issues. >> host: why did you feel it was important at best buy to have this display for members of congress to see and their staffs? >> guest: just that companies are working towards recycling. best buy is, you know we do work very closely with our manufacturers of our own products. we have a couple of products that we sell that we manufacture ourselves, um and just to display that we are trying to limit our carbon footprint while in the environment and to show that we can, you know, we do take in products, and we recycle them and, hopefully that'll inspire people to bring in their products to best buy. i know sometimes it can be a hassle to bring it in, but you can always talk to the sales representatives, and the reward will be good for everybody in the long run. >> host: you have three containers over here. describe what these are starting at the top. >> guest: at the top we have an older -- this is a newer tv -- >> host: in that container? is. >> guest: yes. i don't know the size of it when it came out but that's about how much internal stuff gets

taken out. you can imagine that kind of big square hanging out versus that. that is actually an older computer monitor. >> host: in the middle. >> guest: yes in the middle. once again, i don't know the size of it, but you can imagine how much it's been broken down. some of that stuff will be reused, it'll be sent out to manufacturers, any parts that are reusable and the rest gets turned into something else and down on the bottom is an old crt-tv remember, those are the bigger ones. and, once again once the glass and toxins have been removed, that's what's left over, and that's where it ends up. >> host: anthony, have the products that we buy, the electronic products that we buy gotten greener over the years? >> guest: yes, they have. especially in our appliances. everything has gone to energystar appliances to try to help reduce the energy needs that are used. um a lot of tvs and be cell phone companies have also moved to longer lasting batteries so they don't get thrown away as much and once again, batteries

people tend to throw those right into the trash. you want to stop doing that, bring it in so we can recycle it and take care of it for you. >> host: so what does a double agent on the geek squad at best buy do? >> guest: primarily going into the homes, taking care of our clients' needs in the home. i particularly do businesses in the d.c. i go into businesses and take care of their computer needs, you know, pretty much anything they want and use the resources at my disposal. >> host: anthony fornito with the best title ever, double agent with the geek squad at best buy. thank you for your time. >> guest: you're welcome. thank you. >> every weekend it's american history tv on c-span3. starting saturday mornings 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. watch personal interviews about historic events on oral histories. our history book shelf features some of the best known history writers. revisit key figures, battles and events during the 150th

anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms during lectures in history. go behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on american artifacts and the presidency looks at the policies and legacies of past american presidents. get our complete schedule at c-span.org/history and sign up to have it e-mailed to you by pressing the c-span alert button.

>> my term as fgi director -- fbi director is due to expire later this summer. however, in early may the president asked if i would be willing to serve an additional two years. >> for the first time since the death of j. edgar hoover in 1972, congress approved and president obama signed into law legislation allowing fbi chief robert mueller to remain in his post an extra two years. congress limited terms to ten years after hoover left the fbi in '48. learn more about it at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share. it's washington your way. that figure that's removing the veil of ignorance from human

understanding that's an american invention. that's not a classical statute, but it's sort of classical for what it really is all about. >> if you missed c-span's latest documentary, "the library of congress," there's a preview right now on c-span's youtube channel. become a subscriber it's free. be notified of all the videos we're posting and watch hundreds of other timely videos online at youtube.com/c-span. next, current and former british newspaper editors discuss the recent phone hacking scandal in the u.k. and the future of the british newspaper industry. panelists discuss the influence of rupert murdoch's media holdings in the u.k., media and internet regulation and the relationship between politicians, the police and the press. this 90-minute program was hosted by the london-based group called the front line club.

>> he's in a sense already broken cover. [laughter] to introduce to dave banks who's one of the most seasoned survivors of the fleet street trail having edited "the daily mirror" and much else, and much else. life goes on tonight. toby young, himself a seasoned writer, i think he actually currently don't think he's tied up with anybody. well, tied up with three schools, but that's not our subject tonight. jane mar tenson who is the women's editor of "the guardian," and martin moore of the media standards trust which seems to be assuming a new guise in that hasn't johan taken his case to you to add adjudicate?

>> not exactly. >> not exactly. [laughter] >> i can talk about that. >> no, no, no, don't. don't. but, i mean, do later. [laughter] i mean, at least he didn't hack whatever else he did. he's just like us -- >> a hack. >> now we can't really discuss because now somehow we've gone below a state agent. [laughter] well, so i'm going to ask each of our panelists to address themselves to the most immediate question which is dave banks given that trinity mirror has launched it own investigation into allegations that there were these -- [inaudible] well, first of all, when you were on deck could you hack or was that too long ago? is. >> long long time ago jon. you can remember i was editor from '92 and '95 and editorial director of the newspapers for about three years thereafter. we were struggling with phones that looked like -- i mean, they were enormous. it was enough to get a signal

let alone hack into anyone else's mobile. no, i didn't hack, no, i wouldn't have condoned hacking nor would i have allowed a journalist working for me to hack. it's illegal it's immoral -- i'm saying far too much. i'm giving my game away. >> i'd like to know what slate people are coming from. toby, i'm not going to ask you if you ever hacked, but what i will ask you is from your lofty position looking inside, very knowledgeable of the outside, do you think this story's been overblown? >> i think um it's been fueled in part not just by public outrage over -- [inaudible] phone being hacked, but partly because of the political animus towards rupert murdoch. and one of the reasons, i think, it's taken a long time for "the

daily mirror" and "the sunday mirror" to be dragged into the story is because they're less attractive political targets than murdoch's papers. and i think it's not coincidental that the last government were so negligent about, um, pursuing making sure the met pursued this case and didn't initiate any public inquiries into any aspect of this case. >> so you do see a sort of semi-conspiracy? >> i don't think it's a conspiracy, but i do think that it's not a coincidence that the reason the labour party in particular have decided to get so up on its high horse about this is because murdoch decided to withdraw his support from labour in 2009 and, supposedly, he tweeted this, as i'm sure you know, when murdoch conveyed that decision to gordon brown on the eve of his 2009 political conference speech, gordon brown said, i will destroy you.

>> that's a good moment to move on. [laughter] perhaps he did. i mean, he is destroyed in that sense. um well -- >> i don't think it was overflay played. -- overplayed. >> what i was going to ask you really was, you see, i don't find the police taking 25 quid for a phone number remotely shocking. i can't imagine any police system in the world including the earth while soviet union where police didn't get kickbacks for a bit of info. and that, surely, is not what we're talking about. we're talking about a major revolving door situation in which large sums of money moved into the police and out again back into news international, right? >> and jobs. >> yeah. >> you talk about jobs for news international and the number of times paul stevenson met news international and the links that were being made with neil wallace, for example. that really was a final straw a man who had been arrested a man who was giving advice to andy

coulson who was advising the prime minister. who was subsequently, you know, had a job advising the police commissioner who came into "the guardian" and said stop doing this. there is nothing in this. twice. now, you know, served him and then, obviously, john yates. now, that's not just about 25 pounds -- i don't agree i think, i mean, police officers shouldn't take money for information -- >> well it's quite different from -- >> a much smaller quantum than doing these things where, i mean, it's been said about many things in this whole saga that it stinks, doesn't it? you know you're being advised by somebody who's subsequently arrested. you go in this and say you basically never ever do a proper police inquiry during all that time. that really does stink, and the revolving doors of jobs between you know, andy hayman who

becomes a times columnist, i'm sure he's a brilliant writer but it just doesn't -- >> i'm more intrigued by john stevens who has been left relatively unscathed. i mentioned him the other night on the andrew neil show, and the next morning there was a tape recording on my conventional phone on my debting saying -- desk saying, you'll be hearing. you will be hearing. >> did you hear? >> well, that was two weeks ago and unfortunately, i've heard nothing. and that is despite sending repeated e-mails to his secretary saying, i want to hear -- [laughter] i want to hear quite a lot. because it was in a very short space of time that he moved from being chief of the metropolitan police to being a major, one of the best paid columnists in the whole of "the news of the world." a remarkable turn around. clearly, there was a wonderful journalist waiting to get out.

martin i mean, the media standards trust may not be known to everybody. its greatest claim to fame, i imagine, is that it's not the pcc. [laughter] >> well i suppose actually, probably better, the better description on this panel is one of the founders of the hackoff campaign rather than -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> but do speak on both. >> okay. um well, hacked off was, so so a few of us have been if fuzzing about this -- fussing about this for a few years now and not getting very far. when i say fussing, i think we first called for some sort of inquiry about two years ago, after "the guardian" investigation. and we've consistently done so since and we got increasingly frustrated and it wasn't really going anywhere. a couple months ago brian and i said we have to cohere some of the disparate people and organizations who want to have a

public inquiry, who want to get to the bottom of this and put it into a campaign. we did that. we had a formal launch all set and prepared for the sixth of july. um, we had no idea about the dallas story which broke on 5 p.m. on the fourth of july. and so we brought forward the start of it, and then that was partly a petition which was signed by thousands and thousands of people. it was partly us, um, campaigning and pressing the party leaders for both an inquiry, and an inquiry in the right terms and the right timing. >> an inquiry into what? >> well we specifically laid out in the original manifesto the areas that we thought needed to be looked into, and they included not only the illegal information gathering, but the relationship between the press and the police and the relationship between the press and the politicians. the second one partly but the third one particularly is where we had an awful lot of trouble and why we went to meet all the party leaders, we met craig and then cameron and walked them

through what we thought would be a successful and a good inquiry to say you can't do this on their terms. you have to do this on broad terms because otherwise people are going to look at it and say, this is a stitch up. >> well, toby, you intimated that it was much wider than just news international, but it has, obviously, suited news international's competitors clearly to focus on news international, and in part surely the focus on news international is in part because it's not a british operation. and i'm wondering if you could -- i've been trolling through trying to fine any other country that actually allows a third plus of it media to be controlled by people who have no accountability in the country this which they're operating. certainly not in america, australia canada, you know, most of the other comparable societies. >> yeah. well, and that's why murdoch became an american citizen. >> indeed. >> um, i think that partly

accounts for why the focus has been on news international, but i don't think it's the big, the big reason. i think um, my feeling is that murdoch had for a long time been um, a boogeyman on the left. and he was targeted during mrs. thatcher's reign frequently, effigies were made of him and so on and so forth. but then when he threw his weight behind tony blair and subsequently, gordon brown members of the liberal left had the bite their tongue and, i think were made extremely uncomfortable by effectively being in bed who they thought epitomized everything that was wrong. you know, the unacceptable face of capitalism. so i think in a way their rage that they've been venting about murdoch over the past few weeks has partly been fueled by a kind of self-disgust that they allowed themselves to, um, be

muzzled by their own sense of what was in their political interests. >> dave, i think that's true that, um all of us knew there was this sort of dark cancer this our midst -- in our midst. i'm not saying that's what he was, but there was something which we couldn't quite get our hands on and didn't particularly want to get our hands on, um and i'm wondering whether, in fact, it's partly our fault that we are in the mess we're in. >> i'm very fortunate. whenever i'm introduced i'm introduced as the former editor of "the daily mirror," and there are a lot of us, by the way. [laughter] it's a big club wouldn't fit in this room. but i've spent most of my career, more of my career working for rupert murdoch. and that tends to be fortunately at the moment, overlooked. i worked on three continents for him. i worked on "the new york post," i worked on "the sun."

i edited two papers in australia for him, so i've kind of seen both sides n a way, and i've worked vociferously against him when i was editor of "the mirror." i just think it's a very it's very emotive to talk about a dark cancer. um the trouble is i can divorce rupert murdoch from news corp. and his power base. i actually rather like the man and like a lot of journalists who have worked probably at the senior level for him i rather admire him. but i dislike very much the hold he has on the business. if that's the cancer of which you speak, then i would accord with that. i think -- >> well, it's a schizophrenic thing, isn't it? on the one hand, he's brought people access to a world that they had no access to before, thousands and thousands of channels of sport and god knows what. so the upside is very great. my god, what would happen if ten

million people with dishes found in some way he'd been denied a license to go into broadcasting. it's hard to imagine there would be peace on the street. >> no. we probably, also, would no be times, maybe no sunday times maybe even no sun. when he took over the sup, it was a foundling -- sun, it was a foundling infant. ipc sold it to him and laughed their way to the bank because they thought they'd loaded this silly sucker of australia with a dying infant, and in fact he put page three together, he put larry lamb in the charge he began a whole generation of journalism of which we might not approve. but in doing so -- and then out of that came sky, and sky has pushed the bounds of television. so -- [inaudible conversations] >> i've never known a mirror man to be punting for rupert murdoch. >> we need to be fair about

this. >> >> i think dark cancer's a mixed bag, perhaps. >> perhaps you could challenge it by suggesting to me anybody else who's had the purchase on the political classes that he's had with our cofive advance? >> well, you say with -- >> well when did you report the number of, indeed, the number of occasions that direct access was had? >> i think, i think well; i've certainly blotted my coffee book with the murdoch plan. i reported a story about what happened on elizabeth murdoch's pen night when she was this back of a limo with various celebrities and rebecca wade as she then was. and they were all a bit worse for wear and they spotted a pap on a motorbike following them,

and liz got a little bit nervous. i call her liz not because i've ever met her -- [laughter] and she conveyed this nervousness to rebecca who said don't worry let me take care of this ask called up the "news of the world "picture desk, rattled off a description of this cyclist, and within a minute someone had called her back with his name and telephone number. she then called him and told him that the limousine he was following contained not only the editor of "the news of the world," but the daughter of rupert murdoch and if he didn't immediately execute a u-turn he'd never work in this town again. forgive me for reporting that. but i think just to add to the list of papers that might not exist, at least not in their present form be, if it hadn't been for rupert murdoch, i don't think the independent would exist. i think by challenging the power of the print union, he made it much more possible to produce newspapers. and i'm not sure "the guardian" and "the observer" would still

exist either. >> two whopping -- as extended by maybe ten years the working life of print journalists in this country. >> i think we're quite quickly getting into this sort of great extremes in the any journalist discussion where, you know rupert murdoch as boogieman i don't think has actually been the case for some years. i was media until six months ago at "the guardian," and i think for several years there was a sense of, my god, he's not richard desmond, the man has popped lots of money into journalism in this country. i wouldn't go quite so far as you're now going which is, basically, then we say the man's a savior, i mean, he saved the press in this country. i sort of disagree -- >> i agree that east expended -- he's extended its life. >> this is not about a liberal conspiracy against one powerful

man. i mean i'm sure you've seen "the guardian "as part of this great liberal left media conspiracy be, probably the bbc in there as well. you know, this is a story where the sense that sort of mick davis was out there, you know, saying i'm going to bring down the most powerful man. of course, it has purchase as a story because it involves enormously powerful organization, the biggest selling newspaper in this country. this, you know, to suggest somehow that's the only reason that this conspiracy, that gordon brown was going to break -- it's madness. i mean you forget that gordon brown told everybody about what happened with his son a week after millie doweller had given politicians the ability to say, oh, god, i was scared of him. yes yes, i should have done something about it earlier. if this is a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy against a culture a culture that was allowed to do something that maybe you wouldn't have done when you were

