more than $1 -- 1 billion barrels, worth $100 billion were sent overseas to locations in china, morocco, and singapore. with rush holt and bill owens, i have introduced a bill. when american families are facing $4 gasoline, we should not be allowing it will to continue to export america's fuel that was drilled for here. the republicans opposed this amendment almost unanimously. we must end the tax breaks for oil companies republicans want to raise taxes on the windt industry but they have been

protecting tax subsidies for the most profitable oil companies in the world. american taxpayer should not be asked to give oil companies 100 year-old subsidies so they can sell us oil at more than $100 a barrel and make more than $100 billion in annual profits. we should be pushing a long-term plan that moves us away from foreign oil and insulates us from the price shocks of an oil market that is controlled by opec. if we take these steps, we will stop the speculators from manipulating the oil market. we will train in the exporters who are sending our resources to china, and we will tell the opec dictators we do not need their oil anymore than we need their sand. thank you. >> thank you. i will introduce mr. larsen to introduce one of our guests this morning. >> thank you for your convenience here today.

i want to commend our leader for recognizing what americans have of all across this country, the problems that they are encountering at the pump and in home heating oil and air conditioning gunheim -- air conditioning. jean guilford is the president of the independent petroleum association. i have had the opportunity to work with gene and his dealers to understand the laws of supply and demand have been suspended when it comes to oil speculation. they have been in the forefront of helping us shape legislation for congresswoman delaurel and myself. gene has an extensive background

and i think the members will find this most interesting. he is familiar with import and export and served in the energy department area he has a first hand understanding of the regulation needed and our marketplace system. most importantly, what he is understands is the need of consumers. at a press conferenc e, lae laid out [unintelligible] and the dodd-frank bill./ >> it is our pleasure to

introduce our other panelists. michael has worn many hats as acting as deputy associate attorney general at the justice department to technical advisor of the un. he also previously served as the director of the future is concerned and used -- served on the working group on financial markets and is a member of the hedge fund task force. >> thank you. thank you for convening this

hearing. i have worked with almost everybody in this meeting and to have been great friends of consumers and you have always landed an ear to those of us to do not have the clout of the big wall street lobbyists. many say there is no quick fix for this. the would prioritize three of them. the "financial times," in a column, the thesis was the u.s. is back. china is decelerating. our policies which have been guided by the obama administration and you in congress have created the embers

that are sparking a recovery. the one thing that will damage this recovery is the ever accelerating gasoline prices. they are a burden and -- in that people do not have the money to pay for $4.80 $5 a gallon gasoline. it is a hardship to virtually every american. more important in the macro sense, this will break the back of the recovery. the president has said that, many of you have said that, with everything going so well for us, why cannot fix this problem? many would like you to believe in you have said this, this is a supply-demand problem. i have cited in my testimony 60 experts from around the world who say supply and demand is an equilibrium. the saudi king just said he would increase oil production by 20 -- 25% to make up for any

boycott of the iranian oil product or interference with the straits of hormuz. softhe chairman of exxon mobile prices should be 60 or $70. they're approaching 110. why is there happening if there is no supply-demand problem? i would say do not believe those who tell you in the face of the experts and the face of the saudi king, in the face of the chairman of exxon mobil that there is a supply-demand problem. what is the problem? there is gambling by wall street on the price of oil. similar on whether people would pay their mortgages.

all of us were forces taxpayers to pay trillions to make up for wall street bet that the subprime market would be successful. now they are betting on the upward direction of the price of oil. again, 60 experts in my testimony have said from nouriel roubini, who predicted the meltdown, stanford, mit, london school of economics. it is excessive speculation which is a fancy word for saying that gamblers wearing will street suits have taken these markets over and are controlling the price increase investment vehicles that are designed to push the price of oil up by gambling, placing a bet, you do not increase oil production. you do not create market

liquidity, it is like saying there's las vegas create national economic well-being? we have aulos biggest on steroids making bets on the upward direction of oil. dodd-frank, with your leadership made a valiant attempt to deal with this. we were to kind in the way we dealt with that in dodd-frank because we delegated out the responsibility to the administrative process which is overwhelmed with under the radar screen wall street, 24 hours a day millions of dollars of lobbying. i have three recommendations for congress. let me say under your leadership, there has -- have been bills that passed in this direction. when you were the speaker,

congressman the laurel -- delauro interest -- introduced a bill to stop speculation. it passed the house for 02-19 that night. when all those -- will goes over $4, this will be a bipartisan issue. it must be explained that this is not a supply problem. the president said last week we can restrain oil production. as the saudi hat -- saudis have said, supply is plentiful. it is the gambling that must be stopped. here are my three things. the investment vehicles, commodity index swaps, much like the naked credit default swaps that led to the meltdown, bets

on whether subprime mortgages were paid off, sending false signnals there is a problem. those false signals are damaging the supply fundamental.s none of that goes to liquidity. it is all casino gambling and nothing productive. the president has twice wisely said can correctly said that it is not supply-demand problem but there are manipulations in the market by big financial traders

where they are conspiring to drive the price of oil up. he is twice asked the justice department to convene an investigation. he did that in april 1, 2011. well as a -- was that 110. within at six months it was 75. nothing happened. now it is back at 110. the president has asked for this task force. i think all of us and i know congressman vin hallora[unintel] to explain to them that manipulation of the oil markets is not only crippling the american consumer but it threatens the recovery and if we go back into recession, there is going to be no safety net. there will be no tarp next time. the american people do not have the stomach for bailing out banks and if we do not have a

safety net that means a depression. i think we have to explain to the attorney general this has got to be his no. 1 investigative process. where is the fbi? where are the interviews of market participants? where are the subpoenas? president obama has focused on this. let's get these guys going. i assure you because the president's threat drove the price down almost $40. if there is a real investigation, just the appearance of it will cause these cockroaches to scatter because the light will be turned on. they do not want to go to jail. if they think they're not going to go to jail, they're going to keep damaging american economy. this may be the hardest thing to do. the american public must understand the commodities futures trading commission

probably few of them know what that is, it is the cop on the beat that can stop this problem. under the leadership of chairman gansler, they have done an amazing job. they are underfunded. for a multi trillion dollar market, the have 700 employees. the president ask for another 400 employees. another $100 million to stop the economy spinning into a depression. that is a very small amount of money. the cftc has to be fully funded. if they are fully funded, we do not need interagency task force. there would have the resources to bring these manipulation cases. they are bringing cases but they do not have the fbi, they do not have the necessary investigative power. we need to find an agency.

thank you. >> thank you very much, professor greenberger. mr. guilford. >> good afternoon, leader pelosi, congresswoman delauro, my friends from connecticut. i agree. let me take you through what i believe to be an important part of the history of what we have been going through because it was in 2004 that we first came and visited congressmen larsen and asked if he would be willing to join with his colleagues in initiative a study of the authorities of the cftc and find out what is going on in commodity markets. it was by then we were getting unsettled and concerned about what was going on in this market and price increases. it was two years later that we got the report back that said we think there is something going

on. we think this is important but we cannot tell you because the law has blinded the agency's who were responsible for enforcing these laws. in 2008, leader pelosi, we came close. in closing the anne arundel poll and moving this further. you remember 2008 very well because it was an experience we won't forget. it was at that time that the secretary of the treasury and at the chairman of the federal reserve came to you and said that if you don't pass a piece of legislation in a couple of days, the american economy is going to go over the edge. it was on the basis of the reason why that was the case, wall street's reckless and irresponsible behavior that led to that point, that we ended up moving the policy a little further down the road with dodd- frank. now, where we are today with respect to connecting the dots between wall street and the gas pump is, for us, very clear.

