see here tonight and what you're hearing about people doing this all over the country, do you think we are going to back down? i can answer that. we will not back down. and then, i think this will take a little bit more calculation on your part, but in a few areas of cost but i'm hoping you could get back to me and explain. the salary of the workers that will be displaced, will there be any change their? what about the mileage as they are displaced to another post office and impact on the environment of the further traveling? ..

bargaining agreement and to always supports that. next, please. >> the center for sustainable medicine in vermont i run a small sliding scale clinics serving mostly working-class and poor people for almost 20 years and then i rely on being able to walk across the street to my local post office and put medicine in the mail and have it get they're the next day. but i'm actually not here to talk about that. i am here to talk about something that you should be using so much in this fight which is the power of the love letter.

i started writing letters to friends starting at age nine and route three or four letters every week. my friends all over the world and pen pals and the thrill of opening a letter where you see the person's handwriting is something that e-mail and text messaging cannot even begin to match. you can't cut out a little peter hart or put sprinkles in or put a little perfume on the letter to get a text message. you could be capitalizing on this. i don't really like that word. [laughter] the reason i moved to vermont is because i married a man who lived here when i was living in seattle and we rode 50 letters back-and-forth in a five month period before he sent me an engagement ring through the mail and i knew it was coming and asked the postman to wait a minute while i opened it and had him put it in my hand.

>> that's wonderful. [applause] next, please? >> i'm back. in many businesses in this country there's a steadfast rule that if it isn't in hard copy on paper, it never happened if we get rid of the mail system or slow it down, you know, that's going to destroy mortgage documents and things like that. it just can't have been and it has to be reliable in fact and i know for certain i personally can't afford the 8-dollar fedex one to three day service or the 20 dollar ups service the u.s. postal service will get there in the same amount of time for 44 cents. >> thank you. >> it's also a federal offense

to mess with the male if we don't supply any federal funding into the system and that doesn't make sense to me. i would like to know why we don't do that. sorry you said we could come back to the other one and go again and i am. spec i also limit you to one question and i've already heard three. >> sorry. there was an article in the paper saying 35% of the service is done on line and a country where the majority rules that would mean 65% is not done on line so i think we need to keep that in mind. >> thank you. >> i guarantee when i send that letter as it stands today my letter will get there safely before the january 19th date. >> appreciate that. thank you very much.

[applause] >> i'm a school teacher been teaching for 32 years. i find that i agree with almost every person that came up here tonight and said the post office is a service, not a business and the fact that this is timed at about the same time that we probably have double-digit employment in our country i find it incredibly tone deaf that this is happening right now, right here. our representatives from vermont i'm proud to say represent real people like myself. but there is an increasing tone deafness in washington to the play of real life people and this feels to me like one more attack on working people,

period. >> appreciate that. thank you. [applause] >> i'm usually her pretty well. i'm going to have to talk awfully quick to get this and in two minutes. first of all, some of the most visible employees the postal service has are the carriers and the city carriers and these people are genuine heroes. there isn't a day that passed in the history of the postal service and i assure you know they haven't rescue people that are falling, they haven't helped people with heart attacks, they've rescued people from fire, it's just an everyday occurrence and they are truly heroes. my second thing is the question ms. kessler. i assume you also did this for burlington and manchester. the process all of the male in the state of vermont else told you and it did a very economically and it did it on a one day service standard.

well worth the benefits and closing burlington and keeping white river junction open? where are the figures for that? >> we haven't concluded that study at this point. >> will we have another meeting when you get those figures to get your? >> if we go forward with in the of the other studies that are around the manchester. >> when you are saying is you've already decided is if it is going to close it is going to be white river rather than burlington. my apologies by the way. >> i think that is the point is there has been the decision made and after the china we also agree not to make any determination by any of these consolidations to allow sufficient time for them to also continue the dialogue that they have on the service. >> thank you. [applause]

>> i have a home-based business in heartland. i grow in my own organic garden seeds of heirloom vegetables that are specifically suited for growing in the new england area that is my service area. this time of year i go to my heart and a post office almost daily and find the postmistress i know very well and even though she knows i'm not a mystery shopper she asks me anything liquid, perishable, fragile or hazardous? of course my seeds are time sensitive so i am very invested in the surface not been reduced but some thoughts on this, the post office could be if it were free of the onerous burden of the 5 billion annual the required to prepay towards the pension fund perishable embedded

in the very name of the united states postal service. fragile the lives of the people who would lose their jobs in the midst of this fragile barely recovering economy. and hazardous, the kind of short-term thinking that has led to the consideration of this consolidation plan. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> my name is steven. i new hampshire resident with but i've worked in the white river plant for many years. i pay federal taxes and vermont taxes even as a new hampshire citizen. about a decade ago the postal service which a lot of the volume of mail to the manchester

facility and it was an abomination. the overnight mail took nearly a week to receive. the roads are not conducive to manchester or burlington for the on-time delivery for much of vermont. i'm a decorated veteran and i have served in several capacities as a federal employee most of which is with the united states postal service today i am currently listed as an employee but was an early victim of one of your studies. to responsible employers discriminate against disabled employees? again as an early victim in your last study i wonder what's going to happen next to my brothers, my union brothers within the

postal service and how any of these things are going to impact the continued value of the united states postal service. >> thank you. appreciate you coming. [applause] >> i've brought media which is a company that produces documentary films, and i am here tonight because i am very concerned about the changes that are being proposed for the postal service for a variety of reasons. our business is very dependent because we live in a rural area to be able to have access to a service that is overnight that is the reliable. i use the postal service often to mail out film and also mailing out tapes that have been filmed editors in new york and that kind of thing. the changes will affect my company, and as we've heard from other people here, it will probably affect their company as

well. and i think it is shameful at a time that we are in the middle of an economic downturn that these sorts of proposals are being made to actually cut jobs. we are in a part in history when we need to be looking at job creation, and this kind of program that you are proposing will wind up having a ripple effect and affect other businesses in our area as well, so i hope he will take into consideration. and i've done a documentary that actually looks at liberalism and privatization and i see what you are doing as a form of that. you are leading towards that because you are no longer going to be competing and providing the services as well as places like fedex and that will eventually end up causing the privatization i believe of the postal service and i think that that will be quite a horrible thing to have happen. >> thank you. [applause]

