Its unclear whether we can manage promoting the development of energy overseas and support for Climate Change. Its uncertain whether we can utter the words natural gas in a policy statement, you know, coming out of the white house and say that we actually want other countries to develop it rather than we want to make the world more resilient because were using less, and theyll have more. So its unclear s. So the question as it affects russia and ukraine and i would say europe and the caspian too is are we doing all we can with all that we have to maximize this advantage. And i think the short answer to that is, no, not yet. And what i hope well talk about today is what our ageneral da should be for europe agenda should be for europe. You cant move gas from point to point. Are we doing enough as the United States to move europe in that direction . Is europe doing enough for itself . Development of shale gas. A lot of the opposition comes from gas [inaudible] some of it comes from Energy
Rebut. If you do not have to take the full three minutes, but if you want, you can. Mr. Bonifaz . I do want to clarify something at the outset. We at free speech for people are interested in lifting up voices, not suppressing voices. Our view of the Current Campaign finance system is that it suppresses voices because when you allow the very wealthy, and now very well endowed corporations and unions to drown out other peoples voices, you are effectively suppressing those voices. Jim agrees that money does not equal speech. I think that is fabulous that we have reached agreement on that. I wanted to make clear, however, that when we limit the amount of money in our elections, we are not limiting speech. We are limiting the volume of speech, the d. C. Circuit court of appeals in the buckley case understood that. Scholars of the First Amendment all over the country have understood that. Justice stephens understands that when he says money is property, it is not speech. We limit the volume