i would like to illustrate that you in the material i handed out to you. wall street gasoline contract is increased 86 gas a gallon in the last nine days. $25 million a week. the citizens of connecticut pay more for gasoline today than they did in the middle of december. to put that into context, for the charts we have provided for you, now we're at 92 cents by virtue of the fact we had a six-cent increase just last night after i prepared this for delivery here today. at 11 billion gallons a month that americans consume in gasoline, americans today are paying $10 billion -- $10 billion more for gasoline than they were paying in the middle

of december. when the context of the profs greenberger's statements with how much we should be finding an agency of the federal government for the purpose of overseeing these markets, it is costing the american consumer this amount of money just within the scope of 90 days -- 90 days -- it is extraordinary. now, what could possibly have happened in the last 90 days to have caused this problem? did i hurricanes go through the gulf of mexico? was there a massive shutdown of refineries around the world? did israel attack iran? in the absence of anything that anyone can point to, a tax on the american public of $10 billion per month has been enacted as a result of what has

gone on wall street since the middle of december. with due respect to anyone who chooses to blame this on india and china, we didn't just discover india and china the week before christmas. that is what has happened since the middle of december. speculators have overtaken the commodity markets. 10 years ago, actual producers and users of energy and agricultural commodities made up 70% to 80% of the markets, with only 20% to 30% of the markets made up by speculators. now this has flipped and 70% to 80% of the commodity markets are controlled by financial industry speculators, only 20% to 30% of these markets are actual, legitimate hedgers of purchases of energy and agricultural commodities. six years ago, wall street brought up commodity index

funds, resulting in a birds of a $400 billion of strictly speculative investments in commodity markets, and that is contributing to the price of food and energy prices. if i could, i would like to read you some of the promotional material for the commodity index funds. "when trading futures, you never actually buy or sell anything tangible. you are just contract and to do so at a future date. you're taking it buying or selling position as a speculator expecting to profit from rising or falling prices. you have no intention of making or taking delivery of the commodity you are trading." let me repeat that -- this comes on the people who sell these things -- "you have no intention of making or taking delivery of the commodity you are trading. your only goal is to buy low and sell high, or vice versa. before the contract expires, you will need to leave your contractual obligation," which is where we get into the business of ruling contracts month to month, "by offsetting your initial position."

the commodity markets are overseen by the cftc, who passed regulations to restrain strictly financial speculation in these markets. the financial industry has filed suit against the cftc in federal court, saying that these massive price increases -- they don't believe that these rules are necessary or appropriate. to the americans who are paying $10 billion a month more for gasoline, and tell them these rules are not necessary. the financial services industry drove american nearly into another great depression in 2008, from which we are only now beginning to emerge. congress passed the dodd-frank law to regulate the reckless and irresponsible behavior on wall street, and that law and

all of the agencies responsible for implementing law need to be strongly supported. the law needs to be allowed to work for the american people, especially before it is tinkered with any further. in the two charts i provided, which i would like to briefly cover, because there are some excuses going on that the increase in gasoline prices is all due to crude oil. if you look at a price of crude oil between mid-december and the middle of march, it might from $94 a barrel to $106 to $12 a barrel increase. 42 gallons a barrel, up 2 cents a gallon of increase in refined products. $12.24. flip over to the next chart. you will see what happened between the middle of december and march 28. when from to -- went from 2.48 to 3.40 in 90 days. what caused the other 68 cents a gallon to be added to the cost of a gallon of gasoline on

the new york mercantile exchange? it has gone up every single day, steadily every day since the middle of december. not before december, but since the middle of december. personally, with regard to the 28 commodities covered by the commodity futures trading commission's rule, we think that the energy and agricultural commodities are so important to the people of this country that they should be 100% deliverable. that is to say we don't find any reason why this game of wall

street placing bets on movements of these products -- you have no intention of making or taking delivery of a commodity york trading. if you have no intention of taking or making delivery of the commodity you are trading, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the market. what we're talking about here is the food that americans buy and energy we rely on to run our economy. as others have said today, we strongly support at funding for the commodity futures trading commission and reject proposals to cut their funding, which only guts the agency's ability to enforce this law. remember, 28 commodities covered by the position limits rule is energy and food. we also for the support revitalizing the department of

justice task force on speculation started on july 2011, something the department of justice indicates it will begin immediately. i share professor greenberger's sentiments that if you shine light on the need for something, the behavior is likely to change. there is no reason not to begin that today. >> thank you very much for the very compelling testimony and the real clarity of thought and candor. we will hold to a five minute rule here to be able to get everybody in to ask questions of panelists today. >> thank you. i think the fact that many of us are here is an indication that we may not be in session, but

this congress should really be so. the republicans -- they support a free market even when it is rigged. we are here to try to probe this. you make such a compelling case as to how much the speculation is -- i think both of you have said essentially a in terms of these derivatives they may be 80% speculation and 20% response to a real need. let me just ask you, assuming that is true, and there is much evidence there is, how -- if we ran the show, and i wish we did, how would we pass

legislation that would get at the speculation but permit where there was an effort to hedge against an increase and take control of the product? that is the line you draw. how would we do this realistically? i think that if there may be some deaf ears here, we need to shout loudly and persuasively. design a proposal that would get at this. >> [inaudible] -- new deal congress, which they passed to protect farmers from excessive speculation. essentially, the design is not to -- the critical word is "excessive" speculation, not speculation.

in fact, speculation is needed for the farmer, the petroleum producer, to create liquid markets where contracts can be quickly traded. but as with a functioning market is 70% commercial, 30% of speculative. the markets are now 80% speculative, 20% commercial. commercials don't want to be in this market anymore because it is so volatile. they cannot control the price of march and because the contract should stop and their life savings may go in the margin. this is all speculation. the two vehicles that many agree -- i provided all the studies on this -- that the speculators use that are the quickest, dirtiest way to get into this market are the commodity index swap funds and the synthetic exchange traded funds. don't worry about a fancy title. what does that mean? he walked into your bank -- you walk into your bank and say, "i don't want to buy this stuff.