>> my name is joyce and i live in lebanon new hampshire. my name is joyce and i live in west lebanon and hampshire. i've been listening to all the comments but wasn't going to say anything because i share so many of the thoughts such as the problems degrading the postal system to try to keep things going. but the main reason i decided to say something is it occurred to me no one has mentioned all the people on the other side of the river in the upper valley that rely on the white river distribution center for their mail. i have a post office box in white river and i also have one in hanover. the hospital was there. no one has mentioned all the people in new hampshire that are going to be affected by cutting down the distribution.

[applause] >> thank you. >> good evening. local 301. thank you very much for all of your patients tonight. appreciate it. i just wanted to add one thing that i haven't heard and i've heard a lot of great things tonight. the postal service for the 28 years i've been employed as a mail handler in manchester new hampshire and elsewhere has been hand-wringing of the degradation of the first-class mail as a product for the usps and in those 28 years i've seen a lot of great commercials on priority mail. i think they've been very successful in restoring priority mail service but i get to see the postal service in those 28 years spend 1 penny on trying to reinvigorate first-class mail service. i don't believe first class mail

service is a dead product. i think the postal service has done an awful lot to encourage the first class mail, but my comment would be this. perhaps some of this money would be better spent advertising first-class mail as a benefit on fraga for customer fraud or identity theft or a thousand other reasons why first-class letter for 45 cents is a whole lot better deal than paying for your your bills on the internet and i would appreciate being added to the record as a recommendation on the way to reinvigorate the postal service. >> thank you. [applause] >> the final question, comment of the night. >> my name is michael coming and with my wife and my two sons operating in vermont i'm going to come at this in a little bit of a different way.

i was here this afternoon for the mailers meeting and made some comments and would be willing to speak to people more. as a major i know a lot of the nuances on the structure in light seen where things might be tweaked which i would be glad to share. but i realize it's a business. it's a business to be without the vitality of the post office cease to exist. we provide a service to a lot of small companies, businesses, organizations, that type of thing. we are doing things for them to earn them the maximum amount of discounts they can to invite them to continue to the best benefits. for our congressional delegation, you're the ones that are going to be able to get some of the hard answers to the many questions that exist. we can read things. we can't discern how true they

are. you will be able to ask the hard questions to get the hard answers back and act on them appropriately on our behalf. this is a publication in the united states post office that we receive as a meal entity. one of the first stories and hear the postal service in fiscal year 2011 with $5.1 billion loss. this is set to be after the pre-funding requirements. it also goes on to say the total 2011 mail volume decline by the 20 billion pieces of mail. as 3 billion pieces less, $5 billion lost are we losing $2 for every piece of mail that we send? again, some of the questions that need to be answered. where are the numbers and what do they really mean? okay. i'm going to just leave you with one last thing.

we've got to lighten up here now. how much paper does it take to buy one postage stamp? >> if you don't know, this is your receipt for one stamp it costs 44 cents. >> let me say to everybody that came up this evening -- i'm sorry. one more person here. your name? >> [inaudible] i was born in switzerland and i came to this country i was 18 and spent some time in canada. we've got the best system there is in the whole wide world. i know because i was at the bahamas for five years. we sent packages to my grandson that was in the marines, and

within a week -- so please don't lock it up. [laughter] [applause] if i may as we close out tonight, thank you to everybody who's thoughtful, professionally presented comments and questions were very much appreciated. it's a common theme i heard this evening. a common theme i heard is the regard with which our postal people are held within the community and continues to do that to the postal employees as we feel might well feel that doing the remarkable job thank you for all that he do and continue to the great job. everybody safe travels, thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] go to town halls, campaign

rallies and meet-and-greets. [inaudible conversations] >> it's a pleasure to have a listening ear. >> i do have a question. you talked about bringing manufacturing back to the united states. what are some of the plans to do that? are you planning on taxing some of these big companies and shifting overseas? >> i want a tax code that clears all of the loopholes -- >> which the hampshire primary coverage on television and on our web site, c-span.org. i know president obama khanna to office talking about procurement reform. so everybody wins of the defense

ministry and military and people leave out the one part that is going to make a difference which is the lawmakers. you know, go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs in your district. that's how that false and that's where they stop to read this because editor finding the latest jobs report commerce secretary john aneesh chopra said the last six months have seen the best rate of private sector job growth since 2006. according to the labor department of the economy created 200,000 jobs in december and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5%. the commerce secretary talked about the latest economic figures in the center for american progress. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> we are excited to have secretary of commerce john

bryson here discussing issues of competitiveness. as you all know, competitiveness is about building an economy that's fit for the 21st century a world we are competing and trying to win with new competitors each and every day. it's also about building an economy that works for everyone, not just a privileged few. we know that the obama administration has made competitiveness equality parity since the beginning of the administration and house geared up in the last year and especially with secretary bryson's leadership now in the commerce. because of this important this was also done much work in this area. a year ago my colleague john podesta, sarah wartell released a report calling for a more coordinated comprehensive approach to the u.s. competitiveness. so that american workers, businesses and families could prosper in a more competitive world. the lead of a blueprint for the u.s. competitiveness of the top