at "the mirror," to allow a culture where people were basically saying here's the number for si yen that, let's just see what she said really. i'm going to listen to this dead child's mobile and delete calls. that's so far and away beyond the sense of, oh, we brought down a boogieman. it's a culture that went horribly wrong. >> there's almost, it seems, a culture of immunity. i mean, they really didn't seem to feel as though they would be stopped by anyone, certainly not politicians, not by the bbc. >> power and corrupt -- >> you know and it's spreading. [inaudible conversations] it would appear as though you can almost see how, if you were there in that newsroom, who was going to stop you? who was going to stop you from doing anything? >> that i think, has been a major problem. it's interesting now that "the wall street journal" has its own ethics and standards committee which has criticized "wall

street journal" reporters who interviews rupert murdoch for giving him too easy a time. what we've lost in this country certainly from the -- i'm the only representative of the fourth estate, and -- filth estate,. [laughter] what we've lost is the pipe-sucking gray-haired editor-in-chief figure who couldn't actually put anything in the paper, but by god, he could stop things going into the paper. we've lost that sort of moral sense. >> is that what you did, you sat there stopping stuff getting in the paper? >> no i worked at two editors in chief interestingly enough when i was editing in australia for murdoch and they were the bane of my life because -- at the time. i find it hard to believe now, but at the time i was a thrusting energetic vital desperate to bring down government young editor, and they were the guys who would suck on their pipes and say no, you can't do that, that's going too far. you mustn't do that. and i was controlled and i

hated it. and i hate the idea now that i'm proposing that we actually have to go back to something, we have to put some responsibility back. it's no coincidence, i think, that the last four or five editors of "the sun" and the "news of the world" and, yes, the current editor of "the mirror" have all come the pop show biz route. they haven't been night editors, news editors. they're quite young. this isn't a place for an old gray beard, but they've been quite young. piers morgan was editor of "news of the world "at 27, 28. andy coulson early 30s. and nothing, no sort of ethical background, no no overweaning sense of somebody above them between them and the chief executive officer saying, hang on, don't do that don't go there, you mustn't. >> with -- well, that, of course is any of us in the

electronic media bask in. we have a controlling editor. and i would be the wild man of borneo but for jim gray. [laughter] this is a very interesting reality and, of course -- [inaudible] and we will, obviously have to talk about regulation. where are you on regulation toby? >> i'm not in favor of statutory regulation. i think that um, several reasons. one, i don't think that the print media will be able to speak truth to power as often and as effectively as it does if it was summit to statutory regulation -- subject to statutory regulation. people say, well, the broadcast media's subject to statutory regulation. could channel 4 news have bought an explosive cd, i'm not sure they could have done. >> i think they could have done actually. well, i'll give you an alternative to that. i've just made a program about

rogue landlords where we used secret filming right? we got somebody hired by these landlords, goes in with a camera in this his belly button and films dreadful things going on. now that the procedure by which that had to be done, there had to be checks all along the line and different people had to sign off on it so that if offcom came to review it afterwards, it could be justified. and if not, we would be punished. >> but that doesn't point to bad as paying for stolen goods. because the story that they might disclose would be in this public interest. and i'm not sure that statutory -- >> i honestly think that if somebody had brought that along and we were aware of precisely what the contents were, we'd have done it. >> i think another reason um, to be very wary of increasing the degree of regulation of the print media is it's going to be impossible to subject the internet to that same degree of

regulation, and that will only accelerate the decline of the print media, and i'm not sure that will be a good thing. i think thirdly, this scandal doesn't really represent a failure of the press' ability to self-regulate. yes, the pcc hasn't come out of this covered in glory and didn't do a great job in its investigation of the phone hacking. >> it did have one? >> it did have an investigation. >> oh, i was unaware of it. >> it did. but, actually, it was "the guardian" primarily who brought the story to life. so that is an example of the press successfully regulating itself, is it not? >> five years. >> well -- >> fife years and all the rest of the press ignored it. >> the main, i mean, it's not as if we don't already have laws in place to prevent things like phone hacking -- >> no, but the level of corruption was -- >> so the police are at fault. it's not because there was no statutory regulation of the press it's because the police didn't enforce the law.

i mean, it's a failure of law enforcement rather than press regulation, isn't it? >> partly. i mean, i'm not for statutory regulation. we came out with our own recommendations last year. which is about changing the current system. which didn't happen, but perhaps now will. um but, so i think it seems to me as though there are, the you'll give me the leeway, four different ways we could go from now on. one is to sort of reform the current system which is beef up the pcc which is the preferred option of probably people from the newspapers on the tabloid side. second is what they're referring to, clegg and people are referring to which is independent regulation which i think what they mean by that is sort of advertising standards association type approach with a statutory backstop, a long way back. the third is sort of a watered-down broadcast model spread across, and the fourth which is, i think, in many ways

the most interesting but the one people aren't discussing at all is actually, you redefine the law and specific laws, strengthen some, weaken others, strengthen the public interest defense and the first amendment type defense, and you actually get rid of regulation you actually take media regulation away. and that way, actually you deal with the whole thing, to your point toby, about digital environment which is so plaguing any discussions around reinvention of pcc or -- >> so you let a judge be the final arbiter? >> well, in many certain cases. for example, you can have, you lower the bar significantly so you can have faster arbitration in things so people much much lower find it much more easily accessible. but essentially yes, you have a very clear very concise privacy law, you have a very clear first amendment-type public interest defense -- >> well, you've thrown this as an aside, the privacy law. that's hard. >> well, as a civil law. >> we can't have a first

amendment when we don't have a constitution. >> well, that's another discussion. but, you know, we can have a public interest defense. we already have a reynolds defense which is a process-driven defense. we can have a much, much stronger public interest defense which would mean journalists would feel emboldened because they'd have hutch more clearer guidance as to when they could and couldn't do it. >> the only problem with that and i think it's really interesting and something does have to happen. i mean, i'm guest statutory regulation, i don't think there are any journalists who aren't because of the whole notion of you're holding power to account if those powerful are judging you, you're stuck. the problem with that is we had a judge-led libel system, and we all remember that is still such an issue where the weight, the balanceover evidence so often went against newspapers. you know, it was always for them to try to prove public interest was a bugger to, you know trying to get the reynolds

defense was a nightmare. >> part of the problem here is that -- [inaudible] newspapers and others if they're unwilling to argue on the basis of article ten and to argue for strengthening the public interest because many of them have felt it con constrained doing the types of things they've been doing over the past decade. the more clearly you define the public interest the less easy it is. >> as it became, you know article ten it was increasingly being used for things to find out who was sleeping with which frankly never worked. >> that's the most odious part of what's gone on. i think if i were to be asked, there may well be occasions when one could justify illegality. >> oh, yeah. >> and, you know, when the end is justified, you know, the means are justified by the end. but the idea of bottom fishing of seabed fishing of trolling of just simply saying, well,

she's interesting he's interesting, let's listen to their phone conversations let's see what come out of it is utterly odious. and i don't think we're anywhere close to controlling that. and it's all very well talking about keeping the press out of it, you know self-regulation shouldn't mean we need independent regulation. but until you until you can impose some sort of moral structure on the press to control itself, you know even the most extreme red trunk tabloids until you can make them see that they have to control their own industry i think it'll always be the press versus any sort of regulatory system or semi-regulatory system -- >> but can you tell me hand on heart that there are no editors on the pcc who have knowingly commissioned hacking? >> no, i can't because i don't -- no, because i don't know. >> because, in fact, of course

and i think you were hinting at this, it was endemic in certainly, the tabloid and possibly beyond that in the press. this is a massive thing which has infected virtually all popular journalism in this country for the last two decades. >> i had lunch with a no tour crouse -- >> hacker. >> -- no former tabloid editor today, and i asked that person, and i can't really name him. it, he or her. [laughter] i asked him if he or she would be prepared to commission hacking, and he or she said, yes, i would, but i don't think my news editor would have gone along with it. and he indicated that where he or it -- laughs this is very difficult. indicated that where as he or she or it would have been quite prepared to take that onboard,

the middle order of his executives would have risen against it. >> well, so far accused the trinity mirror papers of hacking them, have accused associated newspapers -- [inaudible conversations] has accused "the mail." and, of course, we have a plethora of accusation against news international. but, you know, one of the things you discover in television is that entertainment journalism, in other words stuff that gets round, you know, who these stars are and what they get up to is the most expensive form of journalism you can go in for. it's extremely expensive to get; the film the pictures whatever. hacking is fantastically cheap way of just rolling out rubbish. >> can i ask a question? >> yes. >> james handler in the front world here who worked for "the

news of the world" for 20 years -- [inaudible conversations] >> expose yourself. >> the question is, i mean, i don't think anyone's in the any doubt that hacking is fairly wide spread, whether it's as widespread as you just implied, i don't know. but is there a kind of don't ask, don't tell policy on tabloids whereby it's at least conceivable that andy coulson and rebecca brooks did not, in fact, know that it was going on? >> i know of no don't ask, don't tell policy. that was never part of any culture that i was part of. and be this idea that you just said, jon, that this was a culture that's been infecting all tabloid papers for the last 20 years -- >> maybe ten. [inaudible conversations] >> leave me out of it will you? >> yeah. we'll cut it off at dave. >> the i think -- i think that's a pit of hyperbole there. so the don't ask, don't tell no, in short. that wasn't something that was

there. there have always -- i joined the "news of the world" in '97 and they were always sophisticated even then, you know pre-online stuff, very sophisticated ways of recording, um interviews and such. but not that kind of crass illegality. i mean that genuinely came as a huge surprise to me. having worked there that amount of time. the idea of it being endemic, no, not amongst the general -- >> [inaudible] worked for other papers. >> yes, he did. >> he actually has in the right-hand column who his paymaster is. sorry left-hand column. >> they weren't all ripoffs either. >> no. >> so i think, you know, this is not that culture in short, is the answer to your question. not the don't ask don't tell. um that's the awe one. --

that's a new one. >> i think if there is a culture there, it's a culture that's galloped away because -- and i have no certainty of this, but i just have a feeling, because of of the lack of certainty within my end of the industry, there's a sort of we can do anything we like sort of feeling that has grown up. and that has to stop. there's no two ways about it. it should have stopped long ago. >> times are desperate. these papers need to make money. >> and they figure the very journalism that you've talked about celebrity journalism, stars, footballers, they figure that is the sort of journalism that is going to bring readership. it patently doesn't because circulation falls just as fast as that journalism increases. but that sort of journalism is the celebrity journalism that's been inflicted upon the public combined with um, changing

circulations. i mean the very first casualty has been decency in newspapers, and that's been the problem. >> has investigating what they've been doing upped the figures for "the guardian"? >> yes, it has. the last couple of weeks -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i sort of disagree sadly. i think if you look at the circulation thing at "the guardian," i mean, actually people do buy newspapers. it was the biggest-selling newspaper in the country. three million still read "the sun." people aren't out there going no no tell me more about politicians. they will see cheryl cole split with ashley again, and they'll buy the papers. >> when i last worked on "the sun" which would be '88 '89 "the sub" was printing and selling four and a half million copies. to say it's down to three million, in fact, it's just a little bit below that, that's a dramatic fall in 20 years. "the express "50 years ago sold

five million copies. "the mirror" has sold five and a half million copies. they're all tumbling away -- [inaudible conversations] >> there is something in the culture that, jon, just to finish that point be, you know, the culture where these papers which are used to selling millions of copies, you know, they are desperate times now in the print industry. circulations are falling, money is tighter than it's ever been and the demand to get the sort of scoops that on a sunday shift an extra half a million is huge. and in that sort of culture you can see that people are more prepared to take risks. just one final point on the don't ask, don't tell, that was really interesting. i get your point about, you know, what was happening before. what i do find interesting, though most journalists most particular tabloids actually to have news editors, to have editors who go, great story and not then say where does that come from is just absolutely --

>> well, it surely is. >> -- inexplicable. >> what is absolutely true i mean, what is true and that -- and i know dave will echo this -- the two questions that all editors ask about any big story. one is how much will it cost us in resources and time and those things, and the other is, can we prove it? >> sw -- yes. can we say, trousers down -- can we actually say that? well i've heard it. [laughter] it's there. i've listened to the voicemail. he's got to have it. i mean, that is how we all are whether we're tabloid journalists or -- >> but the question is always can we stand it up, can we defend ourselves if the person in question brings a libel suit. the question isn't have we obtained this story -- >> right. no, no, no. but how we got it is part of it. >> we are operating in the libel capital of the world, as we all know. >> but again on the legal side there is an interesting thing

here, and there are, obviously, criminal investigations and none of us on this panel will know exactly what went on. but, you know i talked to lawyers, for example, newspaper lawyers who have been at the heart of stories who might say are we sure, and the investigations editor would say, absolutely, hand on heart fine. and then they just read it for if we are sure if we can prove this, you know? the i'm not saying you might do that or not but, you know, there are interesting defenses here about practices in newspapers. >> but -- [inaudible conversations] >> yeah well, there is a line there is a line which i think was passed during my time as an editor actually, where the lawyer would come in and would sit and go through with you what he's read and what he doesn't like and would simply say, you know, that's not publishable. and editors -- and i've done it myself -- would say don't tell

me what i can't publish tell me how i can publish it. that's a pretty proper thing to say. you're desperate to get the story, but i think we seem to have gone beyond that where the lawyer plays, has less influence. >> not according to james murdoch, obviously who said it's the lawyers' fault. >> can yeah, i know. just before we throw it open i want to ask one final question and again toby hinted at it and that is, you know, the consequence of all this brouhaha is not much about politicians, maybe quite a lot happens to the murdochs who knows? but the biggest consequence is likely to be surrounding the ownership of the papers that he has driven. and the net consequence could be either oligarchs or the death of at least two of these publications, toby? >> yeah. t hard to imagine the print -- it's hard to imagine the print media not being the biggest

loser in this scandal. i think if print media does end up being subject to more regulation as i say -- >> well, even without that, i'm supposing, for example someone gets peeved in new york and say what on earth is the point of something that's losing 40 million a year? >> yeah. and i think that was probably going to happen anyway when murdoch kicks his clogs. having said that, his mother is 102. [laughter] but, clearly, there wasn't the same appetite amongst the younger murdochs, particularly james murdoch to own newspapers that lose tens of millions of pounds a year. in rupert. and i think the fear is not only will the press be subject to greater regulation, therefore, find it harder to compete with other forms of media and, therefore decline will be accelerated, but more specifically the times will be sold off to someone with much

less appetite for losing the kind of money lost. last year times newspaper, the times and the sunday times lost 45 million according to its publicly-filed accounts. all of that was lost by the times, not by "the sunday times." and the way murdoch was able to subsidize the times was because the "news of the world" made 40 million news international is not going to have the money to continue to subsidize "the times." so i think even if news corp. doesn't divest itself, it's hard to imagine the times continuing in the its current form. i don't think it'll necessarily disappear but it'll end up being a shad toe of -- shadow of its former self, particularly if it's bought by somebody else. >> well, that will be a quite interesting final question before we do actually open it up. sunday sun? i would have thought it would appear by now. has he been broken? >> you could tell james went, no we're not thinking of that

and rupert went, well maybe. [laughter] >> he was careful, wasn't he? he said no decision has been made as yet, and he kept repeating which would open the door to say, well we haven't fully decided, but we were preparing and getting ready -- >> compromise. [inaudible conversations] >> is certainly no jobs on offer. there are, you know the interviews have been taking place with hr, and there are shot the jobs, a job for everybody -- >> but everyone's still on the payroll. >> well, at the beginning we had three months, we are modeling to three months. >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> couldn't avoid that. >> yeah. [inaudible conversations] >> but i think the other thing that gets lost in all this that what we're in danger of losing and i think we will lose is a particularly british, uniquely british style of newspaper journalism. not talking about the hacking and the current "news of the

world," but this unique -- and dave knows this -- of popular, informative and entertaining journalism that doesn't happen anywhere else. everywhere else that -- almost everywhere else you get the very up market and occasionally -- [inaudible] or you get the really silly trashy rubbish nobody believes in. you don't get that really class act at its best where you get the internal tension between graphic artists good writing journalists, headline writers people that set agenda for the week that the tv and the radio follows, the so-called quality press follows. year in year out those kind of, that agenda's been set by really good popular but informative -- >> well professor wouldn't you accept that, actually that's peaked and already on the way down? no way was it the "the sun" won it this time. no way.