i don't even know what crude- oil looks like it you advise me that the prices going up so here's my money and i want dollar for dollar everything of the upward price." those wall street operations are like bookies. they have to hedge their exposure just like a book the lays off bets when it gets a one-sided. they go into the real futures market, where the farmer and baker are trying to hedge prices, and they buy long oil contracts so on paper they have contracts that are 33 times the size of the real supply of oil. that sends a signal out that cannot be defeated that there is a supply problem and there isn't. you can't cut this snake off at

its head by saying "no more betting on these markets." these are not commercials making these debts. unfortunately, i hate to tell you this, they are pension funds, private equity companies, hedge funds, banks. all they are doing is like walking into a bookie shop saying, "i don't want to on this stuff, i just want to bet." you cannot bet that the price will go up, only that it will go down. >> the losers are the american people. >> they are continually told it is a supply and demand problems. the ceo of exxonmobil says $60, $70 a barrel -- it is $110 now. the saudi king says you are worried about blocking the

streets of hormuz? we will make up a barrel for a barrel everything that will be lost. by the way, in 1973, when opec cut off the west from all of its oil, worse than the blockage of the straits of hormuz, there was a fraction of the volatility we are seeing today, and i can give you charts that show that. in april 2011, it was the arab spring. libya's 2% production of oil is causing this spike, and the saudis again said we will make up the 2%. the president said this is not supply and demand, this is market manipulation, and he was right. what are you stopping here? are you stopping money from going into production? are you stopping money from people creating jobs? unless you think a casino, which comes to us with names like goldman sachs and morgan stanley are job creators -- no, you are stopping betting.

if we are wrong about this, if everything we're telling you is a mistake, what will we have done if we stopped the bedding? we will close a couple of casinos. but we need, any time there has been a thread -- 2008, you guys passed a bill to hundred 88-133 to stop the backing -- 288-133 to stop the betting. is that a supply and demand responsibility? then when people said that we got the price down to $30, it shot back up to 75 by the spring of 2009 but then you guys said that we would pass dodd- frank. when dodd-frank appears to be working because of wall street lobbying and lawsuits, the price of oil is back up again. stop gambling. i can tell you you will bring the price of oil down substantially, and all your constituents who are in

heartbreaking situations, whether it is gasoline, heating oil, any derivative crude oil, will find comfort. and we will keep the recovery going and make the united states what it is for the first time in decades, a leader in world economic growth. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. let me ask my colleague from rhode island for the next question. >> this is of great importance to my state. rhode island has the second- highest and limit rate in the country. when you hear your testimony today, and we have seen so much in the research that so much is driven by what sounds dangerously reminiscent of what

we heard or rwanda in the mortgage group of market and the way it brought our -- heard or were warned about in the mortgage to give the market and the way it brought our families, the way is repeating itself is really infuriating. there is a piece of legislation that has been introduced on the senate side by senator bernie sanders and senator klobuchar and senator franken that seems to me the required the cftc within 14 days to set about with identifying the magnitude of the speculation at also to set about addressing it immediately. i'm wondering whether that approach makes sense and whether the ratio you are speaking about the upside down can be corrected, and what are the obstacles to that happening is that legislation were enacted by the congress of the united states?

>> let me say that that legislation is legislation that you people passed on june 26, 2008, when oil went to it will record price, which was forcing the cftc to declare an emergency in the market and hoping that they would limit speculation both by flat limits on speculation and by increasing margins speculators have to pay. i think that is a good idea. but if you guys want to kill the beast, if you want to help constituents, don't delgate this out to an opaque administrative process where wall streeters are meeting -- by the way, the cftc will meet with anybody, but the consumers don't have the money to go down there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they don't have the money to fight these things in court where the wall streeters have hired the fanciest law

firms, the biggest appellate firms, and i can tell you, and gene guilford can tell you, we cannot match that many dollar for dollar. the cftc is the very agency that you guys know don't have the funding for this. i would do it yourself. you can pass legislation banning commodity index swaps and exchange traded funds, and you will remove $500 trillion from the market. they will come to you, the banks will come to you and say, "oh, you are going to limit production, you will limit liquidity." the market is overrun with liquidity. 80% of it is speculation. what you will be doing is

stopping gambling, pure and simple. money only creating homes in the hamptons and yachts in the hamptons. your constituents should know that every time they break their part by buying $4 and maybe soon five other gasoline, that money isn't going into production, it is going into home building in the hamptons and yacht-building in the hamptons. it is not a constructive economic thing. frankly, i will tell you something -- that bill gets introduced. what will it say to the speculators? hey, i will have to get out of this market, i will get out before there is a panic. i will undermine it now. that is what happened in 2008. senator reid got 51 votes in the senate where many democrats were out campaigning for president and a lot of republicans supported him.

spectators said to themselves, "all, my god, these guys are serious." but then nothing happened. >> mr. guilford, let me ask you to comment, if you would. >> i think that the senator's bill is a great start. remember that the commodity futures trading commission's position limits rule was initially designed to do exactly what we're talking about today did unfortunately, at least initially, its limits were set so extraordinarily high as to be not terribly effective. it is going to take time for them to be able to collect the data necessary to make sure they are setting limits in the right place, in the right way, and to make sure it is the most effective. that is the administrative process that professor greenberger talks about will take so long. and coupled with that, understand that the financial

services industry has made it clear that it will litigate every single one of these rules that comes out of every single one of these agencies for as long as it takes, because they no they are playing for time, eager for a time in the change of the presidency or a change in the makeup of the congress. their intentions are clear -- gut the agency's budget so that the laws cannot be enforced, litigate the rulemaking process is to draw them out as far as possible. banning things is a great way to start. you have a great opportunity with a letter of your colleagues have signed to the agriculture committee to hold hearings immediately. there isn't a reason that should not be the centerpiece of that conversation. >> ms. edwards? >> thank you very much, thank you to our witnesses today. i appreciate that you have put into context what consumers are feeling. most, barring a class or two in and a graduate school, have no idea about market economics,

the commodities market, how that impacts things like the food we buy and the gas we put in our cars, so i appreciate that. it was helpful to hear just a reminder about supply and demand and the relationship between supply and demand and what should be the price. as you stated, prof. greenberger, supplies are plentiful, demand is down, and prices really should reflect that, and they simply don't. i fill my tank a week and half ago, and it was $4.04 a gallon. i felt that my tank after church on sunday, this past sunday, it was $4.10 a gallon.

this was just a week's time. i hear the $10 billion, and people don't understand those numbers. they are so incredible for us to have not been privileged to win the lottery. in the $4.10 i spent for a gallon of gas on sunday, how much should i pay? >> that's a great question. if you follow the logic of much of the conversation you have heard here today, and there will be widely differing opinions about the degree to its speculation in and of itself contributing to this problem, you have a range of opinions from the chief executive officer of exxonmobil, who contended that between $65.70 $5 is the fair price and everything over that is

speculative -- that between 60 $5.70 $5 is the fair price of everything over that is speculative. even if you to cut it down the middle and split the difference between the two, instead of spending $4, you should get in spending something closer to $3 for your gallon of gasoline. $10 billion is a big number. let me put it in the context that i think some may be more comfortable with. congressman larson is familiar with the people who work with me at my school. i have a lady who is a single mother raising two children by herself. she has to come back and forth to work every day. in december, she was paying about $45 a week for gas. now she is paying $70. you all worked very hard after the first of the year in what looked like an extraordinarily difficult task to give every working american apparel tax- cut -- a payroll tax cut. the lady who works for me raising those two children, all the payroll tax cut she received goes into paying only to get her back and forth to work. whatever good intentions you may have had in helping the people

like the people i work with, it has gone all entirely to the higher price of gasoline. >> i really appreciate that, because that really does say exactly what we are talking about. the single mother paying for what was $45 for a tank of gas now paying $70 as effectively lost all of the tax increase that we provided for her at the beginning of the year. $4.10 a gallon -- i've got to get that correct that i paid on sunday -- should have been $3.10 a gallon. i really thank you very much for being able to help us understand the details, but to put it into a real context in terms of what i.t. is costing the american people. thank you, and i yield. >> thank you. mr. scott. >> thank you very much, ms.