of the national agenda and putting the country down the path to achieving a. as of was a year ago president obama also signed the american competes reauthorization act into law. the act is a major achievement in u.s. competitiveness policy. it authorizes significant investments and programs the national science foundation, the department of energy, the department of commerce all in order to ensure american competitiveness and it keeps america on a path of leadership and science and technology and education to ensure that we are doing what's right for our economy and the global world in the next several years but also for decades to come. as a part of the competes act congress asked secretary of commerce bryson to conduct a detailed analysis of the structural challenges to the nation's engine of innovation job creation and growth known as the company's report, the study is a first of its kind looking to the biggest challenges our economy is facing as well as the opportunities we have today.

the center is honored to have secretary bryson here to unveil the report and the key findings today. we are also joined by several members of the innovation advisory board who made this report possible. the advisory board has guided the secretory throughout the study and has provided incredible guidance on this issue and they are all made up of leaders in this issue that many of us have heard from for many years. and then it is my pleasure to welcome here the center rob atkinson at the information. rebecca the likely, jim clements, abby joseph cohen the global market institute and senior investment strategist of goldman sachs. larry cohen, president of the communications workers of america, art levenson, chairman of apple and genentech. james, director of mckinsey and company and the can see and company global institute,

natalia, president and ceo of eg formerly that equilibrium group, kim, chairman of the clear st incorporated, julie, president and ceo of welch allyn, stephen kane university of science center in volume coming to the last one store in representing the boy is record lucey sanders national center for women and science technology. i know we are all looking forward to hearing more about the report and i will turn the floor over to secretary bryson in a moment but let me say a few words about what you're doing today. we have a different and interesting format we will have a panel led by sara wartell and a few minutes after secretaries benign's remarks and then last we are going to have something of an affair with a lot of members of our edify is regrouping and information about different elements of the competes act following the panel.

so i hope he will stay for all of that. it's my pleasure not to introduce secretary of commerce john bryson who was sworn in just a few months ago, but he brings nearly three decades of experience in business to the commerce department. an early innovative business leader leading in efforts around green energy and ensuring that we have -- that we are taking advantage of new economic issues and he has been a leader in trying to find the new areas of innovation in our economy. specifically in green energy. and so it's -- i can think of no one better suited to talk about american competitiveness than the person who really needs our efforts and competitiveness for the present than secateurs commerce john bryson. [applause] >> good morning and thank you

very much. it is a special treat really to be able to present this report. the advisory group has played such a large role, the members 11 of the 15 are with us this morning. i just met with them. huge contributions, a relief for people. diverse backgrounds coming together around this competitiveness issue. let me also say just at the outset it is a pleasure to do this at the center for american progress john podesta we talked over dinner a couple of weeks ago, so i had to go to the confirmation. i'd never been in the federal government before pity i was naive in the extreme. i had no idea that it would take what it takes to go through this confirmation process. it may be the fact that i get some of those things that i got over the years some people felt were not so great and so it took a little while to get through

the confirmation process, but it is a real treat and it is an honor to be made the secretary of commerce and it is a special honor i will say also to work with my colleague becky blank who really was the lead at the commerce department and putting this report together. so i am thrilled and my time is like four months i've been through this and this is really important and i think for us to think consistently very hard, and hard in a sustained way any longer term we than has been traditional here in the federal government about how we strengthen our competitiveness aren't low was critically important. and i will go through my remarks. but let me just say perhaps you know this is in some ways also a kind of special i would sit positive for good news day because the report on jobs is out and maybe you've seen that,

but this report now is in the months of december 200,000, 200,000 net new jobs. that's not just the private sector job increases the board often reported. that is the net number after increases in a private sector with some offsets in the public sector. some 200,000, and now we have six months in a row in which the numbers have been each month on hundred thousand and more jobs in each of the last six months. so you put this together and that principle is the highest rate of job growth since 2006 over this last half year. so it is very, very focused on jobs for american people. we can't go forward without them

and so this is another step. there is a lot yet to do. but in the competitiveness report this is the kind of special moment for us to go through the elements of competitiveness going forward and an element of which is having the kind of economy that is all of us particularly our young people and then particularly the children to follow them and have the kind of job opportunities that we in our generation have had. so let me jump in to the report. a year ago as you know the president signed into law the american competes reauthorization act that was a bipartisan bill that builds upon the 2007 america competes act that calls on the federal government to invest in our nation's long-term future in the areas of science education and through increased funding for

innovation and research and development. in particular, i would like to acknowledge the leadership of the senate commerce committee chairman jay rockefeller whose members are not here but staff members are and these people play a huge role. ranking member kinealy hutcheson , senator lamar alexander as well as the house science committee gordon many thanks to all of them for leading and renewing this vital piece of legislation. legislation announced the nation to look inward at the economic model, find areas of improvement and track down solutions. among other requirements, the wall instructed the commerce department to study the country's economic competitiveness and innovative capacity. that's what we've done.