nobody cared a damn which way "the sun" went. [inaudible conversations] >> no. but, i mean, that journalism you talk of is what gave "the sun" its power to do gotcha and, indeed, you know, it was the sun and will the last person turn out the lights. >> [inaudible] >> it now doesn't matter what the headline is because nobody's affected by it. it's withered. >> do you mean in the past three weeks? >> no. if you take the last election, "the sun" wasn't a player. >> i don't know about that. >> it's about as far from "the sun"'s ambition as a pork pie. >> that's true. but i don't think -- [inaudible] we can, we can debate that with you separately, but i don't think that politicians until about three weeks ago thought it was unimportant to enlist the support of "the sun "and the "news of the world." >> the politicians are clinging onto some of the papers like a sinking ship because they think

it's the only way they can still access numbers of population and it still gives them that feeling of power. but, actually, the public has become disengaged by it and are not being influenced -- >> i share james' fear that it may be that the tabloid press doesn't have the same bark that it wasn't did. i think that's indisputable. but it, nevertheless, brings something i think, to british public life. um which we are now in danger of losing. >> hang on, degradation of public life. [inaudible conversations] unbelievably low view of everybody. >> well -- >> we're all scum. you've been introduced by these people. >> true. [inaudible] i mean look at the stories broken by "news of the world." there was the geoffrey archer story brought low for paying off a prostitute. last year there was the pakistan

cricket scandal. i'm not sure any paper other than the "news of the world" would have been able to expose that. and anyone who's spent time in the america knows that something has happened, it's become respectable. they're now hugger mugger with the people in power. you're actually more likely to read the truth about the rich and powerful in the "national enquirer" than you are in "the new york times", and i feel something like that might happen -- >> the strange thing about "the sun," you know look back and there was a golden age of "the sun," and actually it was under a chap called calvin mckenzie. because mckenzie -- love him or loathe him and most of us loathe him -- [laughter] mckenzie captured the thatcher years and mirrored exactly what margaret thatcher was inflicting on the british public, in my view inflicting on the british public. but it just had an incredible sense of self-awareness, of surety. we back our troops, we do this we go here, you know? nothing was too much trouble. they had a -- and the last

newspaper that, actually, the last popular tabloid, the last red top that tried to educate its readers, that tried to lift its readers out of what it saw as the gutter and educate them rather than just entertain was mirror, and "the sun" shot past it. >> do not educate the people. it does not sell people. >> no, there's no point in it. >> what a proud message. what a -- here's a man toiling for free schools, and there's an editor who says do not educate people. close the school down at once, have them read "the sun." [laughter] [applause] >> is that right, toby? >> no. i think -- >> very cruel. [laughter] >> i think the problem is if journalism becomes wholly professionalized and journalists become part of the establishment, then it becomes much harder for journalists to speak truth to power, and i think what "the guardian" has

done a fantastic job in exposing this wrongdoing i think without the "news of the world" and tabloids who have had their wings clipped and are now extremely wary of crossing any line lest they get in trouble we're not going to have such an energetic, akon dallasic media -- iconoclastic media. >> changes happening on the web and digital media are massive, they're enormous. like it or loathe it, in this americaing media you could say in some ways it's reinventing the tabloid on an online digital world. as a former ft journalist. and equally, in terms of people being rambunctious and everything else, you need to spend a little time on twitter. there's a lot of rambunctiousness going on. i think we can get overly nostalgic -- >> just about every major story my god, there have been enough over the last four weeks has

broken on twitter long before any tabloids got anywhere near it. >> true. but i think that the danger is if we become completely reliant on social media and the internet to discover what the rich and powerful be are really getting up to, there's an issue about similarly tuesday. how can we trust what we read on twitter? okay, you can't always trust what you see on "news of the world," i mean, whatever methods they've used to find out about cheryl cole getting back with ashley nevertheless, i think we can depend on it to a greater extent than we can on whatever anyone happens to be tweeting. >> well, there's plenty there to feast on. now questions from the floor please. yes there with the checked sleeve. >> i'm a lawyer from australia, and i noticed that some members of the panel have suggested that

in certain circumstances it is justifiable to break the law. show me the lesson to be learned out of this scandal is that the first principle should be that the law should not be broken. what do members of the panel think of, um, that matter? >> i agree completely. [inaudible] um you're right. it's such a basic thing, isn't it? there's a very important point with this sort of debate, and i'm sure jon is the only broadcaster this our midst who is keen to show how terrible all print journalists are. >> never, ever. [laughter] every broadcast journalist has an inferiority complex when sitting next to a print journalist. we are here today, gone tomorrow let alone -- [laughter] >> but, you know, there is some

really good journalism and it's certainly not all been done at "the guardian." there are very good journalists at these tabloids. even "the daily mail," you know the last paper who tried to educate. what is it doing but trying to tell everybody how to live their lives? [laughter] i, personally don't think that's great journalism, but lot of people do. millions of people read it every day to find out how to be a good woman. [laughter] >> and there honestly are cases where breaking the law is justified. >> why? >> we wouldn't have been able to find out about the mp's expenses abuses had someone not been prepared to break the law and had the journalist organization not been prepared to pay for stolen property. >> let's return to the lawyer. here we have evidence of hundreds of elected politicians breaking the law by um, all sorts of subterfuge, a whole lot

of peers as well. but that information is only disclose bl if we pay a thief to give it to us, a complete breach of the law. is it right to have broken the law under those circumstances? >> of course it's not. the law i mean -- >> but the law -- [inaudible conversations] >> the first principle which should come out of this scandal is that the law must be obeyed. >> so you would jail whoever leaked that ghastly material? >> yes. >> and you would absolutely absolve all politicians? i mean, forget it. >> i think that is the first principle that should come out of this scandal, that the law should be obeyed. >> but the law itself allows for public interest defense which means although "the telegraph" broke the law, it was actually allowable, and every journalist would break the law if it meant breaking open a story with such a -- >> well i understand the public interest defense -- >> which is part of the law. >> it seems to me that the

question i posed is at the heart of this hacking sand canal and -- scandal and has to be dealt with by journalists. >> it is clearly, a very very serious matter and under extremity -- it's interesting that "the telegraph" itself has been in trouble for the methods it used to extract the attack it did on news international from vince cable. even the pcc found that rather an offensive activity. >> the i think the difficulty of your position is you've kind of reached a false clarity. the problem is that there's a conflict between the different articles of the european human rights act, the right to privacy and the right to free speech for instance, and also there's a conflict between the european human rights act and british law. so the problem with saying, well, they should just obey the law is you end up vesting judges with far too much influence. >> there's no public interest defense for -- [inaudible] >> no. but there is for -- [inaudible] which is why nothing happened.

>> but it was a good and fundamental question, and we've answered it pragmatically. [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you very much, indeed. thank you, sir. next at the back. >> hello. just as a layman speaking on this -- >> or even a laywoman. >> laywoman. thank you, jon. [laughter] picking up, actually, on the last point as well, the way that, um i haven't yet seen a compelling reason why, and with all respect to you martin moore, and the hacked up campaign why it has been now that this big phone hacking story has broken given that we know the practice had been ripe for a couple of decades or more? and is there some sort of nexus with this thorny problem of this sort of crisis of privacy that we have in this country? you know, we've got the transatlantic clash, we've got the european clash, and we've got the conflict between articles 8 and 10. but, you know, on the one hand we're told that the invasion of our own privacy is in our best

interests that we're filmed wherever we go the automatic face recognition in our every move it's monitored for our own benefit. but at the top of the tree we have a few judges telling us what we can read what we can think and what we can say. and that does have um some, i think, unfortunate connection with the absence of any commentary let alone criticism of what happens in privacy actions um, in the courts, in the queen's bench division. every single paper's been -- [inaudible] in the last eight to nine weeks and yet that does coincide with this complete climax -- >> are you talking about superinjunction? >> superinjunks -- [inaudible conversations] >> in fairness there hasn't been a superinjunction issued in

18 months? >> how do you know? >> are well, we do. >> um -- >> you think there have? maybe you're a lawyer. >> the i am a lawyer. [laughter] i'm a laywoman, but i'm a lawyer, and i believe we're lower than you as scum of the earth. [laughter] >> only when you come to -- [inaudible] >> but is there some sort of connection that, um, the press really sort of overstepped the mark in challenging whether sub verse i havely -- subversively through quitter and otherwise -- twitter and otherwise. now "news of the world"'s being the scapegoat but you're all silenced. >> martin? >> [inaudible] >> the judges have been constraining a certain amount of activity in term of even stating that an injunction is being granted etc., etc. >> yes. i think to the point of your question about is this all connected yes, of course it is. of course it is. it's all connected, and it's

all, um necessarily connected because of the fundamental changes many of them technological, um, that have meant that we could all record anything, we could all publish anything and, therefore, any sort of practical line between private life and public life has pretty much disappeared. so you rely, therefore on cultural constraints and legal constraints, and cultural constraints particularly in the case of the tabloids. we know they don't really exist, and therefore, it's focused very much on legal constraints. now, in terms of what that means, i certainly don't think, i mean, we shouldn't forget that two months privacy numbers were all over the front page, and actually, to your point about why now i think there's actually more explanation as to why the phone hacking hit now than there is nor why the privacy injunction thing started because they'd been going for two or three years at about the same rate, and suddenly it exploded across the press and became an international debate. ..

>> the reason i emphasize that particular one is the one no one is talking about. >> it sounds like that's the one that wouldn't prevent the kind of stories that hacked off emerging things like on twitter. one of four people who was identified on the front page of

the evening standard as likely to be prosecuted by the attorney general for having disclosed ryan as the author of the super injunction. in fact, didn't happen because enforcing the law in social media, twitter in particular, is extremely difficult. doesn't that indicate that solution in particular isn't going to work if you want to stop people breaking stories? >> part of the key is separating some of the problems out. it becomes impossible to disaggregate. there are all sort of complexities around clearly around exactly the difficulty i was just mentioning. around privacy law and any sort of prepublication privacy law which is why some people talk about making some way of dealing with it that way. having said that i think also that we have to sort of also

think about in this new environment, not very helpful just saying forget it everything goes because technology allows it. is not the way we had behaved in the past. we've come to sort of hopefully relatively sensible consensus about where we think the line should be drawn. then we draw the law and other aspects around that. >> take another question. in the blue. >> this panel is five terrific journalistic minds. surely you can come up with something better than your description of rupert murdoch as a dark counselor. >> a great entrepreneur. without help? terrific entrepreneur who worked wonders. as i said before, and expanding access to also two things which are very, very restrictive in the past. sport, music films and the rest of it.

clearly, i mean i would say the positives outweigh the negatives. that's a fact. the negatives are also negative. which is unfortunate. >> a piece in 2004 peace by john lanchester where he reviewed about -- i thought it was most interesting analysis of murdock writes in we the whole question of you see a devil is he not the devil. he says murdoch has two particular driving factors which pushed him in the direction that he did. one of which was recognizing that music is becoming entertainment and to pursue there. and the other was about becoming international global and pushing and continued to do deals. if you see stuff happening in those terms it slightly explains how -- rather than just seeing

them as some sort of evil. >> these were politicians even gordon brown, pajama parties with a woman he now bursting into tears at how awful it was. this is all politicians with a handful of really notable exceptions of current mps on the committee. you have the sort of person who is out fully dominating and making everybody -- and suddenly he is down and everybody tries to kick him. it's a bit like that. james murdoch who is less charismatic in many ways than his father isn't like having darth vader outside of office ever. a huge life-size darth vader. when i went to interview him

they're sitting walks up rupert. there was the evil emperor of all the star wars fame. he sort of lends himself to be fabulous and black and white characteristics. but it's because of that sense of sort of man who's powerful ends sunday the politicians and ever lives up to say horrible things about him when he has done some good. >> in many ways there's something here which is not spoken his name and that is this great crescendo of activity and interest in murdoch's power. only hit the front page at the moment at which bskyb peach. that's a very strange coincidence. maybe the orchestration. clearly i wouldn't ever want to accuse him time anything to coincide with such a thing. but if there is and is giving

rupert murdoch it is that he had an access to power his biographer michael wolff said the other night, he never had to explain anything. rupert has always spoken of power, and part of that power, some people allege, involved affecting the way in which the industry sought to dominate was regulated. and that was what the the sky be battle was all about. when david cameron said last year that they're going to abolish off, effectively and leave them with sort of a supervisory role he was almost speaking the words dictated by robert byrd but. that was the accusation. >> that almost seemed to me to kick off what had always been a

great hinterland of concern about rupert owning bskyb outcry. of fox a fine a fairly efficient and forward thinking tv outfit. >> i love that headline. spent i will be foxified if you can have it. >> sorry, i've got a batch of. my wife is once said on the way to the debate, why don't you get yourself a packet of tax. and i said no not really necessary. [laughter] >> you said the word foxified and the man visited you. >> i think is always been sort of on concern which i think david cameron almost spouted off without ofcom remark and we thought we would be left without detection and rupert would step

in. i don't think i think it's been a genius for 50 years and i think he built up an enormous empire which he talked about the other day, 53000 people, five continents. he has built this mountain of sort of wealth and he is now 80 years old and he sits atop it. it sort of got away from him and he is removed from it. he looks removed from it. it's an aunt martha's out of control. it's not an evil empire. it's an empire that is kind of wanting to run and so. it may well in the next couple of years. it may well just implode blow apart explode, blow apart. >> i don't think the emergence of a british fox news was ever in danger. let's not forget that news corp. said if they weren't allowed to buy the 61% of the remain shares of bskyb they would share off

sky news and i think i'm sure you agree john sky news -- >> when you say sell off they were going to wave goodbye. >> eyed don't think it was realistic that was going to be that sky news is going to be turned into a partisan news like -- >> .org i think is to respond to what jane said earlier i wasn't suggesting the toppling of murdoch has been the result of a conspiracy. but i don't think the story would have gotten nearly as much play, blown up the way it did had ed miliband not taken that gamble about three weeks ago to go in hard and align himself with "the guardian"" [talking over each other] >> i think that gave ed miliband the confidence to go in hard against murdoch. but i don't think he would've done that have not seen --