delauro, thank you leader pelosi and others for convening this meeting. gas prices are complicated and it is could you see good information. both of you have spoken about the legitimate futures market and speculation. that is one of the problems we had with the credit default swaps, where you had insuring against a loss in mortgages might be legitimate, but when you allow many people to bet on the same package of mortgages, that's just raw speculation. we have centuries-old principles of insurance. basically, what you are buying insurance, and two final principles -- if you sell insurance, you have to have assets to back up your promise. the second is you can only buy insurance where you have insurable interest. i can't buy fire insurance on your house. what they were doing was letting dozens of people buy

fire insurance on your house, so when you have a loss on your house, all of a sudden you all want all of these losses. how much of the speculation problem could be cured if we just went back to fundamental principles of insurance and required before you start selling insurance that you could only sell it to people with an insurable interest? >> the gambling aspect of the subprime built on and what we're seeing today are similar, the investment vehicles that are being used are different. what you are talking about, congressman scott, is something that dodd-frank did a really good job on -- not a complete job, but a good job -- because you had people like john paulson who placed bets on tranches of subprime that he did not know it would fail.

he bet people would be kicked out of their houses without having let any of the money to those people. by the way, the european union -- we did not in dodd-frank just say stop the gambling, we said to make it transparent so that everybody could see it, that would be therapeutic. but the european union, in the european sovereign debt crisis, angela merkel, mr. sarkozy got the european commission to say that people were betting that southern european countries would fail without having lent them any money. they had a synthetic bet they would fail. the european commission said stop. >> but if they had lent the money, there would be legitimate -- >> they would not let the money -- >> in trouble interest would have hedged -- >> that is exactly right, and

god knows how this happened. insurance commissioners were meeting in florida to say that credit default swaps are insurance and they are injuring somebody else's risk. since 18 06, when parliament said you cannot do that because people are insuring cargoes on british ships and calling the french navy to bomb the ships and collect insurance, they put a stop to that. suddenly, within dodd-frank, god knows how it happened, state insurance law was preempted. >> should we go back to that, where we insist upon insurable interest? >> yes, we should, but what i would do is consider what the european union did on that front as well, and what i telling you is that the gambling on whether greece will fall, without lending money to greece, is not a productive investment. it is a destructive investment. european commission said no,

we're not going to do that anymore. i would say stop this but your approach would be good. the final point, we have a different problem in this market. this is pure and simple going into a bookie shop and saying i want to be. >> are we making enough use out of this research, whether or not we ought to increase its, use it more, not just on catastrophic national security problems but more generally for strike -- price stability. >> i think to go back to your question if i could briefly, what you are trying to get to if i understand your question correctly, if those who can take delivery of the materials that

are being transacted in these markets ought to be the ones who are the participants in these markets. going back to the material i read to you from one of the promotional items from wall street, what they are promoting are people who will never take delivery, nor will they deliver anything into these markets. they're merely placing bets on the daily movement of these prices of these commodities. for those of us in heating oil country, some of you are here on this panel, it means that instead of a local heating oil retailer of the type we represent who goes into the marketplace and buys contracts, so that retailers can turn around to end -- and offer consumers a fixed price or a cap price plan for the winter, he is buying his contract or she is buying her contract on the market and is taking advantage of the options available to stabilize his or her prize. as these are being inflated

constantly and churned, it is costing more money to be able to engage in these transactions which means it is costing consumers more. what professor greenbriurger is talking about is to puncture the bobble and bring these prices down. with respect to the strategic petroleum reserve, i guess i can be counted among those, because it was a year ago but i was in the rep's office and we were working on the statement in anticipation of action in libya, about the president's announcement for the potential release of the strategic petroleum reserve at that time. and indeed, it is strategic for that purpose. you announce your intention. much vice -- much like professor greenberger was talking about when he said they could have a huge effect on the marketplace if the justice department announced it was going to undertake a massive and serious

investigation of what is going on in these markets. the threat of that alone is huge. add to that the threat, and that is what we were talking about a year ago, a year ago was the threat that the united states was willing to do whatever necessary in conjunction with our eyes to make sure that an adequate and -- with our allies to make sure that an adequate amount of oil was available in the market. including strategic movement. and understanding that we do not have a problem with a shortage of crude oil today. cushing, okla. is awash in crude oil. there is no problem with the physical supply of the product, none whatsoever. >> i thank the leadership for

having this hearing. i wonder how long this can last and how high prices can go. normally, in the commodities markets you have a boom and bust cycle. it has occurred with gold, with basically -- i mean, orange juice, everything. it seems that there must be some people, the john paul since of the world -- john paulsons of the world, if you would, ready to buy swaps, ready to gain the volatility of the market. or is there a uniqueness to this market? i would like to hear from both of you. >> this is a bubble and the bubble will burst. the last big bubble one from 147

to 30 in six months, but nobody saw that coming. goldman was predicting it at 200 when it was at 30. we do not know when the bubble will burst. in the meantime, as we said, people are spending money they probably do not even half, or not buying medicine they need, or not paying rent, to pay for gas. that can trigger a recession. if we do not have tarp and the fed window, which i do not think politically we can have the next time, we are told by economists that could be a depression. when the bubble bursts, we may already be flat on our back. the fact that gasoline is down to $1.50, let's say, may mean nothing if we have unemployment up to 15% or 17%. >> i agree clearly that congress needs to take action. although, just between us and

the cameras, that is not going to happen as long as the majority in the house of representatives are owned by the extractive industries. i want to ask you a question. we have a figure here that says that for every penny more we pay at the pump, the profits for the five largest oil companies go up by $200 million. is there any kind of collusion going on? we got a figure from the head of exxonmobil, but they are profiting, are they not, from this speculation? it is all good for them. and when the price per barrel drops, the prices at the pumps are not going to drop proportionately. they will keep a larger and larger share. that is what has happened every time. their profits go up as prices go down. is that not true? >> two things, first, to

professor greenberger's point that he was getting into it, to go, because i think 2008 was very instructive. in march of 2008 it was $70. by july it was $147. by november, $30. by next march it was at $70. that is an extraordinary role pressure to put an economy through. no one with a straight face could look at you and tell you that as india, that as china, we have some extraordinary weather event. no, we did not. there was some interference in the marketplace that was posing such an extraordinary circumstance that it needed to go to $147. no, i did not happen either. it could only be -- >> it could only be market manipulation. >> what other consequence? the supply and demand fundamentals did not exist. it is almost as though someone

were to say to you, everyone in china and india decided to drive their car in july and that drove it up. and they parked their cars by the fall, and that is why it went down. it is truly absurd. with respect your question about profits, first, every day that you hear a report on the news about what happens on the commodity markets, every single day, by that evening for publication the next morning, the commodity market movements get translated into what happens on the physical market, a wholesale prices that are people pay -- the wholesale prices that our people pay. they follow almost in lockstep. there's no question that what goes on on wall street has a direct causal effect on ultimately, what is made, by virtue of what is charged to the general products -- general public and the price of a product that they pay. there is a direct causal

relationship between the commodity markets and the prices charged in the physical market. we watch them every day. and the absurdity of some of this should not be lost on anyone. i will pick on heating oil again we just came through a heating oil season where we have virtually no winter. it was extraordinary. the measurement of cold that -- of coal that we used was down by 25%. the volumes sold by hitting retailers were down by one- third. extraordinary weather event. then why, under those circumstances, would the commodity cost of heating oil to $83.22? you cannot give away heating oil -- would be $3.22? you cannot give awaking oil. we're talking about the price of crude and the price of a barrel of heating oil.