the study was no easy task. i would like to ask all members of the commerce team who worked on drafting this report to please stand and be recognized. [applause] that includes you too. [applause] so think you. the topic of this report is certainly a matter of pivotal importance. ability to innovate as a nation will determine what kind of economy, what kind of country our children and grandchildren will inherit and whether it's a country that builds and holds the same progress for them as it did for our parents and grandparents. so let's talk a little about the

importance of innovation and competitiveness. history tells us that what happens when we don't innovate, when we are not focused on boosting economic competitiveness, when tax dollars and manpower are not wisely invested in good schools or new information technologies it impacts jobs and impact's economic growth. in fact a recent report from the information technology and innovation foundation concluded that no advanced economy in the world except italy, not sure that says a lot, none except italy have done less than the united states to improve the country's economic competitive position over the previous decade. and that's reflected as we know in the lives of many american

families today. even before the recession, most families salles since 2000 their wages stagnate or decline, prices for some of the key necessities of life held tuition all went up. so america's challenge isn't just to strengthen the recovery, it is to lay a new foundation for sustainable long-term economic growth. and the report's findings, the report proposes an investment strategy that makes sense. a path forward that will lead on that critical foundation. innovation remains the key driver of competitiveness and job growth and this report looks to the past to examine the factors that helped unleash a tremendous innovative potential of our private sector.

the study has found three major areas to target a serious strong federal support to the first, basic research. while private citizens and businesses are the top source of new ideas, the government plays a key role in funding the basic research that underlines their innovation. basic research is only provided by the private sector and governments around the world are recognizing the need for public support at universities and research institutions. the u.s. has a tradition of supporting the work of federal and university labs and it has helped change our world. the internet, satellite communications and aeronautics for example are along those job-creating advances that would not have been possible without

the use of the white we spent federal tax dollars. the challenge now is our energies have dropped off. in 1980 the federal government found it more than 70% of the basic research. 70%. most of that went to universities and university based federal research centers. since then the government's share a basic research funding has followed -- fallen from the 70% to 57% and that is a trend that just must be reversed. what's more the government must take an active role in protecting the intellectual property of the entrepreneurs to the patents, copyrights and other enforcement mechanisms. after all, intellectual property and innovation keep our entire

economic engine churning. when companies are more confident that their ideas would be protected and more incentive to preserve to push the cost down, and with that employment up. so then the second pillar in the report is education. for the last two centuries america has led the world and pioneer in public education, first in elementary schools and by providing public high schools throughout the country and finally by in establishing a system of public universities the broadly available to all citizens. we know now highly skilled workers boost innovation and economic competitiveness. assuring that our children have the skills employers need for the jobs of tomorrow requires dedicated government attention and resources at the state,

local and federal levels. of critical importance are the science technology engineering and mathematical fields, the so-called stem fields. in 2009 about 12.8% of u.s. college graduates, 12.8 per cent were in stem fields. far fewer than the 44% of the foreign students in the united states majoring in a stem field. a significant economic competitors such as south korea with 26.3% and germany with 24.5% are on a long list of countries producing a much higher percentage of stem graduates in our 12.8%. that must change. and then the third area of

investigation of investment that we need is infrastructure the infrastructure needed to support the modern economy relies on publicly provided resources disco's for the infrastructure like the lines and ports those developments to help business compete by opening up markets and keeping costs low, but the compete report finds we must do more to grow out a truly modern electrical grid with broadband internet access both urban and rural communities. here in america 68% of households have adopted broadband and almost eightfold increase since 2001 and yet a 68% adoption rate still leaves about a third of american homes

cut off from the digital economy. it's worth noting that in particular small and medium-sized enterprises have benefited hugely from the internet. those were the strong online presence created more than twice the number of jobs as the firms not only on the web creating 2.6 jobs for each one eliminated. so education, innovation and infrastructure these are the areas where we cannot afford to cut the role of government and the investments in these areas will lead to a more competitive economy and higher growth and this report unearths the sad truth that federal funding for basic research education and infrastructure has simply failed

to keep pace with economic growth and the innovative performance of the united states is severely sloped during the past decade. so the report solutions. to reverse these trends that report the following actions are necessary. we must increase and sustain the levels of funding for basic research by the federal government and in addition, we need a simplified enhanced and extended corporate r&d tax credit, one that a word's firms for undertaking additional r&d, not just activity that would have occurred even without the credit and we must follow president obama's lead and bring the government support back to a level not seen since the kennedy

administration. that is reversing the decades-long decline in federal funding of the basic research for. we must invest in the skills and knowledge necessary to compete in an increasingly competitive world wide economy where other countries are now surpassing us in the percentage of young people with college degrees something as simple as that. i'm going and new administrative initiatives are addressing these challenges by making colleges more affordable spurring plus renovation at all levels and expanding the size and quality of stem teacher ranks to succeed in the economy to work to continue the stem education and then for infrastructure it is

clear that we have to invest in 21st century networks including fostering access to high-speed internet for citizens and businesses matter where they're located and the federal government must continue its drive forward towards a smart electricity grid and a robust network of broadband internet access and then a fourth area of the economic competitive mentioned in the report i think definitely deserves our attention the flourishing manufacturing sector in the u.s. is crucial to our competitive strength and will continue to be a key source in the economic growth and job creation manufacturing pays higher than average wages, provides the bulk of u.s. exports, contribute

substantially to our r&d and protect national security. minute factor enroll in the economy isn't going away anytime soon. in 2000 by manufacturing made up 11.2% of gdp and 9.1% of total u.s. employment directly employing almost 12 million workers and factory is almost the biggest sources of innovation and our economy. two-thirds of all industrial r&d in america and the minister and companies. ultimately without a strong manufacturing base we simply can't create enough good jobs to create a strong middle class and without a strong middle class we cannot be a strong country if we

build it here in aucilla everywhere we can become the world's unquestioned economic power it again. so conclusion, this administration does not believe government has all the answers that it does believe it has a role to play in creating the conditions that make inspiration innovation were likely to happen. this means providing support for the government private sector needs to grow to create new products and services and most importantly to generate jobs that offer good wages ultimately job growth is the metric which is most important and long term job growth will only occur in the world where entrepreneurs and researchers find it easy to

pursue new ideas and the turn them into new products and successful new businesses these are the building blocks for fulfilling america's potential and the conclusions in the report can make that promise a reality i hope to be able to take a few questions i regret unfortunately i need to leave immediately to it in a meeting of the white house and i'm delighted in leaving you in the very capable hands of my deputy secretary rebecca blank white introduced and commended previously and also to aneesh chopra from the white house with us this morning thank you very much. [applause]