[talking over each other] >> come to the conclusion three weeks before these events. >> from the murdoch empire. spent i don't know what came over me. [laughter] >> go for it. >> i think we should bear in mind that there was a series of different things. not only was it the milly dowler case the following day it was iraq and afghan families. and also -- >> and nine 9/11 which of course, is fiction. >> the mirror. let's not forget -- >> daemon you don't mean -- >> i don't think there was any evidence for it at all do you? i mean the idea that nobody has come up with any evidence. >> very mischievous. >> the more serious attitude

that american law takes to that sort of behavior. >> it is noble so the story continues to go on. when we went with dowler, they were dignified. they told their story in the most astonishingly to each leaders come and explain exactly how it happened and when he found out and everything else. and actually you could see the leaders emboldened after that, then when they had before. they were literally sort of much more adamant that there were going to take action. and i believe. they did. they were much more forward in the way they spoke about these issues. because they believe it is wrong and they believe -- >> this point about suspicious timing. you could argue the coincidence of the milly dowler case ending, all that evidence has come out then the sort of weight and

nick davis is story on the monday which led to a public repulsion. remember, when "the guardian," i was -- we did the story amazing story about gordon taylor that news international had paid him 700,000 pounds just like that and nobody could talk about it. we did that story two years ago july 2009, and you expected everybody else to write around it because it was a huge figure. and nobody did. >> why? >> because of this power. the police that came in and said this is nonsense, there's nothing -- the police turned up in second thing, and they said no. phone the murdoch's and said anything in this? no. my goodness. went to prison even though he was a royal enforcer.

he was a member of the -- but it was just insanity. it went on for two years. well, there's obviously this is all about class interests and what has really didn't want them to buy sky. this is an enormous power that this man, this organization has. and now the biggest satellite company. and it's all being ushered through with this minder sky news at arms length. of course, that raise concern but nobody wrote about it. and then when it happened, there was a really sense hong kong that just isn't right. it wasn't journalistic. it was the public. >> i think the fact that jeremy hunt was on the verge of hitting the bskyb bid the nod certainly fueled the fire. because it made the government

seen complicit, and that inspired militant ago and hi. but have "the guardian" really want to bring dead, had he wants to kind of score a direct hit on the death star it would have been better to keep the milly dowler story back until jeremy hunt and given the bskyb the deal the government to anything the government would have fallen. >> pigs will fly. what's going to replace it? >> i think -- [talking over each other] >> it would've been a much more inflammatory story. [talking over each other] >> before i come to i have to take you back. she had them mic. >> i'm quite trees as what you think of the concept the country gets the media that it deserves and because it doesn't seem to really have been happening -- murdock has an international

empire, as you pointed out. at this sort of thing doesn't seem to have been happening elsewhere. there are now serious hands it goes way beyond news international. does a country get the media it deserves? and what does this say that we are at this juncture about britney? >> i can tell that you are from the and tiffany. i will have to ask a question, what did we do wrong to deserve it? >> no i'm asking you. [laughter] >> do we get the media we deserve? dave. >> i think any country gets the media it will put up with. and having worked not just in britain, but in new york and in sydney, there are three quite different types of me. the near post is wild in american terms but not wild in british terms. in australia, i was censored for caring a photograph on page three as it happens in the daily telegraph in sydney of mary

poppins, the actor's -- >> julie enters. >> julie andrews topless. with a headline mary top out. that outraged sydney. [laughter] no foxification there. i've long been a believer. let's talk about the british public because i think although we hear probably sit and think, we sit in judgment and would have are middle-class mores and we feel that we like responsible, respectable newspapers. and just any person industry, any man or woman what sort of people they want, for news they want politics, do they want analysis? it's crap. what they want it celebrity journalism. it's driving, it's driving newspapers at the bottom end of the market that have not a lot

of scruple to provide what they perceive, that the public will pay for. you can go on until you're blue in the face. the famine in the '50s put in special sections to explain politics and explain economics. it doesn't work. they want to in. >> guest: . i'm sorry but they do. >> a swift one. >> i don't believe it does. but there is a big enough there's a big enough, you know, swell, groundswell out there that it reacts with journalists. they but younger and younger editors in charge with less and less background with no controls around them because long as the prophet is coming in its a river of gold. >> this was not the failure of the press completely. there was a culture which allowed a sort of gt fund

journalism to get complete out of control and break cultural rules and the law. >> the lady is right. >> "the guardian" and others, lots of other journalists actually took several years and not to expose it so you know did we get that? i would say the british newspapers generally are good to read. >> i think it's important to say here as well it's silly to look simply at a certain part of the press. look at the media we deserve. you have to look across the media. the media as a whole is fantastically mixed. we have lots and lots of broadcast and print and online phenomenal stuff. as you look at most countries, look at the states, you can look at fox. you have to i think look at what's happened with the press. it partly a response of the

public and partly a complete lack of accountability within the organizations themselves or regulation mechanisms. >> it comes back to your digital point. where i would respond to say i'm completely uplifted by the revolution that has happened in my reporting live. when i started a few people wrote to me underlined in red complaining about things that are been on the air. maybe three a week. now every day of every week i have an inner action. i am on twitter on e-mail or twitter in which people make uplifting contributions to what we are doing. they'll ask us why we did this are why we did that, or they will say how much they enjoy this or how much they enjoyed that. and i believe that actually we do not -- i would say that tabloid does not give us the press we deserve no. i would argue that we don't get the media we deserve because

actually we underestimate what decent people we are. we are right across the board on top of everyone, everybody out industry, everybody i meet and i meet lots of people because i am still a reporter on the road. i am absolutely amazed at what amazing people populates this country. and they are not people who want to undo this it. >> i think you probably live in a more benign universe than me. >> i'm an optimist. [laughter] >> it's because people want to pay their respects to you because they think you represent something fine and respectable. [talking over each other] >> i think you are right in that we the british public clearly

has a huge appetite for the kind of stories that tabloids have been providing them with for the past, god knows how may years, over 100 years. and i think a lot of the animosity that the tabloids currently are tracking, particularly the sun and the late "news of the world" is because people were kind of disgusted with themselves and they said he would like to think of themselves as only wanting to sit down and watch channel four news in the evening and not watch something far less respectable, some freak show later on about the fattest man in the world or whatever it might be. [laughter] and i think dominic lawson had a good line about come he didn't quote saying there's nothing more absurd, and one of its periodic moral outrages but he did say that the way in which that what could partly fueled the scandal was the british

public raging like taliban and its own reflection. >> but the web tells us what people really want is pornography because pornography still drives the web. so do we give people pornography? [laughter] >> is not up for us to decide. >> if people want pornography why are we giving it to them? >> we are. they are getting it. >> i haven't seen much pornography. >> the wrong part of the internet. [laughter] >> i'm on the internet but i haven't seen -- >> someone quick ask another question. [laughter] >> i have a high-minded question. >> thing god. >> my question is we have sorted decided through the scandal that phone hacking is bad and so forth.

for victims and the families of people event affected by crime disaster in different ways it's very often the conversations that they have with journalists that can be problematic. there are journalists who interview with enormous sensitivity and great skill. and there are others who do less well and sorts of other things such as phone hacking to obtain the scoops and the stories they want. looking ahead to the inquiry i wonder what the next set of issues we might think about calibrating our moral compass is to are and what the panel thoughts would be on that. >> are you asking sort of the next potential wrongdoing in the press, or about, you know, the way we handle or journalists handle issues you know, reporting? >> if you think about things like codes they will say show more sensitivity.

but then the question is with the fact constitute, how would you frame that do we talk about ourselves have enough conversation amongst ourselves about these skilled things? or instant summit has seen their son die in front of them in a crime shooting, how does a journalist talk to the family sensitivity? how did they interview them? do we share knowledge and technique and understanding? >> something i feel very passionately about and something that is a great tragedy for industry that never ever is discussed is the lack of proper training now. and what actually has happened, partly as a result of the death of the district, partly the result of the way we are funding journalism. so what happens is most journalist now go to a one year postgraduate course which they are all in death anyway.

so increasingly the richest part of the population that goes on to do these courses. who then basically either go straight into the job would work with the don't belong, or they go for sort of, you know -- we don't have anymore, terribly old-fashioned, tot you all about all the sorts of things. not any legal issues in shorthand and contempt of court but actually about i work for a paper just under two years. couldn't get away fast enough, but i do remember when you're from the south and you go to mercer and somebody, 17 year-old son has just been killed in a car accident, you know it teaches you pretty quickly there's no way you're going to be sensitive. you hugely embarrassed to be there. astonishingly lots of these people actually want to talk because they say i want to talk about my son you know, the

tragedy, the trauma. that has gone and nothing has replaced it. and nobody cares if nobody talks about, and i think it's a terrible tragedy. >> newspapers are buying from -- dying from the bottom up. from the outside in. you also only get one type of journalism that. talk about postgrad one year courses. you don't get kids who leave school at 16 17 and go into a newspaper and spent three and a half years learning, as well as doing the lease for a six-month block course. you don't get that. you get, what is it called, work experience? >> what about professor james? he's taking this through every step. >> yeah, but you're getting it from university you're getting them largely grouped around london. you're getting them from kids who can't afford to do work

experience for a year not on any day not be from the north of england or scotland, which is traditionally where we've got a lot of great dig in reporters. and you're getting one type, one class, one color one background of person. and that is what's feeding into the press now and it's a big big problem. not just between. it's the background. this early something in what you say. we are in danger of not getting the spread of people. however there are journalism schools all over the country. you know this you're based in the northeast, where all the things that you were talking about are taught. the fact of the matter is the fact, and are still many, many good local newspapers but they do not have the resources to do everything you just talked about. this is high in the sky.

this is with respect, old people looking back to the way things were. it isn't like that now. i can tell you because -- >> i'm going to -- i've just been given the two-minute warning. two fingers that way. [laughter] >> one more question here. >> on the specifics of phone hacking, one of things that's happened, we've got a lot of people, some of the victims, some of them supporters, as a result of the campaign a lot of people contacted us. what we'll try to do is tell some of the stories to explain what happened exactly. and then if possible try to bring them together with some journalists to discuss it together and what happened with their experience. i don't want to claim truth and reconciliation to at least bring people together to discuss it and discuss why the experience they went through. >> this isn't so much a question

but a disagreement about what you're saying. i just finished a master's degree. there are journalism schools all over the country here to teach you what i think we need to get caught, 21st century journalism. umatilla undergrad and grad school. spent a wonderful place. and a place where the journalism school has transformed the town the city. it's amazing. >> we do get tot things like media, i think it's not possible for, i want to go into local newspapers anymore because the local newspapers just cannot afford us so we have to do something. >> i think that's a very good point to end on other than the conflict here between the grassroots hearing of timber, feeling that david has given us and the opportunities that exist across the country that is being offered here and i'm delighted we've been able to affect of the

dial. i will end on a story everyone of us us has a confession. mind is this. i asked tablet question. i was sent as a cub reporter to a tragedy in spain what a gas tanker a liquid gas tanker had exploded, and all the pumps of the tanker flooded over the campsite, engulfing the people here and they had fled into the sea, and i got there before my cameraman. and i met this amazing dutch witness who said it was terrible. you could see the flesh falling from the bones as they came out of the sea and then they died. it was ghastly. my cameraman are right. i find a guy again and i say could i talk to you again? this was about two hours later. and he said it was every bit. it was so awful. really, i can't to you. he went on like this for three minutes, and they had a deadline at 1:00.

in the end i was so desperate that i said could you see their bones? [laughter] >> his answer, he then told the store and i thought i'll be say because someone thought it was an appalling offensive question. straight to hell. and i received a deluge of greeting and that was the end i would like on your behalf to thank these for absolutely fabulous palace. i would like a bubble for you to stay away. and i will complain to the management about the cheering of this meeting. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> texas governor rick perry has said he will decide in the coming weeks whether he will seek the republican presidential nomination in 2012. on friday criticized president obama for the nation's current debt problems and he spoke about social issues. he made his remarks in denver at

the recent western conservative summit organized by the colorado christian university centennial institute. he is introduced by former colorado governor bill owens. [applause] >> lieutenant, thank you very much for your service to our country. thank you. [applause] >> what a nice introduction, and as governor my highest responsibility was to serve as a commander in chief of the colorado national guard. so lieutenant, i do appreciate your service and that of your colleagues, the men and women who protect our freedom every day. thank you. [applause] >> friends, i appreciate the chance to be here today and i appreciate particularly the chance to introduce a very good friend and an outstanding governor, rick perry from texas. when you serve as governor, and

rick and my terms overlapped for seven years, you get to know who the doers are you get to know who the talkers are. rick perry is a doer. we were close friends and allies as governors, and that's something that you don't always say about all of your colleagues given that rick and i served with for example rod blagojevich -- [laughter] and howard dean. [laughter] but we also shared something in common him and atari been alluded to that had my fellow coloradans known when i was running that first time in a very close election, i wouldn't have been elected as governor of colorado and that secret is that i to as the lieutenant mentioned am a native of texas born and raised in fort worth which is a little larger than rick perry's hometown of cave creek. in fact not to me people know this there were a number of

years when three native texans were serving at the same time as governors of three different states. rick perry myself and a gentleman named jeb bush of florida. this means that texas truly is an expansive state. rick and i do have one important difference. i was accepted into the university of texas. he had to go to texas a&m. [laughter] rick perry has built a strong and consistent record as a conservative during his 11 years as governor of texas. he's a leader in emphasizing the role of states in our federal system. rig is frequently taken on the federal government overreaching into our areas of state primacy. strong fiscal conservative, used his line-item veto to veto more than $3 billion budgeted items. [applause]

while cutting taxes is tax rates for everybody. whether it is taken on the trial lawyers over toward formal the teachers union over a accountability, rick perry has shown himself time after time as being not afraid to use his political capital for the good of the people. texas today leads the country in terms of job growth economic growth. in no small part due to rick perry's 11 years as governor of the great state of texas. so it's my pleasure this evening to introduce my friend the governor of the second best state in the union, rick perry. give him a warm colorado welcome. [applause] [applause] >> bill, thank you. bill owens ladies and gentlemen. he was fun to work with.