the price of a barrel of crude is $104. at the price of a barrel of heating oil is $135. why would there be such a huge premium for a product no one is using because it is 70 degrees? it defies logic for anyone to say is that -- it is supply and demand. and a representative markey, to your opening statements for the first time since truman was president, the united states has become a supplier of petroleum products. most people think we are a net importer of everything. our crude imports are under 50% and we make so much of the refined products that we use that we have enough to export to foreign markets. and heating oil commodity cost

is $3.22 in a season with no winter. and the price of a gallon of gasoline on the nymex has gone up 92 cents between the middle of december and the end of march at a time when americans last year reduce their consumption of gasoline 2.5% and have reduced it by an amount more than any time since world war ii over the last three years in the economic contraction. if there is anything that underscores what professor greenberger has said today about the actions you should take in these markets, is the fundamentals of supply and demand do not seem to count. americans have sacrificed. they have sacrificed. and they are not getting the benefit of it. >> compelling in sight. thank you. >> extraordinary. i now recognize the vice chair of our democratic caucus.

>> thank you, madam leader. thank you to my colleagues for being here. by the way, in california, we are paying well more than $4 per gallon of gas. we are paying up to $4.50 and more for regular gasoline in los angeles. denman, we have seen this movie before. and it was not very good the first time. we sought with the so-called enron energy crisis -- we saw it with the so-called enron energy crisis with the early to mid 2020. we sought with the housing bubble in the late 2000's. i think we hear you loud and clear. but there are still folks out there saying it is not speculation. it is not what you are saying. let me give you one other chance. is there another explanation for the steep increase in petroleum prices today? is there anyone out there in the world who has some credibility in saying that -- saying it is something other than speculators?

>> it is in many people's financial interest to propagate, which is a logical thing, but people who do not know the markets, you would think with the prices going up like this, it must be supply and demand. that is what we all thought and economics 101. we did not know that these markets would become gambling casinos. that is what has happened now. there may be some worry about the straits of hormuz. there may be some transportation problems that are causing this. but i will tell you, it did not go from $147 to $30 accidentally. the house ever presented as passed a bill to stop gambling. senator reid -- by the way, also you keep saying we should have hearings. in june of 2008 the leadership brought a bill to the floor that was introduced that day that passed that night. senator reid did not wait in 2008 to go through hearings.

he introduced in his own name a bill that got 51 votes to stop gambling. he could not vote cloture. but if he kept fighting -- if the if prices had stayed up, he might have voted cloture. people were saying the republicans -- we will never get their support. i will tell you, when gasoline goes up, we have gotten their support before. >> and let us work on that because i think is absolutely true that it is almost impossible these days in the house of representatives to get a hearing to have you officially testified, katulis -- to essentially convey what you have announced today, that it is due to speculation. but let me make sure. i do not want to walk away from this hearing and have someone say to me that there are credible folks out there saying it is in the supply and demand. is there anyone out there that you know that is saying we have a supply problem, that we do not have enough production?

and i do not want to go into the dynamics of this and marketing 101. i just want a name. is there anyone i can turn to to find out where this person is coming from to say there is a supply problem? >> in all honesty, we have to say there is a guy who is a professor at one texas university. i note a professor from the london school of economics. but if you wait, it is like the 60 to two or three. >> is there anyone saying that it is a demand problem, that we have increased our consumption? and you were saying we have seen the demand drop. >> absolutely, and to that point, there was a great story in the news that when i get home i will forward to you and other members of the committee. i forget what news service it was, but the department of energy produces these statistics. and the headline was, "americans reduce gasoline consumption. wall street does not believe

it." [laughter] at some point you could have a debate with some about whether the statistics are right or wrong, but the fact of the matter is -- and i think this is borne out by whether it is a mastercard figures on credit- card purchases or whether it is even the american petroleum statistics on gasoline. very clearly over the last few years, americans have decreased their consumption of gasoline. is not a demand problem. there may be some areas of a country where there was this location of a product from time to time, and a question. -- and dislocation of the product from time to time, no question. >> i was interested to see your background. if you are not coming from a left-wing think tank. if i understand it, you served under reagan for a time, did you not? >> yes, sir. and i appreciate you letting me in the room today. [laughter] >> we thank you for your testimony. who is pocketing this $10 billion a month that americans

are having to pay for overpriced gasoline? where is it going? >> in the quarterly report you are going to learn that information. there is no question that the profitability of those who refined gasoline and to market it throughout the country are going to be benefiting from this. there is no question about that. everyone knows that. also, those who are making these investments in these gasoline contracts are profiting handsomely. if you pay very close attention to what goes on between wall street and the physical markets, and i think this is an incredibly important thing for the commodity futures trading commission to be paying attention to, because it is not just about the commodities market, but also the relationship between commodities and the physical market and how one drives the other. you'll find people are paying a hefty bill for what is going on. >> thank you. >> i have to add that it is also wall street. this is how they make their money. there are two things getting at

them indirectly. one is the so-called local role. which means they cannot -- volcker role. which means they cannot trade these contracts they have to have an intermediary. and the fed is telling these banks, get out of commodities. you are not buying oil. you are not selling oil finally, with regard to the physical markets -- you are not selling oil. finally, with regard to the physical markets, the 2000 biggest one was morgan stanley. if you can drive prices up in the physical market, he will not want to sell those physical because it is an appreciating asset. why let the american consumer have a? but keep it until the bubble peaks. >> the largest supplier of heating oil is morgan stanley. it is not an oil company. even though you talk about big oil, it is actually big wall

street that is controlling most of our heating oil. >> revelation after revelation. with that, let me ask for questioning from my colleague from massachusetts, mr. markey. >> thank you. climate change. in england's temperatures the winter or four degrees warmer than they were in 1970. we now have philadelphia's whether from 1970. people for opening day for the red sox are now planning which short sleeve shirt they're going to wear rather than which combination of sweaters and final shirts they are going to wear. that is a big change from years past. it reflects the downward pressure on home heating oil. but let's be honest, the price of home heating oil somehow or other was unaffected by the market. and people in new england and all across the country just got

tipped upside down by morgan stanley. let's go to what happened in this market since 2002. if we had dennis kellaher from better markets testified two weeks ago. he told us that in 2002, 11% of this oil market was controlled by speculators, and 89% controlled by airlines. trucking firms. shippers. who had to basically placed bets to protect themselves. now in 12 -- 2012, 63% are speculators and only 37% our truckers and shippers and airlines. putting them at the mercy of morgan stanley in terms of ensuring that this oil product is sold and that the law of supply and demand is, in fact, abided by. is this part of the issue here?