>> and now i'd like to welcome to the panel sarah rosen wartell was the executive vice president as well as aneesh chopra, rebecca blank to talk about the findings of the report in more detail and i think they will be able to also take some questions about the report as well. thanks so much. >> all right, here we go. we have now vacated nine seats up in the front so that we encourage anyone who wants to come up and make us feel comfortable. >> i'm going to pick up what i left in my seat so i can leave it open. let me just spend a very short time these are folks who need

little introduction and the limitations the have more detail but let me just remind briefly today has the secretary mentioned the deputy secretary of commerce and undersecretary defense dickie blank is here. she arrived -- >> can you speak of? >> petraeus back there we go. sorry about that. my apologies. dickey was previously the dean of the public policy school of the university of michigan and i had the pleasure of working with her when she was previously at the council of economic advisers to president clinton to be sitting at the far end is aneesh chopra, currently the chief technology officer in the united states. also serves as assistant to the president and this is the director of technology at ospp and was the secretary of technology for the commonwealth of virginia. and he was in the private sector

as well as beatifies record company. finally, we have james, the director of the mckinsey global institute which is mackenzie's business for economics research. he was also one of the members as we mentioned here earlier of the secretaries advisory board as part of our advisory board fair and the panel as well. what we are going to do is kind of keep things moving i'm going to ask two questions of each of the panelists and then we are going to take a few questions from the audience and allow people to have a more wholesome conversation we are going to divide everybody up in the room so that different folks will be at different committees not only these folks with the folks on the edifies recommitting are here with us will be in different corners available to talk about the key elements of the strategy that was developed here. let me start with you. today's jobs day and we have good news on that.

the conversations that we have about competitiveness and the conversations that we have almost every day all the time are about jobs and wages and economic opportunity and what's happening to the middle class in america. those conversations seem to have been in different ways sometimes. they don't always get very well connected. but i think the competitiveness issues we are talking about here today are related to our economic opportunities in the middle class. how does the report talked about that and how do you see the connection? >> i agree those conversations to place in different rooms. they are closely interrelated and let me run the causality both ways. on the one hand, if you don't have a competitive economy strong and stable the economic growth you are never going to have any chance to address that any quality problems for the problems facing the current middle class. you must have a competitive economy in order to address some of those issues.

on the other hand, if you don't have some degree of stability and promise of economic success towards people in the middle class of people in the lower end of the income distribution you have a great deal of difficulty generating the political support for the agenda that this report lays out on the competitiveness because if people do not see that they are going to gain from some of the investments we talk about in this report if they think that you're going to go to a different group of folks they are not going to support these types of investments so i think it is the other issue here is the education issue. one of the things that really concerns me about the bifurcation is you are seeing in terms of inequalities that they are large numbers of people who don't quite see the point of the college education. much less the education that we talk about here in science and engineering or technological fields. and feel that that is various to capture that that is someone else who is going to be doing that, and one of the things that

a strong competitive growing economy does is give people incentives to capture on to see what it is the you get by going to college by being serious about the work that you do and in particular by pursuing some of the faster growing fields which other fields are going to be a high-technology fields. >> if i could add one other comment to reinforce described the economic reasons why there's an income tax some is that helps address the aggregate demand in the economy if you keep in mind the last two decades something like 70% of the u.s. gdp growth has come from consumer and household spending. so if you take the ability of the households that consumers actually spent, much of which actually live in the middle class, you put a big dent into the aggregate demand and the drivers of economic growth in the u.s. economy so it really is important. islamic this is a good transition to my next question to you which is about american

competitiveness with other countries. we obviously the secretary went through. we are used to hearing these days the sort of statistics about america not being at the top of whatever list of competitiveness measure you want to use. how are we doing relative to others and more important are we faded as an advanced developed economy that is in many ways to be on the downside of those and do we have the chance to be able to sustain the high rate of competitiveness if other countries are rising. >> it's important to keep in mind if you look historically back to the end of the second world war the u.s. economy has been by far the most productive the most attractive economy on the planet i think that's still the case. however, something has begun to change which our country has begun to get better as well. that is a good thing for the economy because take poverty around the world and improve the global economy that's a good thing but it also puts pressure

on the united states to stay ahead. and i think that becomes important to keep in mind. of all of the factors that affect u.s. competitiveness or any country's competitiveness where we stand on each of those and i think that many of us -- let me emphasize five in particular that these really matter. number one come to always want to have an economy that has the most productive and globally competitive companies invest and participate in your economy and beat down the path of thinking how do you make that attractive, how do you think about the corporate tax reform and how do you think about regulations etc. to make sure that you've got those companies participating in the economy? number two, you always want to make sure the you've got, you know, a disproportionate share of the innovators and entrepreneurs in the economy to reassess how do you make sure that is the case? those are the current questions and education and so forth. which is the third point which is you also want to make sure you got the most skills and most productive work in the economy because otherwise you get

reduced to the fight around who has the cheapest labor but as long as you have the most skilled productive labor it helps you compete. i think the fourth and important point is you always want to make sure that in fact the globally traded sector, and i'm talking about manufacturing and open to the global competition you have those, the most competitive and most innovative sectors of that and this gets down the path of manufacturing in particular but a few others and then last, and i think the secretary made this point, they effectively shown the of the biggest reservoir of research in the r&d because that creates for the competitiveness and allows you to compete. so if you look at each of those i think you are starting to realize that our country has begun to get better at almost every one of those points.