carson i don't know where you're sitting but waved at me. i don't know where he went. well done sir. proud of you. unite all of us very very proud of you. and if you go, go with the god be safe. do your duty. thank you. god bless you. [applause] >> as bill said one of the most magnificent things that we do as governors is have the opportunity to have young men and women like him who selflessly serve and james, i can't tell you what a feeling of pride it is as we go across afghanistan and iraq to visit those young guardsman. it is truly they are magnificent and how they serve, what they do. let me tell you it's good to be in the mile high city.

it's always good to get up on the high ground so you can kind of survey was going on around you. unit, particularly when you're headed into a conflict. now conservatives already hold the high ground of ideas, but this conference provides a vantage point with the view of the challenges that lay ahead for us as we go forward in this country. you know over the next 17 months i believe america will undergo some tough times as we begin the process of corralling and domesticating a beast known as the federal government. [applause] >> see, my concern is not only that washington has intruded upon the rights of the states and individuals, to make decisions about our own health care, our small businesses, our

money, but that it is also abdicated one of its most basic duties which is defending our borders. [applause] >> i always always thought the government was supposed to do three things really well which was deliver the male enforce our borders and have a very bolsters military. now two out of three i guess ain't bad for that bureaucracy that they miss it that bad on two out of those three. that one they get right. finds young men and women in the world that are serving in our military. [applause] >> like any organism though, the government has got to be fed. it just thinks it must be fed. unfortunately it develops a bigger and bigger appetite for our tax dollars and our freedoms. and over time, the people that government was created to

protect becoming its subjects. and the states it was devised to serve just becomes a name on another license plate. that's not what our founding fathers had in mind. they created a system of government that was clearly defined, clearly defined responsibilities and the limits of its powers. is best reflected in the 10th a member of the united states constitution. power is not delegated to deny states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved for the states respectively. or to the people. that simple. that's eloquence. it is to the point. the framers of our constitution had seen what happened when some distant too powerful government holds sway over our nation.

unfortunately they are carefully designed limits have been obliterated over time i bureaucrats who want more power, more resources, more say over the essential details of our individual lives. our federal government has grown well beyond its intended size and purpose so that it now threatens the liberties it was created to protect. we are now experiencing what happens. when a country founded on the tenets of individual liberty is governed with no regard for that liberty. you see business owners who are hesitant to risk expansion because they don't know when that next regulatory shoe is going to drop. when the something that's going to come and of our the resources. you see agencies like the epa running roughshod over states

and enacting these restrictions that run counter to scientific proof and detrimental to entire industries. you see government owning a huge percentage of land out here in the western united states them telling the folks next door on privately held land what they can do with their own private property. you see a federal government that rights 80 million checks per month all the while they are piling up debt that would eventually crush our country. you see folks are so still handcuffed in washington, d.c., by the special interests so i addicted to the spending, they spend their time arguing about raising the debt ceiling instead of making cuts. and then the president has the

nerves that go on national television, look us in the face and he says most of us don't know what the debt ceiling is. mr. president, we know what the debt ceiling is. [applause] >> i for one thing that ought to be called the escalator ceiling. because it just keeps going up all the time. trust me. budget cutters are pretty popular during campaign, but not so much when it's time to do the hard work. and the reason is because people's pet causes get cut. so conservative leaders, they need to grow some real thick skin. voters need to send more troops fiscal conservatives to washington, d.c.. [applause] >> in 2012 we need to redouble our efforts and send even more liberals into the private

sector. [applause] >> including the president who would be a whole lot better commentator on sunday morning talk show then he is at the the nation's chief executive director. [applause] >> the fact of the matter is if we don't do that we will get four more years, former use of an administration that clearly believes government is not only the answer to every need but the most qualified to make essential decisions for every american, and seemingly every area. the mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the obama administration is an affront to every freedom loving american, and a threat to just about every private sector job that is out there. [applause] >> and whether they're seeking to punish a company like boeing are moving their operations into a right to work state, or

whether they're pressuring companies to change their leadership as they have with some of the pharmaceutical companies, whether they are imposing epa mandates that kill jobs it is clear that they think they know best. well let me tell you something. i disagree and i disagree strongly and vehemently. [applause] our nation was built, our nation was built on the shoulders of working people who reached our shores in search of religious and economic freedom. and as a day and the generations that followed embraced the risks and the rewards of freedom they killed the land they built the fact is they pursued innovation, they help create a nation like this earth has never seen before. we must do we can to continue our nation's forward progress by a lacking genuine conservatives up and down about with a singular vote on the essential disciplines. now, texas is a tremendous

example of what happens when you consistently apply those essential disciplines, which i will take him they could be summed up in four very simple phrases. number one don't spend all the money. [laughter] [applause] and number two is keep your taxes low. under control. three is to keep those regulations fair and predictable so business owners know what to expect from one quarter to the next. and number four reform the legal system so frivolous lawsuits don't paralyze employers who are trying to escalate their job and create jobs. [applause] >> over the last decade that is the formula that we've used in the state of texas. and it has produced in arguably the most powerful economy in the

united states. at the same time, we stood strong on our conservative social values as well defending the unborn with parental notification laws upholding the traditional definition of marriage with an amendment to our state constitution. you know, i said the other day that tend amendment freeze nuke state to define marriage as they please. other traditional definition suits texas and this governor just fine. [applause] >> you know another tradition that we embrace in texas, and that's job creation. since we've limited lawsuit abuse, crafted one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation and kept our per capita debt way under control we've added jobs while other states have lost them left and right. those jobs flee other states because factors like access it taxation, frivolous litigation

drives them away. across the nation last month total payrolls decreased in 24 states. the national unemployment rate rose to 9.2%. in texas, our unemployment rate is a full point lower than that and again we added more jobs than any other state in the nation. this happens as our legislators were putting the finishing touches on a balanced state budget. not only did they balanced the budget they maintain essential services without raising taxes, and we left more than $6 billion in our rainy day fund. [applause] >> in that same session that we just finished, texas legislators passed loser pays tort reform. so that we send another clear shot across the bow that frivolous lawsuits had even less

chance of strangling job creations in the state of texas. you know, to make sure that legal voters are never canceled out by illegal ones we instituted a photo id requirement for every vote in the state of texas. [applause] >> voting is one of those precious rights. and the fact of the matter is it's one of the most powerful freedoms that we have in this country. so i think it's just there to apply at least the same standard required to get a library card or to get on an airplane. [applause] >> yes, sir. our legislators also approved membership in the multistate health care compact to bring vital health care decisions closer to the people, instead of very deep in some thing called obamnicare that this administration is going to try to foist upon america.

i happen to believe that texas is still an example of what our founding fathers had in mind when our nation was taking shape. i think that may be why we are in the crosshairs of this administration so much. i think it i think it caused some great consternation that we are being as accessible as we are. so i tell my folks in texas so what's it going to be? are we going to roll over? are we going to fold? i think i can say that all across america. are we going to roll over? are we going to fold? >> no. spent are we going to do what americans have done for more than two centuries. and that is peacefully elect leaders who reflect the values and you'll restore the necessary bought? think about the point of elections what's at stake. [applause] >> i happen to think that went with elections are going to be

determined by the vision of the people of this country. it's up to us but it's up to us to arrest our nation's downward spiral brought on by too much spending, too much interfering, too much deference to special interest. it's time for us to stage another sagebrush rebellion. [applause] banded together. pushback on washington's endless overreach. you know fortunately that effort is already underway shown by the 2010 election results. the voters and conservatives office in record numbers. since then conservative leaders at the local, state and at the federal level have been working overtime. they've been working to tie the unchecked spending in state affairs. and we all know that washington will never willingly give up and

as a power if the american people don't force them to adopt reform. washington needs a refresher course on the 10th amendment. [applause] >> that happens to be the reasons i wrote the book fed up. when states lead the way and they compete for ideas and resources and jobs free market principles are allowed to act. great things happen. the states are proof that the best leadership is closest to the people. it's not holed up in washington, d.c. issuing some one size fits all mandate. if you agree, as a matter of fact, get your phone out for just a second that i'm going to give you the opportunity it's okay young man, you can take your phone. i know your mom told you to put it up and make sure it's all. i want you to put in the word for word. and i want you to text it to

95613. 95613, the word for. go ahead. i will give you time to do that. because when you do that you're going to send it to me. [laughter] and going to keep you informed on what we are doing. i'm going to keep you informed on the efforts to restore the crucial balance of power between states and washington, d.c.. get america moving forward to its rightful place and role of leadership in the world. now i know i'm preaching to the choir here when i talk about this but america's greatness is in town and the size of its government. america's greatness resides in the hearts and the minds of its people. their innovative approaches to solving problems their ability to endure the toughest of times. if we want this to make the economy, we don't need more government spending. we need to unleash the private sector in america, the individual citizens who put their hours in at the job and they pay their taxes while doing

the best to take care of their families. the coalition necessary to correct our course as a nation consists of those who understand the importance of faith and family and freedom. [applause] >> that's what inspires a healthy free market. and the importance of assuming personal responsibility. without each of these groups, appreciating one another's importance, positive progress is going to be severely limited. together, we must keep america moving back to preeminence. because our values and conservative ideas are the world's greatest hope. like you, i still believe this country is special. the america i know was built on

the solid foundation of spiritual strength, of individual liberty, self-determination. we must recapture that vision and begin the hard work of lighting the way for millions of americans the truth in the sea of economic misery. let's leave them to the safe harbor of america renewal and shores of american exceptionalism. let's anchor them in a future good jobs in a country founded on great ideas restore the nation's principles, and that notion of government ought to be by the people for the people. because if we don't who will? if not now, when? there is no greater goal, no more crucial time than right now to make our stand to restore our economy, our families, and our country. and i know that we can.

god bless you and thank you all for coming to participate. [applause] >> thank you sir. [applause] [applause] >> live now to capitol hill as the senate convenes. we expect the recess from about 11 until 12:30 eastern. they will also discuss the new agreement on raising the federal debt ceiling of course. after they return the senate will consider that legislation. now live coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, how

majestic is your name in all the earth. long before the birth of the mountains, you have always been god sustaining the universe with your commands. although life's challenges sometimes prompt us to feel that we are rearranging furniture in a burning building, we take comfort in the knowledge that you hear and answer prayer. we thank you that our lawmakers are striving to find common ground. while work remains to be done empower them to discover

opportunities in this current crisis to build permanent bridges of cooperation as they remember that with many counselors there is safety. bless the members of their staffs who have labored diligent ly so that we can see the beginnings of a rainbow after the storm. may these sometime unsung heroes and heroines know that you will reward their faithfulness. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting

the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c. august 1, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable herb kohl, a senator from the state of wisconsin to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. leader. mr. reid: thank you investment following leader remarks the senate will resume consideration of the motion to concur on the house message to go accompany

s. 627, which is the legislative vehicle for the debt limit increase. the senate will recess from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. when the senate reconvenes the time until 2:30:30 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. i want to spend a few minutes with the united states senate today and the american people to talk to them about this great body that we serve in. i know that there are all kinds of pundits and commentators who talk about how the system is broken. they point to what's been going on in washington the last few months as saying it shows we need a complete change in the way we enact laws. it doesn't work anymore. it's terrible, awful; what's

been going on. mr. president, i want to take just a few minutes and historically review what our country's all about. in the summer of 1787, the founding fathers meeting in philadelphia were having a very difficult time. they had had a number of ways they tried in the past to keep the country together. they had the articles of confederation, and they knew it wasn't appropriate it wasn't working. and in june of 1787, a delegate from connecticut made the -- came to the conclusion that he had an idea how he might be able to suggest to the other members in the delegation, the founding fathers, how they could come up with the constitution. that's why they were there. and his suggestion was really full of merit because they had not been able to solve the problem of the great state of

new york, huge in area and millions of people, and a little state of connecticut -- very small in area and just a few people. how could those two states be together in the same union? they had already decided they were going to have three separate branches of government. but they -- the problems they had in philadelphia those many years ago was how to handle the legislative branch of government. the delegate from connecticut came up with the idea, it was called the great compromise. and his suggestion was now it became part of our constitution and allowed the constitution to become the real thing. his suggestion was we're going to have one body of the legislature, the house of representatives, that would be elected every two years. if somebody died or rescience over there -- resigns over there, they would have an election. no one who has served in the house of representatives has

gotten there other than having been elected by the members or the citizens of their district. the senate would not be representative of how many citizens were in their state. each state got the same number. that was the breakthrough. it was an experiment but a noble experiment and worked so well over all these many years where you have the legislative branch of government consisting of two separate bodies bicameral in nature. there's been conflict. the founding fathers built into the legislative branch of government purposely conflict because they believed that that would be enough offset the power of the judicial and executive branches of government. over the years things have been much worse than they have been in washington in the last three months. other country has been so successful as a result of the constitution that guides us. and i repeat the constitution has been so successful because of the great compromise of the legislative branch of

government. in the early days of our country, there was conflict that went on all the time. they were from the very beginning, can this great country survive. then we had the conflicts that developed prior to the civil war. one congressman and senator henry clay from kentucky, he was known as the great compromiser. he worked for generations plural to see what he could do to stop the dishraougs of the republic. -- the dissolution of the republic and he was successful. one member was enraged. congressman brooks came to the floor, came to the senate with his cane and beat senator

sumner beat him with his cane. senator sumner never really recovered. he was off work for a couple of years. he had permanent disability as a result of the beating he took on the senate floor. historic battles have taken place in our country where they talked where they were much more difficult than what we have just gone through. what we have gone through was extremely difficult but there was never any consideration the republic would fall. in recent years the civil rights disputes. mr. president, the congress reacted to the slavery -- i'm sorry -- the times that came after the dissolution of slavery, the civil rights movement, with all the dispute that took place right here on the senate floor. it was very, very heated. filibusters took place that lasted for weeks. not days. weeks. there was tremendous acrimony as a result of that issue dealing with civil rights, but we worked

through that. we worked through that. it was hard. people at that time thought the congress was broken. congress was not broken. congress works the way that it should. does that mean it's always a very pleasant, happy place? no. and do i wish it weren't as difficult as it has been the last few months? i wish it were much better than that. but that's where we are. but through all the years through all the conflicts we've had, we've been able to come together and reach a reasonable conclusion. the great experiment that started in 1787 has been very successful. a number of people identified our system of government here, but i guess the best way today to talk about it is what winston churchill said about democracy. here's what he said. it's been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried. i, mr. president am not proud

of the conflict we've had these last many months, but i'm satisfied that we have been able to come together to find a solution. now, it's not over until both houses of congress pass the legislation dealing with the debt crisis we have in america. it's not over until the president signs that bill. but after weeks of facing off against each other this partisan divide we have here in the senate, we were finally able to break through with an agreement. an agreement that is typical for agreements that are difficult. no one got what they wanted. everyone had to give something up. people on the right are upset. people on the left are upset. people in the middle are upset. it was a compromise. it's not always easy for two sides to reach consensus but that's what we did. we did it on a bipartisan basis. so i believe that reasonable republicans and democrats alike understood in this case without compromise our country faced a