but the people owning these oil products have no stake in ensuring -- that the people owning these oil products have no stake in ensuring that the prices go up? they just hold it. all it is for them is cash. is that what hold new england hostage to this winter, and people across the country? >> gazprom i agree with that. -- yes, i agree with that. just parenthetically, since i'm a red sox fan, where word about who is going to be pitching, not the clothes we are wearing. [laughter] but back to morgan stanley. >> [unintelligible] >> i did not mean to start a major league baseball war. i'm sorry. to the point of anyone's rational concept of supply and demand, when you have a one- third decrease in the demand for your product and supply is adequate for the market, based

on the imputed demand, it defies imagination than anyone who ever took an economics 101 class would look at that circumstance and say the press should do anything other than go down. you do not have to be dick tracy to figure out why wall street is taking the cftc and all of the dodd-franc rose to court. >> right. >> they want to stop putting a card on the beat. they want to make sure these regulations are not there so they can, the market and create artificial volatility in the market. that is the easy connection. morgan stanley control the market and they then go to court to make sure that the wall street regulations that dodd- frank put on the books are not implemented. and then they say to congress, do not put the $100 million worth of extra cops on the beat to scare the living daylights out of the scam artists.

it is pretty simple. you can summarize this nefarious activity in this simple form. let me go to a couple pieces of information that came out today. one, according to the energy information agency, the united states crude oil inventories increased 16 million barrels over the last two weeks. the inventory of oil in the u.s. one of 16 million barrels in the last two weeks. but the price of a gallon of gasoline went up 7 cents a gallon. >> that is right. >> there seems to be a disconnect in the market. and this morning, the department of energy announced that u.s. crude oil production last week rose to 228,000 barrels per day to 6 million barrels per day altogether. it is high as oil production since 1998. -- of the high as oil production since 1998.

yeah higher production, more oil reserves, and the price went up 7 cents per gallon in the last two weeks. why would that happen unless morgan stanley and the other ticket scam artists are not out there trying to manipulate the market to keep prices high to reap short-term profits at the expense of our economy and at the expense of ordinary consumers? do you agree with that summary? >> yes, i do. >> professor? >> absolutely, yes. >> professor, let me go through this litany that you want us to go through. one, you want the $100 million for the cftc. and you want to make sure that the republicans cannot cut $30 million from the cftc budget so that the cops are on the beat. is that right? >> that is right. i would add a footnote, because you are also proposing a transaction tax.

the fed does not come to you every year and ask for money. they get money from the banks. the cftc should have, frankly cannot -- frankly, $100 million is the limit. there is a $100 million defense between what they're getting and what president obama wants to give them. >> they are getting $205 million and they want $308 million. >> in my opinion, they should get $408 million. they need more cops on the beat. >> mr. guilford is talking about $10 billion because there are no cops on the beat. >> do you want the justice department to begin the investigation and announced that you think it will have -- and announced that you think will have an immediate impact on the market. on the question of banning some -- certain vehicles, name them. >> commodity index swaps, and

synthetic exchange traded funds. >> how much money you think that will take out of the market? >> probably at least half a trillion dollars. >> that is the gambling money in the system. >> yes. >> you take that out and you will see a drop in home heating oil prices. >> any of those three things, you will see a drop. the three of them together, you will cut the head of the snake off for ever. >> and you agree with that? >> yes. >> it will have that impact almost immediately? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i want to thank our witnesses. this has been extraordinarily informative. it is always good to hear you again, a professor. >> thank you. >> i have the benefit of the wisdom and knowledge of gene guilford, but i especially want to thank you. there is a tendency in hearings like this not to bring it down to how it really impacts a mother of two. and especially mr. guilford, thank you for that scenario. it is those compelling stories

that bring home the issue to every day americans in terms of both where the problem is, and the impact that this has, and then how we go about doing it in the case of home heating oil. the prices at a record. this is what is all -- it is all about at the end of the day. we cannot thank you enough for your testimony, and also for backing up what we think is an important agenda to accomplish in the u.s. congress. >> thank you. [no audio] with quick answers, if i can, because we're coming to the 3:30 p.m. mar. professor greenberger, you started to allude to this, every president since ronald reagan has proposed offsetting the safety of -- cftc operation for the collection of the fees. we have legislation out there

at the moment to authorize that. i do. other colleagues have. the question for you, and a quick answer from both of you. what a small user fee impose any real burden on the market -- what a small user fee impose any record on the market participants? >> the cftc's market has increased from 40 trillion dollars notion value market to 300 trillion dollars notion of your market. if you took a little bit of that, it would not be noticed. but wall street will not give an inch on that. even if it is cynical, they do not want to give the american consumer a nickel. -- even if it is a nickel, they do not want to give the american consumer and nickel. >> it is almost infinitesimal, it is so small. >> but that would alleviate the problem in terms of the funding.

that would be beyond the operation that we deal with and so forth. it would alleviate the funding problem for the cftc to do their job. professor greenberger, again quickly, to current market conditions warrant the use of cftc's current emergency authority to set margin and position limits to curb excess of speculation in the oil market? >> yes, but remember, the cftc, which is not heroic in its efforts, is being starved to death. that is why the -- which is heroic in its efforts, is being starved to death. that is why the president is so smart. get the fbi married with the brains of a starved agency. that would be my answer. >> and that is the authority that they have had for 30 years. >> but they are understaffed, as you know. i would like to get more direct and hit it harder. >> relief to consumers, once the definition of a swap is

finalized, what concerns do you both have with regard to the lawsuits filed to prevent their role? >> i'm very word the lawsuit is going to kill whatever dodd- frank did. dodd-frank set the shipwright. the hearing, those who attended it -- i did not, but i hear from people who i respect that did -- did not go well. and it will go in front of a judge that probably will be objective. the d.c. circuit has already banned the first dodd-frank objective put in front of it -- has already been to the first dodd-frank objective put in front of it i want to thank my colleagues efforts and -- has already bent the first dodd- frank objective put in front of it. >> i want to thank my colleagues for revealing information on technical issues. i wish we could take your all on the road and let the american people hear from you about what is going on.