so the question is how do we get back to where we are as a country on each of those. i think that's -- much of the report addresses that. >> that's terrific. >> if you don't mind, let me do a case study on one factor to give you a flavor for the benchmarking and the impact on the criteria that james mentioned. let's just take wireless. america invented in the wireless industry, and for decades we've dominated the industry. now, on some measures one could argue there are high your adoption rates on the mobile technology in some of the asian countries. so one would look at that and say okay we have to choose our rate if we are going to compete but if you pull back the onion and think about the framework that james mengin, let's take this and its elements. america used in the underlying technologies that fuel the wireless revolution. you all remember in your mind bell labs 35,000 engineers and jersey. the work on the bell labs

community and that is a shadow of itself today. if you look at the actual manufacturing of wireless communications infrastructure, not a single one is headquartered in the u.s. anymore. not one. and because of the collapse of bell labs and some of the art when we talk about the r&d it's not clear where the resources are to invest in the next generation of wireless. when i talk about the benchmarks of korea or other countries, you could argue that we have a current model for how the lawyer operates but you know what, america will also be the first country to have run out of spectrum. with there is a challenge there's opportunity or whatever that saying is. to say which country in the planet will best understand how do we turn a scarce resource spectrum into one of abundance

through technological innovation. and he would say homeland, the united states. however, you would say where is the fuel that would compel or propel that really to happen. well, there is no -- there isn't a significant private investment and there isn't as much in this case of one year less there's not a lot of u.s. currency etc funding in this area to but in fact some of the ironies of the professor we are getting money from overseas companies to fund our research. so the president did something very interesting and i would argue innovative. he said look, there is bipartisan consensus with the new market-making mechanism of the voluntary incentive option that would allow us to the purpose the existing spectrum that may be used for different economic purpose that has a better value in the broadband comes we've got this bipartisan consensus moving that says let's get some tools in the hands of

the sec to auction off some spectrum and that will thrill of new money. money that isn't in the budget. ..

that's a perfect segway. that story takes one -- i think of it as kind of a piece of our infrastructure. >> yes. 21st century. >> and the federal government has a role to play in ensuring, just as with the highway system -- it's a different role. we're not building it of uses -- ourselves but we have to make sure the infrastructure gets built. there are four other areas in addition to that -- two or three other areas. air traffic control, smart commuting commuting and smart grid. describe the way the government plays a role to ensure that the public and private sector together build the infrastructure that we need? >> i'll just do a quick bullet because i could go on for hours. what's amazing about next jen is about the government being a source of making judgments.

so the airline industry has already made investments in essentially gps navigation, okay? so you can land -- today planes lap in a choppy way. they wait, hang, travel around the airport, whereas the tech know -- technological capacity exists on almost all domestic airlines to push the autoland and just glide in with gps navigation tools. unbelievably efficient in terms of reducing our dependence on excess jet fuel. you could save money on fuel, reduce pollution. it is a permitting process for each and every route for us to say, okay, if we're going to change the landing we need to make sure it meets all the environmental this and policies for that and noise. so we made a commitment. the president said, we need to make some accelerations here.

we included next gen. there's now a dashboard on the white house can be site where we have done a deep dive on the houston metroplex to say we're going to cut in half the amount of processing time to achieve the permits. it's the private sector entirely investing in the -- we have to do some legacy ground navigation but the private sectors, no new r & d to get the -- there's a little bit but no significant. it's private investment. so the tool is term. on the issue of smart grid, we have an unbelievable opportunity. we're going to -- by the end of the recovery act, we're going to double the amount of smart meters and data driven infrastructure in the electricity grid that allows them to bring in other sources of energy and managing them in a more efficient way. critical for the future in reducing our dependence on

foreign oil. we put 4.5 billion in the recovery act but overwhelm leg the business case for smart grid relies on state-regulate utilities, and the judgment in the policies frameworks is accelerating investments, and you're seeing dramatic increase in the number of interest from the states to move forward in the role of smart grid. so they're about collaboration. and finally you mentioned smart computer and dat tamp it's -- data. the government can be a lead purchaser so we have embraced cloud computing, and a lot of this is talking about data as the infrastructure for the 21st century economy, and we're both potential buyers and suppliers of data. for those who are going to read

the report. data is the rocket fuel for a lot of this. it's the infrastructure. who has the most data on the health system. >> the federal government. >> you got it. entrepreneurs can grab the data and build powerful systems. >> what's the role of the federal government. you look at the major technological innovations that have really advanced in this country. almost all of them have involved some mix of federal and private sector. the railroads, yes, it was the private sector companies that built them but there was huge amounts of federal moneys. the canal system. medical advances, huge investment in research going into the universities and research labs, and feeding directly into private sector use. and we're talking about -- it's radical to talk about innovations but not radical if