very very difficult situation. but we did send, mr. president to the world and to the american people our great democracy is working. as difficult and as hard as it is, it works. so i look forward to working with my colleagues the next few days on both sides of the aisle to pass this remarkable agreement which will protect the long-term health of our economy and the very tkwauflt our nation's -- default of our nation's debt. we still have a lot of problems but this is a great step forward. today congress has a unique responsibility to show the world we can achieve not in spite of our divided government, but because of it. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany s. 627, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 627,

an act to establish the commission on freedom of information act processing delays, with an amendment. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president first let me say a word about the leadership in the senate. i have the good fortune of working with senator harry reid as our majority leader in my role as whip or assistant. i am close at hand when most of the major decisions are being made. and i've come to take the measure of this man from nevada, from searchlight nevada, and have found him to be an extraordinary leader. at first blush, most people would not choose him for ringing oratory or commanding presence, but i will tell you that he has created a leadership style in the senate which is exceptional. i watched him during the span of

the last two and a half years particularly as he has faced a myriad of challenges, with a new president of his own party passing a stimulus bill when we didn't have 60 votes on the democratic side and had to rely on a cross-over vote from three republican senators; dealing with the tarp crisis, the recession and what needed to be done to save financial institutions from dissolution; his efforts as well on the health care reform act which might have been the mightiest political battle i've ever been engaged in; the financial reform act. the list goes on and on. and then comes this year with a new congress divided and the republican leadership in the house; when he has had to face the passage of appropriations bills, the continuing resolution, and now the most recent crisis over the extension

of the debt ceiling. he is an exceptional leader, and i think he is such an exception because of his humility. he is not the first to the camera nor the loudest in his speech. he is a person whose word is trusted and who works night and day until we reach our goal. i admire him so much as a friend and am proud to be part of his leadership team and part of his democratic caucus. i'd like to say a word as well about senator mcconnell the republican leader. he stepped forward several weeks ago with an exceptional show of political courage when he made a suggestion about how we could find our way through this crisis. it was not a welcome idea on his side of the aisle and many of his critics took him to task for suggesting how we could get through the debt ceiling crisis. i admired the fact that he stood up and understood his

responsibility, our responsibility to the nation beyond any partisan consideration. and senator mcconnell played a critical role in working out the agreement which will come before us and is now pending before the senate -- or will be pending before the senate shortly. i thank him. i thanked him last night personally and i thank him publicly for joining in this bipartisan effort on behalf of the senate with senator reid and working directly with the president and vice president. i'm also happy that the leaders in the house speaker boehner and the minority leader congresswoman pelosi, were able to work together to come up with this agreement. now, there are harsh critics of this idea, because as senator reid stated earlier what we have come up with as an agreement is not what i would have written and certainly not what any senator would have written. there are parts of it that i don't care for at all and other parts that i think are very wise. that is the nature of compromise. i do not believe that i have

compromised my principles as a person or elected official in coming to this agreement. at some point, you have to sit at the table and look the other side in the eye and realize they feel just as strongly as you do, and the only common ground we found between you are not when you give up or the other side gives up. let me tell you what i think are the pluses and minuses of what we are about to consider during the course of this day. first, we have averted an economic crisis if both the house and the senate should approve this measure. the notion that we would default on our national debt for the first time in our history as of midnight tomorrow night would be devastating, devastate to go a weakened economy with more than nine million americans out of work. it would have raised america's interest rate on its own debt, adding to our national deficit. as i have said on the floor many times, a 1% increase in the interest rate paid by america costs us $130 billion more on

our deficit. so the idea of interest rates going up would add to our debt, not solve our debt crisis. in addition, it would force interest rates up all over america. individuals, businesses, families they would feel it. their credit card bills and student loan debts and automobile loans and home loans and businesses trying to engage in borrowing to expand the size of their business for the developments that they are undertaking. that is exactly the wrong thing to do. as the federal reserve strives to keep interest rates low to promote growth for us to do something on capitol hill which would have the opposite impact. so averting that crisis was the number-one achievement of any agreement that we reached among our leadership. the fact that we don't have to revisit this crisis on a weekly or monthly basis is also a positive step forward. there was a feeling on both sides of the aisle although not as clearly spoken on one side that to come back and do this

over and over again could not help but weaken the role and reputation of the united states in the global economy. and so we now have an agreement which will take us to february of 2013, beyond the next presidential election, giving whoever is elected or re-elected an opportunity to govern and to manage the economy in a responsible way. those, i think are the major achievements of this. secondly we make a down payment on the deficit and i think that it really cuts both ways. we need to address our deficit. this nation cannot be great cannot continue to grow, borrowing 40 cents for every dollar its government spends. that is an unacceptable approach, and we need to reduce that dependency on borrowing and reduce the debt that we're creating and by reducing spending that's the starting point. i would question whether this is the right moment to do that. i happen to believe as others do that when you're in a recession, trying to create economic growth, that pulling

back on spending on such things as training and education and the building of infrastructure makes the situation worse not better. i didn't prevail on that point of view and this does not reflect it, but the fact that we will be putting some money down toward reducing our deficit is a positive thing. i am also glad that included in this agreement when it comes to spending cuts is protection for the most vulnerable people in america. i can't get over how many times members of the house and senate will get up and make glowing speeches about cutting spending when those projects and programs they are cutting really are safety net for the most vulnerable people in america. we are talking about those who are unemployed looking for work. we are talking about those who are elderly and poor. we are talking about those suffering from physical and mental disabilities. we are a great and caring nation. we have created a safety net of programs so that we don't see homeless on our streets any more

than necessary because of the inadequacy of our programs, and we don't see a blind eye when it comes to the suffering that many families are going through. i am sorry that we are making some cuts, but we are protecting most of the safety net programs such as medicaid, the health insurance program for the lower income people in america. who counts on medicaid? one-third of the children in america have their health insurance through the medicaid program. almost 50% of the live births in america are paid for by medicaid. in addition, many elderly people even those on social security and medicare have to turn to medicaid to sustain them in their nursing home and convalescent home settings. so protecting medicaid as part of this package is a very, very important thing as far as i am concerned. i would also add that this approach that we're using here is more balanced than some.

i want america to be strong and safe. everyone does. it's part of our constitution that we swear to uphold. but there is money being wasted in the department of defense. there are contracts that are overrun, money overspent, and there is a lack of oversight. we can save money in the department of defense to reduce our deficit and not compromise by one penny the safety and security of the united states. this agreement before us says that both the department of defense and all other departments of the government have to look for savings and reduction in spending to move us toward our deficit reduction goal. i think that is a good thing. now, what's missing in this package? what's missing is obvious. at its best, this package will reduce our deficit by by $2.1 trillion, maybe a little more, when it comes to the future spending. most of us believe that unless we can reduce our deficit by by $4 trillion -- that's almost

twice as much -- over a period of ten years that we will not make the positive impact that we need to make to spur economic growth and more confidence in the american economy. but senator reid suggested and it's part of this program that we create a joint committee to try to find a way to increase the savings and reduction in deficit in the years to come. some skeptics this morning have said that's a typical washington copout. they are going to create another joint committee. haven't we had enough. you can make that argument, but i think it overlooks the obvious. we are committed here to reducing our deficit. we are committed to creating a joint committee that comes up with specific programs that work and if we fail, there is a penalty. if the joint committee fails to produce a product enacted by the house and senate, there is a penalty. under our language of legislation here, it's known as a trigger and it says if you fail, if you should fail to

reduce the spending and reduce the deficit through the joint committee, there will be a price paid. even deeper cuts in spending on both the defense and nondefense side. i don't want to see it move in that direction. i hope that we can find a more balanced approach and do it through the joint committee. working on a bipartisan basis with appreciation and respect for one another across the table, we can reach that goal. erskine bowles, former chief of staff to president clinton alan simpson, former united states senator, cochair of a commission that i served on where they sat down and created a temperate for us to reach a deficit and debt reduction -- meaningful debt reduction over ten years of more than $4 trillion. i then took that idea with some others senator mark warner of virginia senator chambliss of georgia, senator crapo of idaho senator coburn of oklahoma, senator conrad of north dakota and senator warner of virginia

and sat down with a gang of six senators and we took those ideas, turning them into what we thought was a legislative approach that would work. i still think that has merit and i still think it should be actively considered when we talk about the long-term reduction of debt. it is bipartisan, it is honest, it achieves real deficit reduction, and it does it in the fairest possible way. it puts everything on the table everything. there are no sacred cows. everything's on the table. it means it goes beyond spending cuts to the entitlement programs which make those of us on the democratic side particularly nervous, but it also goes into revenue, new revenue to reduce our deficit which makes those on the other side of the aisle nervous. but what we should be nervous about is a continuing deficit and a weakening economy and a debt left to our children. i believe that this proposal that's before us now this agreement of the leaders should be adopted in a timely fashion.

i would hope that we could move to it today. we are working with the republicans' schedule when these matters will be considered. there will be those on the right and on the left who will be critical of this and i can understand their thinking. it doesn't serve either side particularly well. it is a compromise and a consensus. i think of all the people that contacted my office from illinois and beyond during the last several weeks begging us to do something not to let this economy fail, to work together and compromise and find a way to resolve our differences. i think that this is a reasonable attempt to do that. i will support it with some misgivings but will support it, believing that it gives to us the way to get through this crisis and to move to a better place where we deal with this deficit and debt in a responsible, bipartisan manner, asking for shared sacrifice from all those across america who can make a sacrifice. that is the nature of our nation it's the nature of our

history where time and again we have rallied as a nation to face even more daunting challenges in the past. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 12:30 p.m. >> well, the senate's in recess until 12:30 eastern. senators are attending their party caucus meetings this morning to discuss the debt ceiling agreement hammered out over the weekend. when they return we expect a debate on the debt ceiling with a vote on the measure possible later today.

and, of course, you can see live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. right now, though remarks from senate majority leader harry reid this morning on the debt ceiling debate. two leaders or their designees. i want to spend a few minutes with the united states senate today and the american people to talk to them about this great body that we serve in. i know that there are all kinds of pundits and commentators who talk about how the system is broken. they point to what's been going on in washington the last few months as saying it shows we need a complete change in the way we enact laws. it doesn't work anymore. it's terrible, awful; what's been going on. mr. president, i want to take just a few minutes and historically review what our country's all about. in the summer of 1787, the founding fathers meeting in

philadelphia were having a very difficult time. they had had a number of ways they tried in the past to keep the country together. they had the articles of confederation, and they knew it wasn't appropriate it wasn't working. and in june of 1787, a delegate from connecticut made the -- came to the conclusion that he had an idea how he might be able to suggest to the other members in the delegation, the founding fathers, how they could come up with the constitution. that's why they were there. and his suggestion was really full of merit because they had not been able to solve the problem of the great state of new york, huge in area and millions of people, and a little state of connecticut -- very small in area and just a few people. how could those two states be together in the same union?

they had already decided they were going to have three separate branches of government. but they -- the problems they had in philadelphia those many years ago was how to handle the legislative branch of government. the delegate from connecticut came up with the idea, it was called the great compromise. and his suggestion was now it became part of our constitution and allowed the constitution to become the real thing. his suggestion was we're going to have one body of the legislature, the house of representatives, that would be elected every two years. if somebody died or rescience over there -- resigns over there, they would have an election. no one who has served in the house of representatives has gotten there other than having been elected by the members or the citizens of their district. the senate would not be representative of how many citizens were in their state. each state got the same number. that was the breakthrough.

it was an experiment but a noble experiment and worked so well over all these many years where you have the legislative branch of government consisting of two separate bodies bicameral in nature. there's been conflict. the founding fathers built into the legislative branch of government purposely conflict because they believed that that would be enough offset the power of the judicial and executive branches of government. over the years things have been much worse than they have been in washington in the last three months. other country has been so successful as a result of the constitution that guides us. and i repeat the constitution has been so successful because of the great compromise of the legislative branch of government. in the early days of our country, there was conflict that went on all the time. they were from the very beginning, can this great country survive. then we had the conflicts that

developed prior to the civil war. one congressman and senator henry clay from kentucky, he was known as the great compromiser. he worked for generations plural to see what he could do to stop the dishraougs of the republic. -- the dissolution of the republic and he was successful. one member was enraged. congressman brooks came to the floor, came to the senate with his cane and beat senator sumner beat him with his cane. senator sumner never really recovered. he was off work for a couple of years. he had permanent disability as a result of the beating he took on the senate floor.

historic battles have taken place in our country where they talked where they were much more difficult than what we have just gone through. what we have gone through was extremely difficult but there was never any consideration the republic would fall. in recent years the civil rights disputes. mr. president, the congress reacted to the slavery -- i'm sorry -- the times that came after the dissolution of slavery, the civil rights movement, with all the dispute that took place right here on the senate floor. it was very, very heated. filibusters took place that lasted for weeks. not days. weeks. there was tremendous acrimony as a result of that issue dealing with civil rights, but we worked through that. we worked through that. it was hard. people at that time thought the congress was broken. congress was not broken. congress works the way that it should. does that mean it's always a

very pleasant, happy place? no. and do i wish it weren't as difficult as it has been the last few months? i wish it were much better than that. but that's where we are. but through all the years through all the conflicts we've had, we've been able to come together and reach a reasonable conclusion. the great experiment that started in 1787 has been very successful. a number of people identified our system of government here, but i guess the best way today to talk about it is what winston churchill said about democracy. here's what he said. it's been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried. i, mr. president am not proud of the conflict we've had these last many months, but i'm satisfied that we have been able to come together to find a solution. now, it's not over until both houses of congress pass the

legislation dealing with the debt crisis we have in america. it's not over until the president signs that bill. but after weeks of facing off against each other this partisan divide we have here in the senate, we were finally able to break through with an agreement. an agreement that is typical for agreements that are difficult. no one got what they wanted. everyone had to give something up. people on the right are upset. people on the left are upset. people in the middle are upset. it was a compromise. it's not always easy for two sides to reach consensus but that's what we did. we did it on a bipartisan basis. so i believe that reasonable republicans and democrats alike understood in this case without compromise our country faced a very very difficult situation. but we did send, mr. president to the world and to the american people our great democracy is working. as difficult and as hard as it

is, it works. so i look forward to working with my colleagues the next few days on both sides of the aisle to pass this remarkable agreement which will protect the long-term health of our economy and the very tkwauflt our nation's -- default of our nation's debt. we still have a lot of problems but this is a great step forward. today congress has a unique responsibility to show the world we can achieve not in spite of our divided government, but because of it. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany s. 627, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 627, an act to establish the commission on freedom of information act processing delays, with an amendment. mr. durbin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president first let me say a word about the leadership in the senate. i have the good fortune of working with senator harry reid as our majority leader in my role as whip or assistant. i am close at hand when most of the major decisions are being made. and i've come to take the measure of this man from nevada, from searchlight nevada, and have found him to be an extraordinary leader. at first blush, most people would not choose him for ringing oratory or commanding presence, but i will tell you that he has created a leadership style in the senate which is exceptional. i watched him during the span of the last two and a half years particularly as he has faced a myriad of challenges, with a new president of his own party passing a stimulus bill when we didn't have 60 votes on the

democratic side and had to rely on a cross-over vote from three republican senators; dealing with the tarp crisis, the recession and what needed to be done to save financial institutions from dissolution; his efforts as well on the health care reform act which might have been the mightiest political battle i've ever been engaged in; the financial reform act. the list goes on and on. and then comes this year with a new congress divided and the republican leadership in the house; when he has had to face the passage of appropriations bills, the continuing resolution, and now the most recent crisis over the extension of the debt ceiling. he is an exceptional leader, and i think he is such an exception because of his humility. he is not the first to the camera nor the loudest in his

speech. he is a person whose word is trusted and who works night and day until we reach our goal. i admire him so much as a friend and am proud to be part of his leadership team and part of his democratic caucus. i'd like to say a word as well about senator mcconnell the republican leader. he stepped forward several weeks ago with an exceptional show of political courage when he made a suggestion about how we could find our way through this crisis. it was not a welcome idea on his side of the aisle and many of his critics took him to task for suggesting how we could get through the debt ceiling crisis. i admired the fact that he stood up and understood his responsibility, our responsibility to the nation beyond any partisan consideration. and senator mcconnell played a critical role in working out the agreement which will come before us and is now pending before the senate -- or will be pending before the senate shortly.