i think it would be critical to do that. i thank you for the clarity, the candor, and for your commitment to the american public and to the american consumer at an unbelievably disastrous time economically in their lives. there are relieving -- they are really on my support. many, many thanks for your contribution today. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank you for bringing us together and bring forth these excellent witnesses to shed light on an issue of great significance to all of the american people. all of our members, as i said earlier, when we are out of session and so many members are present for a hearing, it speaks to the urgency of the matter and the expectation of excellence that we have from all of you,

which was certainly realized. when i began my remarks, i talked about the agony and ecstasy, the agony been the consumer at the pump, and the ecstasy being the the oil companies. it is clearly recognizing they have made $137 billion in profits last year, $261,000 a minute. it is clear that some of that ecstasy is shared by speculators, excessive speculators on wall street. this is a very big deal. i really -- it may be about the nicole, but i -- the nickel, but i think is more about the supervision that this will bring that they do not want. i will bring the issue before the full house of representatives in a bipartisan way. the answers to your supplying

to us, the documentation of the challenge that we have will be before the full house. having said that, this is a matter of public record. thank you for bringing this issue to the congress. and the range of opinions between dr. greenberger and his academic world and dr. guilford serving the administration in more than one capacity. the validity that you bring to this is wide ranging. we are most grateful. i thank my colleagues and the distinguished ranking member on the natural resources committee. he has spoken so highly of what your testimony would be. again, thank you.

and thank you, congressman doyle for your leadership. thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> hour news makers and davitt with -- our newsmaker interview. and what is ahead for fannie mae

and freddie mac at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. >> tonight, on "q&a". the u.s. senate youth program. >> one of the greatest experiences is when i got the opportunity to meet my senators. just being able to meet them and talk to them. >> some of the leaders like leon panetta, he talked about how -- important is to be financially sound. if we're not, devoting money to national defense -- we will not have any money to devote to it. >> high school students who participated in a weeklong tour program showed their observations and experiences as the interacted with members of congress, the supreme court, and the president. >> there is a lot of partisanship going on and i am the one who is written across the aisle. everyone we met here who said that, it makes me wonder if

everyone is saying that but it is not happening. there is a discrepancy between what they're saying and what they're doing and i did not think about that before came here. >> on "q&a". >> a discussion on race and the election hosted by the harvard kennedy school of government. guests, ron christie and april ryan talking about the african- american vote, and that responses to the trayvon martin shooting. tonight on c-span. studentcam 's video asked to create a video on what part of that constitution is important to

them and why. why did you twos the seventh amendment? >> i realized trials by jury do not have to be just in court cases. they can be anywhere else. you need someone that knows what happened and it could be a discussion, any type of thing like that. >> what was the seventh amendment? >> it was trial by jury in civil cases. >> what does it mean to use to have a trial by juries? >> whenever there is a trial, we have a fair amount of people which are sitting there listening to that case and i have to have their own opinion about the issue. and i think that is important. you should have someone who can help you out and give their

opinion. sometimes people do not want to listen to one opinion. >> where did the idea of trial by jury originated -- originate? >> it originated in great britain. it changed a bit by the numbers. 12 people have to be in a jury, it used to be more. >> what are some of the benefits of having a trial by battle -- a jury? >> you have people who can help you. they give their own opinion. they listen to the case. they can put their feelings into it. >> you talked to several different lawyers in your interview. what did they say they look for when they are selecting jury members? >> they said the main thing was it had to be someone who could be honest. they had to be good listeners. they have to be unbiased, have an unbiased idea of what was going on in the cases and

someone that can have a good opinion. >> what did you learn in the process of making your video? >> i learned during members are good for different things. not just court. even school. if there is a discussion going on and something happened, someone can stand up and say what they saw and what they believe is right. >> would you want people who watch or video to take away? >> that want them to realize if anything is going on around them, you should pay attention because you never know what you thought could -- this could be used for. >> congratulation again. here is a brief portion from the documentary. >> juries are not just helpful in cases. how many times have we not been stopped for a crime?

in which we tried to explain what happens. >> they can watch. and the loss of income. another person ran a red light. in civil cases, people are asking for a remedy of money. that is how you fix the problem and civil cases. >> in -- when the controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. according to the rules of the common law. >> there are adaptations of these common law concepts and harmonizing with the sixth

amendment clause that local juries be used in criminal trials. >> you can watch this documentary as well as the documentary's at studentcam.org. continued the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> this year's competition asked students, what part of the constitution was important to them and why? today's third prize winner selected the seventh amendment. >> we do not always realize the importance of other people's words. in everyday life, we come to a point where we need our parents help. which is why the seventh amendment is important to me. >> we have the right to a jury

of our peers. >> it should be a fair jury of your peers. it should be 12 individuals who are a cross section of your community that should come in and listen to evidence and make a decision. i do not think it should be one or three individuals. >> i like trails by a jury because it allows the people to be a part of the decision making. important matters in the u.s. quex a trial by jury is a great concept. it allows people to have their cases heard by individuals like themselves to make a decision versus not having a case heard or decided by a government official who might not give a fair trial. >> this is an opportunity for individuals [inaudible]

rabbi gerrie is the best way to resolve a problem. -- trial by jury is the best way to resolve the problem. >> how many times have we not been stopped for a crime or we did a fair statement from someone else? >> they can watch. and the loss of income. someone suffers because another person foolishly when all bred by progress in civil cases, people are generally asking for a remedy of money. that is how you fix the problem. in civil cases. >> the constitution states where the controversy shall exceed $20

the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. >> safeguards in the seventh amendment or adaptations of these common law concepts harmonized with the sixth amendment clause that local juries be used in criminal trials. from its inception, the inclusion of the bill of rights today, the jury in negligence cases is meant to be representative of the judgment of average mom -- members of the community, not of elected representatives. quex in a civil case which is what i do, the burden of proof said -- is a preponderant of the evidence. the evidence has to be approved by the person bringing the case. you think of it as if you're looking at the scale of justice.

it is enough evidence to tip the scales just a little bit. >> jury trials allow for the prosecutor to be evaluated. >> people think if there were affected by those decisions and they are, when cases are disposed of by a trial by jury. what they want people on that jury to be just like them? probably. people should realize and appreciate that. and take more of an active role in their part in government. >> when you are picking a jury, you are talking to potential jurors, you would hope they would tell you the truth. you would hope there would be forthcoming to your questions and because a lot of that, the questions we ask our determine whether or not there will be

impartial. >> you are going to decide guilt or no guilt, of damages. >> juries are over 18 and have not been convicted. these individuals are responsible for finding someone innocent or guilty. the jury must be made up of people who can make an unbiased decision. >> in some counties, if you are a schoolteacher, you are exempt from jury duty. which is to make it reasonable. we do not want our children missing school. we do not want our teachers out of school. served on jury duty and i missed three days of school. >> the seventh amendment started in british government.

jury trials for one of the amendments that came with it. >> this came from great britain and uighur back to the magna carter and, the idea of limited government that came to be. you have the right to have a trial. you have the right to have your voice heard from your side. and not just a judge or a king would be decided -- would decide. a jury. your peers would decide your guilt or innocence. >> the jury started in england in the 15th century. the notion of how the jury has evolved. 12 for the jury is a relatively recent phenomenon. there is no fixed number. originally, [inaudible] were witnesses to the crime or

would solve the crime. the notion that -- [inaudible] is relatively recent. >> go to studentcam.org to watch more. guest: >> president obama out posted the easter prayer breakfast and spoke to guests for about 15 minutes. >> please sit down. thank you all very much. it is an honor to have you in the white house and i am just as they say the warm-up act. the president will be here in a moment and i will be off to see the -- some of our visiting friends from iraq.