you're talking about the role of government. the role of government has been to step in, in places where you need seed funding, public goods investment of the sort that the private sector up front when the technologies are new will not make. >> a quick talking point. for those of us who live in the private sector, one of the things that is important to comparativeness is regulation and the regulatory environment. i'm not talking about changing regulations but making them go faster. so if you look at what is it that other countries have done around permitting or having approvals for drugs, some of my innovation board members here feel very passionately about this. that's one of the things where the u.s. has slipped. you can get approval for things on the same standards in other countries much faster. and that has to change that's one thing. the other thing is this idea that the federal government, or at least the public sector, can

also use a lot of these technologies to transform itself. we know healthcare and education are some of the not so productive factors of the economy. we have had this debate. but in many ways the government can also be a customer or at least an absorber of these technologies in a way that stimulates the modern growth. >> i want to ask you to follow up on that point. so, last year mckenzie grover institute did a report on job creation needs in the economy, called "an economy that works" and i commend it to folks. it talked about the opportunities for job creation in some particular sectors in the economy. you messenger healthcare, business services, leisure, hospitality, tour jim, construction, retail, and things like chemicals, transportation, and some commodities and the like, and other countries have

this very explicit focus on sort of sectors of the economy. america has been traditionally and remains reluctant to have a investment strategy per se but there are ways you can think about the important sectors of the economy and ensure that the infrastructure for their competitiveness are in place. i'm curious how you think about the opportunity for this analysis to play a role in a competitiveness strategy? >> i think it's fundamental. just because the competitiveness question and the growing prospect is actually very different. there are sectors that will be growing for the future and look robust and others that don't look as robust. so jobs is very important issue to solve for, you do have to take a central view. i think it's important also -- one of the quick things on the jobs question in particular,

which is i think it's a mistake to think of the jobs issue as driven by the recession. the economy already had a relatively weak job engine, even right up to before the crisis for the recession. that was already the lowest job creation decade for many, maybe -- many, many years. so a lot of the changes have to do with skills in the sectors that are growing and the sectors where people have skills, there's a mismatch. there-mismatches between what sectors need versus skills versus what is available, and back to education. and mismatches geographically. w where the jobs happen to be is not necessarily where the people are. so one thing that is quite strike about the u.s. economy, we talk about this being a flexible, highly mobile work force. not so much anymore. it used to be. certainly true back to 1945

until the '90s. that was the case. one in five americans moved zip codes. now it's more like one in ten. so all these mismatches that require that you take a look at the sector level, at the skill level and even at the regional and geographic level, to think about how to make sense of that. other countries have done a better job. germany comes to mind. it's a lot easier to come to information about what skills are companies hiring for, where are the jobs. that information is readily more available than it is here. and look at the outcome. it's striking when you look at this recession, for example, on a gdp basis. germany had a deeper recession than we did, actually, and yet they actually grew jobs in the same period. we lost a lot more jobs.

>> i want to push back slightly on the notion that the u.s. is awkward on the sector issue. if you constrained your view to top-down, picking winners and losers, absolutely. that's lame. we would not go there however, i think what you'll hear in reading this report is that, in a bottom-up vision, you can be very thoughtful about sector specific bottlenecks and opportunities. so allow me to share the healthcare example for purposes of this discussion. the american healthcare system today is overwhelmingly built on an incentive structure that encourages more volume versus one that emphasizes a value for dollar spent, and, therefore, the american health care industry has been designed to reenforce that which it has been incentivized to do. if you shift the model to paying for outcomes or value, one could

at least, some of the productivity opportunities that james has written not the past, and in the same spirit of the scarcity issue on the wireless sector, we'll be the first nation on the planet to tack what the economy will look like with incentives around outcomes and values, and you'll see a lot more products and services that can be experted so it's an industry of the future. you might call that a sector. what can we do in a bottom-up philosophy? we have already doubled the doctors and hospitals in america that are using electronic health records and we're going to rock and rollford because of president's recovery act had that investment. number two, we acknowledged that if you want to get to value instead of volume this is a question of numerators and denominators. we know what we spend.

we don't know what we spend for. how do you mother output, brother? how do measure output? not well. medicare was empowered to release its data for the purposes of allowing the private sector to publish quality reports on hospitals and doctors. for a whopping 50 grand -- we just released the regular -- it's pretty cool done for $50,000, a company, private sector, can consume that data to help us define the output in hospital care and medical care. physician care. and that has never been done before. so now we have data as infrastructure, doctors and hospitals that have i.t. systems, and a whole new industry ready to go to combine

a. and b. to empower new products and services. facetime video chats between doctors and patients reimbursed in a different way. text message alerts to make sure grandma is taking her meds, and the doctor says often we offer seed capital in november medicare -- cms -- announced a $1 billion innovation challenge. in increments of one to $30 million. so small grants, bottom up, get entrepreneurs moving. if you have a breakthrough idea that will shift the healthcare system to value over volume and you need the initial kick, welcome, come on in. we're going bring applications in and by march have the first investments out to see what the future will look like. that's an example of bottom-up

winning strategies in line with everything you will read in this report, and i believe the net effect of this will be that the products and services we invent in this new value-driven health care system will be exported all over the world and will lead to dramatic increases in jobs and, oh, by the way, lowering our healthcare costs to free up more productivity capacity for other sectors of the economy, so win-win-win if you put this together. >> one of the things that's quiet striking if you net it all out -- we have a successor when you're done. >> what is the policymakers -- it comes down to four kinds of things. one is what i -- one of the things about smart policy making is recognizing that the world as

changed and we have to compete for everything. labor and everything. and you have -- the capables can be taken advantage of by entrepreneurs and innovators, and the last thing is just investment. straight up. so many areas where there are market failures. long-term r & d and nobody else is going to do it but the federal government. >> the infrastructure, the tools that the private sector needs. >> i want to talk about one of the sectors that the secretary talk about in miss remarks, which is manufacturing. in the mckenzie job report from last year, when they looked at the potential for job growth opportunity to kind of meet the needs of -- we have as an