i thank him. i thanked him last night personally and i thank him publicly for joining in this bipartisan effort on behalf of the senate with senator reid and working directly with the president and vice president. i'm also happy that the leaders in the house speaker boehner and the minority leader congresswoman pelosi, were able to work together to come up with this agreement. now, there are harsh critics of this idea, because as senator reid stated earlier what we have come up with as an agreement is not what i would have written and certainly not what any senator would have written. there are parts of it that i don't care for at all and other parts that i think are very wise. that is the nature of compromise. i do not believe that i have compromised my principles as a person or elected official in coming to this agreement. at some point, you have to sit at the table and look the other side in the eye and realize they feel just as strongly as you do,

and the only common ground we found between you are not when you give up or the other side gives up. let me tell you what i think are the pluses and minuses of what we are about to consider during the course of this day. first, we have averted an economic crisis if both the house and the senate should approve this measure. the notion that we would default on our national debt for the first time in our history as of midnight tomorrow night would be devastating, devastate to go a weakened economy with more than nine million americans out of work. it would have raised america's interest rate on its own debt, adding to our national deficit. as i have said on the floor many times, a 1% increase in the interest rate paid by america costs us $130 billion more on our deficit. so the idea of interest rates going up would add to our debt, not solve our debt crisis. in addition, it would force interest rates up all over america. individuals, businesses, families they would feel it.

their credit card bills and student loan debts and automobile loans and home loans and businesses trying to engage in borrowing to expand the size of their business for the developments that they are undertaking. that is exactly the wrong thing to do. as the federal reserve strives to keep interest rates low to promote growth for us to do something on capitol hill which would have the opposite impact. so averting that crisis was the number-one achievement of any agreement that we reached among our leadership. the fact that we don't have to revisit this crisis on a weekly or monthly basis is also a positive step forward. there was a feeling on both sides of the aisle although not as clearly spoken on one side that to come back and do this over and over again could not help but weaken the role and reputation of the united states in the global economy. and so we now have an agreement which will take us to february of 2013, beyond the next presidential election, giving

whoever is elected or re-elected an opportunity to govern and to manage the economy in a responsible way. those, i think are the major achievements of this. secondly we make a down payment on the deficit and i think that it really cuts both ways. we need to address our deficit. this nation cannot be great cannot continue to grow, borrowing 40 cents for every dollar its government spends. that is an unacceptable approach, and we need to reduce that dependency on borrowing and reduce the debt that we're creating and by reducing spending that's the starting point. i would question whether this is the right moment to do that. i happen to believe as others do that when you're in a recession, trying to create economic growth, that pulling back on spending on such things as training and education and the building of infrastructure makes the situation worse not better. i didn't prevail on that point of view and this does not

reflect it, but the fact that we will be putting some money down toward reducing our deficit is a positive thing. i am also glad that included in this agreement when it comes to spending cuts is protection for the most vulnerable people in america. i can't get over how many times members of the house and senate will get up and make glowing speeches about cutting spending when those projects and programs they are cutting really are safety net for the most vulnerable people in america. we are talking about those who are unemployed looking for work. we are talking about those who are elderly and poor. we are talking about those suffering from physical and mental disabilities. we are a great and caring nation. we have created a safety net of programs so that we don't see homeless on our streets any more than necessary because of the inadequacy of our programs, and we don't see a blind eye when it comes to the suffering that many families are going through. i am sorry that we are making

some cuts, but we are protecting most of the safety net programs such as medicaid, the health insurance program for the lower income people in america. who counts on medicaid? one-third of the children in america have their health insurance through the medicaid program. almost 50% of the live births in america are paid for by medicaid. in addition, many elderly people even those on social security and medicare have to turn to medicaid to sustain them in their nursing home and convalescent home settings. so protecting medicaid as part of this package is a very, very important thing as far as i am concerned. i would also add that this approach that we're using here is more balanced than some. i want america to be strong and safe. everyone does. it's part of our constitution that we swear to uphold. but there is money being wasted in the department of defense. there are contracts that are

overrun, money overspent, and there is a lack of oversight. we can save money in the department of defense to reduce our deficit and not compromise by one penny the safety and security of the united states. this agreement before us says that both the department of defense and all other departments of the government have to look for savings and reduction in spending to move us toward our deficit reduction goal. i think that is a good thing. now, what's missing in this package? what's missing is obvious. at its best, this package will reduce our deficit by by $2.1 trillion, maybe a little more, when it comes to the future spending. most of us believe that unless we can reduce our deficit by by $4 trillion -- that's almost twice as much -- over a period of ten years that we will not make the positive impact that we need to make to spur economic growth and more confidence in the american economy. but senator reid suggested and it's part of this program that

we create a joint committee to try to find a way to increase the savings and reduction in deficit in the years to come. some skeptics this morning have said that's a typical washington copout. they are going to create another joint committee. haven't we had enough. you can make that argument, but i think it overlooks the obvious. we are committed here to reducing our deficit. we are committed to creating a joint committee that comes up with specific programs that work and if we fail, there is a penalty. if the joint committee fails to produce a product enacted by the house and senate, there is a penalty. under our language of legislation here, it's known as a trigger and it says if you fail, if you should fail to reduce the spending and reduce the deficit through the joint committee, there will be a price paid. even deeper cuts in spending on both the defense and nondefense side. i don't want to see it move in that direction. i hope that we can find a more

balanced approach and do it through the joint committee. working on a bipartisan basis with appreciation and respect for one another across the table, we can reach that goal. erskine bowles, former chief of staff to president clinton alan simpson, former united states senator, cochair of a commission that i served on where they sat down and created a temperate for us to reach a deficit and debt reduction -- meaningful debt reduction over ten years of more than $4 trillion. i then took that idea with some others senator mark warner of virginia senator chambliss of georgia, senator crapo of idaho senator coburn of oklahoma, senator conrad of north dakota and senator warner of virginia and sat down with a gang of six senators and we took those ideas, turning them into what we thought was a legislative approach that would work. i still think that has merit and i still think it should be actively considered when we talk about the long-term reduction of

debt. it is bipartisan, it is honest, it achieves real deficit reduction, and it does it in the fairest possible way. it puts everything on the table everything. there are no sacred cows. everything's on the table. it means it goes beyond spending cuts to the entitlement programs which make those of us on the democratic side particularly nervous, but it also goes into revenue, new revenue to reduce our deficit which makes those on the other side of the aisle nervous. but what we should be nervous about is a continuing deficit and a weakening economy and a debt left to our children. i believe that this proposal that's before us now this agreement of the leaders should be adopted in a timely fashion. i would hope that we could move to it today. we are working with the republicans' schedule when these matters will be considered. there will be those on the right and on the left who will be critical of this and i can understand their thinking. it doesn't serve either side

particularly well. it is a compromise and a consensus. i think of all the people that contacted my office from illinois and beyond during the last several weeks begging us to do something not to let this economy fail, to work together and compromise and find a way to resolve our differences. i think that this is a reasonable attempt to do that. i will support it with some misgivings but will support it, believing that it gives to us the way to get through this crisis and to move to a better place where we deal with this deficit and debt in a responsible, bipartisan manner, asking for shared sacrifice from all those across america who can make a sacrifice. that is the nature of our nation it's the nature of our history where time and again we have rallied as a nation to face even more daunting challenges in the past. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a

>> at 12:30 eastern, they're expecting to take up the debt ceiling debate with votes possible this afternoon. right now, though, senators are attending party caucus meetings. we may get some details on that from this morning's -- i'm sorry, from the white house briefing coming up. we plan live coverage of that here on c-span2. that'll start at 11:45 eastern. in the meantime, the house is expected to reconvene for legislative business at noon eastern, and they'll debate a number of suspension bills they'll also likely bring up the debt ceiling measure later today. you can see live coverage on c-span. again, came aiming for -- aiming for today's white house briefing at 11:45. until then our series of interviews with republican presidential candidates as they discuss thaddeus mccotter of mississippi.

this is just over half an hour. >> representative thaddeus mccotter, republican of michigan and a presidential candidate for the republican nomination. when did you first begin to think about running for president? >> guest: i think the thought was planted during the wall street bailout when we saw how the big financial corporations were treated and then later as juxtaposed to how the auto companies were treated when they needed assistance. the dichotomy between the manufacturing sector and coming from detroit you have a concern for the automanufacturer, but if there are some things in this country too big to fail, such as the banks that implies there are things that are too small to be saved, and i reject that as a republican, as an american we know everyone should have an equal stake. and as time went on, we continued to see the failure of the markets to respond, the failure of credit to flow down to main street. we continued to see people suffering, and i think that's really what cemented it.

now interestingly, i think amidst the jeopardy we face we have a tremendous opportunity to seize the future and make sure the 21st century remains an american century. but i think in the final analysis if we allow ourselves to continue to rely on big government which is contrary to what we're seeing in every aspect of our lives, we're going to miss this opportunity. >> host: and be when it comes to bailouts republican proclaim an effort by the obama administration and democrats to help the auto industry in your home state, something that mitt romney said he would not have done. do you oppose your fellow republicans on this? >> guest: yes, ity. actually, when i yo look at it, there's always been the attempt to have the equivalency of the $11 billion to wall street. but economically it was a $300 billion hit to the social safety net that would not have been repayable as loans had we allowed the manufacturing base to go down. strategically, i for one -- maybe i'm old-fashioned -- have

a problem with the communist dictatorship of china being the -- but in terms of mr. romney, i absolutely oppose allowing people to go bankrupt in the manufacturing sector because it's something we have to do as a nation. we have to produce wealth, we have to farm, we have to manufacture, we have to innovate. if we do not, we simply remain a consumptive economy. having seen wall street bailed out with no restructuring and with a failure to actually get the credit flowing back down, to turn around and say to working people that live in 90-foot lots that somehow their tax dollars are being used to bail out people in 90-foot yachts is acceptable but they can go bankrupt for the effort strikes me as -- >> host: and yet it was a republican president who you supported george w. bush, who said the u.s. was on the cusp of financial disaster if wall street was not bailed out, if some of these too big to fail companies were not bailed out. >> i respect him very much, i think history will be kinder to

him than some of the recent evaluations of his performance. but that was one where you had options on the table, and if you didn't want to throw $700 billion at them and hope they went withdraw, somehow you were not advocating any kind of policy. former chief economist of the imf talking about equity swaps, limiting leverage james a. baker iii talked about finding the ones insolvent breaking off their assets much like used in the savings and loan crisis. and the reason this was so important is was as you -- because as you recall in the 1990s when the japanese faced a similar meltdown, the u.s. advised them to do exactly what we didn't. they ignored our advice, and they wound up having a lost generation. we are now in the process of having a lost generation because we didn't follow our own advice and to me that was one of the reasons that i found the entire debate so reprehensible in many ways. you knew it wasn't going to work because it had already been tried and failed in japan.

>> host: what are your views about organized labor, and how do you differ with fellow republicans on issues like the card check? >> guest: i viewed it more as a district vote than a national vote. i think these issues should be handled primarily at the state level. but you also have to understand we have to support working people whether they're in unions or not. to me, it's an artificial distinction. and as republicans what we've seen, at least in my lifetime of 45, i saw a former labor leader be what i considered the greatest president of my lifetime a man named ronald reagan. ..

>> tray try to pretend that somehow big government is going to help grow the economy or somehow lead to prosperity when exactly the opposite is the case. so to me what you have is in terms of the senate and the white house -- >> host: so define your brand of politics. what is your ideology? is. >> guest: i don't. i'm a republican. i don't, i'm a republican. i joined the party in 18986 -- 1986. eventually as i worked my way up to be a county chair, one of the things you realize is the beauty of the republican party is the variety of views that come together with shared principles that remain the same. so you focus on the principles, you accept variety of opinions differences that can lead to a model of marching forward. i've always liked that. they get the right to call it

whatever they want, sometimes it's less than flattering. >> host: but if there's moderation, there are liberals, conservatives, progressives, you wouldn't give yourself every other label? >> guest: i'm a republican. i belong to the party of reagan and lincoln. >> host: did you grow up that way? >> guest: no. two of the biggest experiences i remember politically were the two times my father admitted he voted republican to my mother. >> host: and when was that? >> guest: nixon and reagan. my father died in 1984. just why did you -- >> host: why did you get involved in politics, seeking office in 1986? >> guest: i didn't particularly care for it. my father never cared for politics. there were times he was asked to run for detroit city council back in the day and he declined to do it. he found it a less than productive pursuit. but the reality was that i got involved because i saw what

didn't work under jimmy carter, so i was inclined to be a republican based on practical experience, and i also got involved because my friend said to me, why don't you join the republican party? we need precinct delegates. this was at a time when michigan was going through a caucus system. they were leading up to the 1988 caucus to make the determination between george h.w. bush jack kemp and the rob robertson supporters. so much to his chagrin, i ended up being a bush supporter. >> host: and then in the 1990s you were involved with local politics. when did you decide to run for the house of representatives? >> guest: that was later. that was much later. that was in 2002 post september 11th. after september 11th because as a state senator, you can't effect national policy, and clearly, this was a threat to the nation. it was a significant proportion to anything we've seen in the past except for pearl harbor. and so, to me, it was a place you could make a difference in terms of the national security