i wanted to say good morning to you all and welcome you to the annual easter prayer breakfast. most of you know, each of us are people of faith. i happen to be a christian, a catholic. around easter i am reminded of the words of an episcopal bishop who said, "the joyful news that he is risen does not change the contemporary world. still, before his work, discipline, and sacrifice." he went on to say, the fact of easter, the fact gives us the spiritual power to do the work, accept the discipline, and make the sacrifice. the fact of easter gives us the spiritual power. as a friend of mine said we receive that spiritual power,

participate in the transformation of the world, or our small part of it. and do something -- into something wonderful. i am -- find myself short with a sense of renewed hope. the sense of possibilities. i do not know, it is the way we are raised but having gone through 12 years of the nuns, i did, and i am here. they are the best thing that ever happened to me, bishop. it seems like it is the new time. the time of renewal. kind of a sense of empowerment. it goes beyond the spiritual peace. it is a different time. most of us, in my face, we make clinton -- lenten resolutions.

i make an easter resolution about what i think can be done. i am often characterized as the white house optimist. i like that, bishop because it makes the same younger than i am. i have been here longer than all of them. i have been for eight presidents. most of all, i think easter is about forgiveness, in my view. i am not a theologian, but when jesus said, forgive them, for they know not what they do, that was the generic statement as well as a statement about specifically what was happening on that day for jesus. without forgiveness, there is very little hope. william butler yates ready about his ireland in 1916 after the first rising, said "all's

changed, changed utterly, the terrible beauty has been born." in the last two decades in the world, all has changed. it is has changed utterly. this is a unique moment in our history. the unique moment in the history of our country, the profound changes we're seeing everywhere from the end of a bipolar world to the arab spring which we pray will be spring and not turn into winter. millions seeking identity and autonomy. we see it in the stunning technological changes that allow us to communicate worldwide in an instant. we saw what has been done in every uprising in the recent past.

it is instant. sometimes, it can be viewed as terrible. i think only will progress only comes with real change and change is always real. for progress to be sustained, we require more understanding, more tolerance, and more even sacrifice. that is what the risen christ exemplifies and that is the obligation, the consequence of his rising. it falls to all of us. from president to preacher, from millionaire to popper, because i and the expression my mom used all the time and you use all the time, we are all god's children. we are all god's children. a man who occupied this white house said it in a slightly different way.

he said with a good conscience -- conscience, our only sure reward, let us leave this land we love, asking his blessing and his help. the most crucial part was knowing and here on earth, god's work must truly be our own. that is what each one of you exemplifies. that is why we're so happy and proud to have you here. let me end by saying cardinal, all of you who are here, i say to you all, happy easter. keep the faith. thank you. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] i>> good morning, everybody.

please have a seat. welcome to the white house. it is a pleasure to be with all of you this morning. in less than a week, this house will be overrun by thousands of kids at the easter egg roam. i i want to get together -- i want to get together with you for some reflection, the calm before the storm. it is wonderful to see some any good friends here today, to all the faith leaders from all across the country, from churches and congregations, large and small, from different denominations and backgrounds.

thank you for coming to our third annual easter prayer breakfast and i am grateful you are here. i am even more grateful for the work you do every day of the year. the compassion and kindness that so many of you have -- expressed through your various ministries. some of you have joined with our office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships, i have seen first hand some of the outstanding work you are doing in their respective communities and it is an incredible impression -- expression of your faith. i know that all of us who have the opportunity to work with you draw inspiration from the work you do. , to express appreciation for your prayers. it to my travel around the country, somebody is going around saying, we're praying for you. we have a prayer circle going. do not worry cannot keep the faith.

we're praying. michelle gets the same stuff, and that means a lot to us. especially means a lot to us when we hear from folks who will now probably did not vote for me. and yet, expressing extraordinary sincerity about their prayers. it is a reminder not only of what binds us together as a nation, but also what binds us together as children of god. now, i have to be careful, i am not going to stand appear and give a sermon. it is always a bad idea to give a sermon in front of professionals. [laughter] but in a few short days, all of us will experience the wonder of easter morning. and we will know the words -- in the words of the apostle paul, "christ jesus...and him

crucified." it is an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace period and for me and i am sure for some of you, it is a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day and all that christ endured, not just as a son of god but as a human being. for clegg's, dejesus new doubt -- like us, jesus knew doubt. he said, my soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. he felt his knees sank, if it is possible, made this cup be taken from me. in the end, he confronted his fear with words, if it is not possible for this cup to be

taken unless i drink, mayor will your will beky done. it is because jesus conquered his own anguish, conquered his fear, that we're able to celebrate the resurrection. it is only because he entered unimaginable pain that wracked his body and for the sins of the world that he bird and -- that byrd and his soul that we're able to proclaim, he is risen. so the struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes easter all the more meaningful to us. it helps us to provide an internal perspective to whatever temporal challenges we face. it puts in perspective our small problems relative to the big problems he was dealing with. yanda gives us courage and it gives us hope.

we all have experience is that shake your faith. we -- there are times when we have questions for god's plan relative to us [laughter] but that is precisely when we should remember christ's own doubts and eventually his own triumph. jesus told us as much in the book of john when he said, in this world you will have trouble. i heard an amen. let me repeat. in this world, you will have trouble. but take heart. i have overcome the world. [applause] we are here to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of our prisons savior who died so that we might live.

and i hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually as believers, and as a nation. with that i would like to invite my good friend, dr. cynthia hale to deliver our opening prayer. dr. hale. [applause] >> pray with me. good morning, god. what a privilege to greet you in the company of our beloved president and colleagues from across this nation. we are gathered here in our nation's capital to pray. if ever there was a time we needed prayer, it is now one tragedy is commonplace and violence cease to consume the lives of countless people, love fights to maintain its pre- eminence in the presence of

faith and truth is being crushed by the life -- lies. when -- if there ever was a time to prepare what is now pre we pray for it or president and all those who partner with him in leading our nation. keep them safe from danger and keep them focused on and faithful to the cause of creating a just and equitable society. we pray for the spiritual leaders who are gathered here to proclaim peace throughout the land. keep us pressing forward against the very forces of evil. we pray god for those who are homeless and hurting for the grieving and those who are tempted to give up. we pray for those who need health care and healing, for those who need the assurance that all their hard work, labor, and accomplishments will not be stripped from them by the greed of others. we pray, o lord, because you have given us the privilege and promised that if my people will humble themselves and pray and

seek me and turned from their wicked ways, then will i hear from heaven, and forgive their sins and he'll land. we prayed during this easter season, confident that you will heal our land. you are a master at transforming tragedy is for or good. the events of good friday were by all accounts a tragedy and an innocent man died a horrible death for the sins of the world trade on the sunday morning you raised your son, a tragedy -- turning that tragedy into triumph, proving good is greater than evil, and truth will rise again. if in your budget is in your reason son's name -- it is in your risen son's name we pray. amen. >> president obama attended

easter services today. you can see his daughter. as politco reports, the family walked the short distance from the white house to the church.