of the united states and in terms of protecting your community and moving it forward. as you know in michigan we also had some economic challenges that still confront us to this day that this is the place where you could make a difference. >> host: why are so many members of the house running for president and not one sitting u.s. senator? >> guest: so there's three of us, so you'd have to ask the senate, i don't know. usually, it is the senate that winds up doing it, so i'm not sure. a lot of people have passed on this, not just in the senate, but you've had governors decline to run as well. and i think it shows a healthy respect for the political ability of the president. he is a very spirited campaigner, and he's been very successful, and he's had a very rapid ascent to the oval office. so for republicans i think a lot of them are looking at in this terms of it'll be a very difficult race and also decline on the basis of their family which is very understandable. but to me it's their decision to make and i accept at face value why they haven't. >> host: and yet this country has not elected a sitting house member to the u.s. presidency

since james garfield. >> guest: yes, who had an odd trifecta. he was member of the house, he was also the nominee of the legislature of ohio. he had been elected by the legislature of ohio to be their senator. so he was leaving the house to be a senator when he walked in as a dark horse and was named the nominee of the republican party for president. so clearly, mr. garfield had something on the ball. but what we're seeing today, i think, especially in this might be case revolution is you're no longer a house member generally bound by the district in which you are covered by the local press and be which the media maybe in the detroit market or smaller markets you find yourself. you have twitter, youtube facebook, c span, you have the ability to take your message o outside the boundaries to a greater extent than ever before. this is why house members even if they decide not to run certainly have voices being heard on a far more regular basis than ever in the past. >> host: so do you feel yourself qualified to be president, to be commander in chief? >> guest: i think you always feel qualified when you seek the

office, but you also have to be realistic to understand the office is a challenging job. i don't think there's ever been an occupant of the white house who said they were fully prepared of what happens in the office because not only the day-to-day administration, but you never know what to expect from events as we know from the experience of the last president bush. he was going to be a domestic reformer, and then september 11th happened. so you can look throughout history, and presidents face difficult challenges. a lot of them are extenuating circumstances outside of their control or even reasonable expectation of what they can face, and i think you have to be very cognizant of that so there's a certain amount of humility that has to be brought in the door so you don't think that somehow you can foresee every eventuality of what could happen to the country. >> host: so why do you want to be president? >> guest: i think it's a tremendous opportunity. what we're seeing in everyone's daily life, especially through that communications revolution that i talked about. if you think about a blackberry in the palm of your hand, you can communicate around the world. on your laptop you can see sources of information, you're no longer by major networks or

newspapers. you can have more control over your own life and more ability to project your political or personal views to your family, friends, community than any period of time in history. this is called self-government. and yet what we see is the antiquated 20th century model of big government the vertically-integrated, highly-purebureaucratized state which wants to take your decision ability. unless you match our economy with a citizen-driven, self-governing state what's going to happen is you're going to continue to see america in a period of stagnation. now, you combine the fact that the government which can spend what it takes as opposed to what it makes with the fact that the failed wall street bailout banks are still sitting there, and they aren't getting credit because they've been restructured to the point where their balance sheets are fixed you're going to continue to see a lost generation of americans. i think if you can fix the big banks and then what you have to do then is tax reform,

regulatory reform, you're going to unleash the entrepreneurial and industriousness of the american people. if you do not, again we're going to continue to be dragged down by entities that are antiquated on a 20th century model that cannot be applied successfully to the 21st century. so i think that's one with of the things. the other thing obviously is we're a country at war. we are a nation at war. we have men and women defending our freedom and expanding it to others in this foreign fields. the united states has to have a comprehensive strategy not only for dealing with the conflicts we find ourselves but for supporting movements like the green revolution or the the opponents of the assad regime in syria so those terror-sponsoring regimes can implode. i also continue to think and continue to point out as people are increasingly starting to realize that the people's republic of might communist china is a threat to americans' prosperity and security because it's a

mercantilist state that is bound upon expanding its influence not only in asia, but throughout the world at the expense of the united states. these are major issues coming down the pike that we hear very little about, and i think it's something that the voters when you bring it to them are very attentive to. everybody knows it's happening, but very few people are talking about it. >> host: if you use your words, economic stagflation -- >> guest: stagnation. >> host: but the anemic economy under two administrations, two parties, what would you do that hasn't been done under the bush administration which cut taxes, we saw unemployment continue to rise, and under the obama administration which has spent money and yet as republicans have said we haven't seen economic growth that the president promised. so what would you do different? >> >> guest: well, first, you cannot focus on leaving the banks the way they are. because it's a balance sheet recession. what's happening is it's not investment in consumption.

what you have to see the failure of credit to get down especially to small business and small entrepreneurs. the longer they are recapitalizing, as you recall after the wall street bailout instead of buying the toxic assets, they went right to a recapitalization program. what's going to happen is it's going to continue to keep credit from coming down. this effects farmers and manufacturers because they are capital-intensive, labor-intensive, they have to produce the products up front. so that's one of the major things that has to happen is they have to be restructured. quickly get recapitalization, you have to limit their amount of leverage and you have to take the ones that are not healthy and segment them off and wall off their assets in the resolution trust core. that's one of the things neither party has done because they believe the financial markets are going to lead to financial prosperity for everybody, and what we've seen was a dot.com bubble followed by a housing bubble now a government bubble with the spending going on in

washington. so that's number one. .. implemented through the bga. now i'm trying to impose these regulations on people and expect the economy to grow. so those are things right off the bat you have to have fundamentally. you have to get beyond what we're seeing and allow for all the above energy strategy in the united states. we're watching corn inflation

rise at a time real wages are declining. energy is something that goes into the cost of every product you have. you've just seen where we talked about grocery bills going up 5%. it's a spike they haven't seen before that high. energy goes into every single thing you purchase. every single thing you produce. and especially with manufacturers and farmers those are fixed costs that cannot be passed on to consumers. it makes them more difficult for them to hire grow and invest and it takes it difficult for consumers to wind up being able to purchase goods in a recessed economy. these are things that were not done and not approached. what you do as a president you have to understand -- the president can only grow government jobs. when you have a to do is unleash the american people and they will respond. there's a lot of pent-up entrepreneurship out there. >> >> host: how do you do that in a divided government. >> guest: democrats and republicans on both sides the

economy tops grow. there are blue dogs and there are centrists and that will depend on the outcome of the election. i think if you continue with a divided government the way it's constituted now you're going to see that end in 2012. you may have a divided government after that but i think the american public really understands that they're going to vote whoever regardless the party that they are being failed by the larger institutions in the country. those who understand the sense of alienations the feel. the way thee servant institutions namely the government which is supposed to work for you or namely the banks which are not bigger than you are not serving you but get a sense they are working together to serve themselves. >> host: where in michigan did you grow up and what was life like for you and your family? >> guest: well i was born in spite and we moved to levona outside of detroit. >> host: brothers and sisters. >> guest: a brother who is immensely more talented. >> host: you have seen a lot of changes in detroit over the last

30 to 40 years. how has your hometown changed in your eyes? >> guest: hometown is always my hometown. whatever the changes are, the things that we focus on is the fact that we're very resilient people. one of the things that people in detroit don't like is the way the rest of the country looks as us as if we're some kind of sore to be ignored. the reality is we get up every day. we work hard. we're the people who make things. we're the people despite whatever difficulties come our way we get up put the clothes on and go to work and drive past houses that can't be sold. drive past shops that can't be closed and drive past newspapers who tell us how bad off we are and we try to make things better and we're going to continue to try to do that. one of the goals of the people in detroit is continue to prove the doubters wrong and we will do that. >> host: how do you do that? how do you do that in detroit? in ohio pennsylvania new york illinois? the whole swath of area that has seen plants shut down, home values drop and businesses leave? >> guest: we have to start restructuring government for the 21st century. again, the states that you talk

about very much minor mirrors of what's happened with the big government we have here in washington. and so whether we have people like governor snyder, people like governor kasich and others who are trying to restructure government make it more nimble more limited and allow for more self-government within those states to make them more attractive for businesses not only to bring in new startups but to allow us to keep the college kids we educate that are still leaving us now for other states. so the laboratories of democracy are getting the concept that they can't continue on like this is 1965 the year of my birth. that things have changed since then except government hasn't. so these are the places that are going to do it and what's going to change these places is the ability to diversify the economy once you fix some of the fundamentals that we've talked about so that entrepreneurs and innovators and workers can come together to grow those economies and find the new jobs so that we not only id8 here in the united states but we also produce in the united states and we can also sell them in the united states and take our products overseas for sale.

these are things that right now we're not seeing. what we're seeing is a continuation of a consumetive. we keep talking about what i was in detroit when i was in high school we were told we would have seven jobs and a service sector economy and later on we were told in college we would have a knowledge-based economy and mr. greenspan told us we don't need to make something anymore but eventually is going to come and take its place and that's kind of where we stuck. the only people who will determine what the economic future of the united states looks like -- it's not the president who claims he's creating the new pillars of prosperity which i didn't see in his job description by the way. it will be the american people in the past and in the future who will continue to build and shape what has been the most successful prosperous and equitable economy known in human history. >> host: you mentioned ronald reagan. who else do you view a political hero? >> guest: i don't view politicians as heroes. >> host: or role models. >> guest: i don't video them as role models i view them as people. and the best thing is they're human. they had their struggles. people forget about some of the

things ronald reagan had to go through. but you can still like people for what they go through. i like robert kennedy. i like harry truman but if you're talking about people that you really try to emulate, musically i like to listen to the beatles and the stones. i'd probably be more excited meeting keith richards than meeting president obama again. >> host: you often quote led zeppelin on the house floor. >> guest: i did once and we were doing one minute and everybody was saying the same thing both sides and the democrats especially. the song remains the same so trying to put it in the parlance of the day. i could quote charlie woods woodsworth. i brought up kashmir and other songs i tried to put up in the speech. >> host: when instruments do you play. >> guest: i play combhov instruments. when you're homely you have to play something.

>> host: the new flying squirrels. >> guest: we used to call the flying squirrels. >> guest: who else became part of the band. >> guest: it was always me and my brother and our drummer was john. and he passed away, unfortunately, from a heart -- congenital heart ailment. and so we had a friend from the old days started drumming for us and people sit in. >> host: have you ever written a song? >> guest: oh, yeah. it's not very good. none of them are any good or you would have heard testimony. or i wouldn't be doing this. >> host: how did you meet your wife? >> guest: i met her through her brother. who he was a classmate of mine. >> host: how many children do you have. >> guest: we have three george timothy and amelia. >> host: and do they think of your presidential bid? >> guest: they're already. they are kids and they have other worries than dad. >> host: will you give up your house seat. >> guest: i'm not even worried

about it but the presidency. no distractions. >> host: how do you win the nomination. what's your strategy? >> guest: we going to ames iowa as a straw poll and the message to see if it resonates. we've been going around as a campaign getting the message out where we can. we're obviously not as well-known as the vast majority of the candidates but we do take great heart that the response has been very warm to the message because it's something most people aren't talking about the challenges we talked about earlier. and so you go forward and see if it works. if people agree with it then i believe support will follow. far too many candidates spending millions upon millions who can't get out of the single digits or break out of the 17% range even as a front-runner. that means -- what it tells me what the polling tells us is that people are dissatisfied with the field and they're looking to hear something different. not necessarily see someone different. but to hear something different. it may be me. it may be somebody else. >> host: what is your message? what's your pitch to the voters

in iowa and to the american people? >> guest: it's to make sure that we get the economy going again. to make sure the big government and the big bailout bikes aren't going to cap us is generation of stagnation and we are going to transcend our security challenges. best days are ahead. it's a question of how quickly we get there. >> host: the president is also the leader on the world stage. are you prepared to do that? >> guest: oh, yes. if you look at that time in terms of the foreign affairs of the united states what has to happen is the united states has to be respected, unfortunately with this administration it's chosen to be liked rather than respected and they -- >> about 3 minutes left in this interview with congressman mccotter. you can see it in its entirety at c-span.org. we're going live now to today's white house briefing with spokesman jay carney and a number of administration officials. this is just getting underway. >> i do not have any opening announcements so i will go straight to your questions. julie? >> can you give us any update how the president is spending

the time today in terms of trying to rallying and making calls to lawmakers and making any plans? >> i don't have any scheduling updates for the president. as you know the vice president is headed to capitol hill. and is meeting with the senate and the house democratic caucuses to talk about the deal with them. and to answer their questions and so i think that's part of the process. i don't have anything specific about the president. >> there's nothing -- >> no i didn't say that. i don't have any scheduling updates for phone calls or meetings or conversations to read out to you. he's obviously been thoroughly engaged in this process through the weekend. you saw him here last night in the briefing room and will continue to be engaged and you should not take from my answer that he is not speaking to lawmakers. simply that i don't have any specific conversations to read out to you. >> can you tell us what message the vice president is taking to

the hill today. liberal democrats say the president gave up too much for the agreement? >> he will carry the message that the deal negotiated with leaders of congress is a victory for the american people. let's start with point number 1. the debate in this room and elsewhere in washington in the past week was, would we continue for the next few months leading up to the christmas season have the uncertainty caused by a decision to relitigate the whole issue of raising the debt ceiling and would that uncertainty be continued and would that be part of any agreement? the requirement that we would vote again to raise the debt ceiling within four six and twelve months? the president -- the president was adamantly opposed to that precisely because it would have such a negative impact on the economy. and that will not be part of

this agreement. it is not part of this agreement. this agreement ensures that the debt ceiling will be extended through 2012 removing that cloud of uncertainty from the economy. second of all, the agreement ensures that there is an initial round of spending cuts that protect vital investments, that will ensure that the economy can continue to grow protect vital things like pell grants that are a high priority for the president. and significantly, ensure that there's a firewall in the discretionary spending cuts between defense and nondefense spending which again is a kind of protection we haven't seen in a long time that is essential to making this a fair and balanced deal. then there's a committee set up a special committee as you know by the legislation that will be bicameral and bipartisan with equal representation between republicans and democrats. and that committee will be charged with finding ways to

ensure -- finding ways to reduce the deficit even further. $1.5 trillion further. and everything is on the table for that committee. everything including both -- entitlement reform and tax reform and let's be clear. the president thinks, as you know, that the biggest possible overall accomplishment in terms of deficit reduction is a desirable goal as long as it's balanced. and he looks forward through the process set up by that committee to having that debate about what are priorities are. what we seed as legislated through this deal find another 1.2, 5.2 billion in deficit cuts, how are we going to do that? are we going to do that by asking -- sacrifice only of middle class americans or seniors? parents of children who are disabled? or are we going to ask that others including oil and gas companies, corporate jet manufacturers or the wealthiest americans share in the

sacrifice? i think that is again a debate he's looking for. >> why are democrats confident that they will be able to get these commitments in the committee if they -- >> well, we came very close as you know in a -- to achieving a grand bargain with the speaker of the house. and let's be clear. belatedly it was conceded that in that agreement that was negotiated very painstakingly between the speaker of the house and the president of the united states, revenue was on the table and i quote the speaker including $800 billion as a minimum of revenue so that was envisioned by the speaker as part of a grand bargain had that been achieved. secondly we saw close to 20 republican senators endorse the ideas behind the gang of 6 proposal which included not just revenue but $2 billion in revenue okay? so i think there is an enormous potential here for those who work on this committee