economy to create another 22 million jobs to get us back to where we were. manufacturing, on the one hand, mckenzie's zurich does not look like a great growth opportunity. but whether it remains a strong, stable, important sector of our economy is an open question at this point. it could continue to decline, or if we focus on key areas, could remain with a different niche of manufacturing, an important part of our economy. talk about what this report has to say about manufacturing and how we make the better of those two paths become reality. >> i think it's quite clear we need some manufacturing sector to our economy, and we can argue how big it needs to be are but it's incredibly important sector. as the secretary noted it's one of the major producers of exports, and it's generally high-wage sector, so if you're worry bed the wage and inequality issues, manufacturing

looks good for that. that pays higher wages and benefits and all sorts of things. so, the question is, what is the future? how do you move forward to stabilize manufacturing? and on the one hadn't productivity is growing enormously. and it's also clear that the forces that james talks about, where other countries have gotten smarter and faster and more competitive, have also affected manufacturing. so particularly in the 2000s there are a number of studies that simply say, we have lost jobs by being less competitive in some areas. it's just a meat of increasing productive. it's a matter of losing out to more aggressive and competitive sectors in other parts of the world. why is that problem? because this -- because if you care about innovation, and ideas, innovation, smart people, are going to drive this economy.

you have to -- in order to innovate you have to produce. you cannot imagine having just the research and development labs in this country and not having the facility that lets you produce the prototypes. there's a reason why the researchers are often located close to the production facility. they want to experiment. they want to city how it works in real time and then go back and tinker and try again. so to be an innovator to you have to have real production facilities here on the ground. that doesn't mean the u.s. needs every single sector in manufacturing represented here. there are some areas we're less competitive, and i think if you want to talk about the sectors that we need to really compete hard on and we need to keep in this country, you go into the analysis james is doing, sector specific, what are the skilled needed, and in general it's the higher technology type

manufacturing, the high-value-added manufacturing that clearly this country wants to capture and maintain in a long-term stable basis, and doing that goes right back to all the thing wes have been talking about. you have to have the infrastructure to ship goods. you have to have the work force to be skilled, that group of industries and sectors' needs, and you have to have the innovative capacity that does the building blocks at universities and research labs and other places that manufacturing then takes and turns into products. >> i want to close with this group with an open to anyone. i want to talk briefly about r & d and manufacturing and more generally to the competitive strategy. 'i'd like the panelists to talk about private sector r & d and i'll do a brief plug. this afternoon cap is releasing a report by laura tyson, a

member of the president's jobs council, which she and her co-author analyzed the u.s. r & d tax credit and its centrality in creating these public benefits that come from the larger public benefits benefitse from encouraging private sector, and r & d investment. so look for that on the web. the tax credit is one of the r&d pieces mentioned in the record. talk briefly about the role that r & d plays. >> the report goes deep on this. but i'll share from the i.t. so i there's no question if you looked at the billion dollar segments of the i.t. economy, nearly all of them originate with some federal r & d investment. google was born out of a grant of libraries indexing, and the

mark on the mosaic browser. and nearly every s subsegment of the i.t. economy -- berkeley has beautiful chart that maps back which chiefs billion dollar industries originated from federal r & d investments. so category a, continuing the nsf engine to seed basic activity mass fact over time -- this this long-term point -- an impact on the economy. we have applied benefits -- and no question darfa has been a phenomenal resource for the work they have been doing, internet, gps, stealth, you name it. these technologies were critical and guided and directed by the wonderful work at delta, which is why you see the president so committed in terms of invests in areas like alpha-e, which is just in its startup year and has

generated significant private capital because so many innovations have hit key milestones, and then the tax credit policies. you should comment more. so, in the basic area, direct benefits, especially in i.t. in areas of the applied work, there's been spillover, and the tax policies in this area. the president laid out a very ambitious goal to get america's collective, public and private r & d investments back to where it was and exceeding investments. he has been very committed. even in the fiscal climate, we are always prioritize the research and development investments based on this evidence. >> the only thing i would add to what he describes, is to emphasize the long-term and it's usually the long-term where you

tend to have market failures. it gets companies to think more long-term perhaps more than they otherwise would. it's important to recognize when you think about long-term r & d, especially the r, the point is which is you can't create public goods on which innovators and others will take advantage and build these interest companies. it happens in government labs and universities and when companies have been given the right incentives to think about the long-term much more than they otherwise way and that's how the roll -- role of r & d comes in. >> we have a few minutes for questions from the audience, please wait until billy comes to you with the mic. i'll call on you. and i will also ask if you would to identify your name and any organization you're with. so, come on back here. first, the woman with the vest

on. we'll start there. thank you very much. >> hello. i'm andrea. i'm on einstein fellow and math and computer science teacher at thomas jefferson high school for science and technology. i do have a couple -- almost concerns. i'm very thankful and glad the report talked about education, and the secretary brought up the importance of educating our youth for the work force of tomorrow to have the technological skill is and i'm also very concerned because even the report says half the jobs are computer-based and none of our student ares seeing computer science at k through 12. it's at one of five high schools that require it and many schools don't even offer it. >> without any doubt, the president has been deeply committed to stem education, and i would break down stem -- he

wouldn't use these words but i would -- there's a strategy, and there's an x strategy, and -- science and math has common cores and x is the policy equivalent of the wild, wild west, but it's an opportunity for innovation. so you're fining in our policy area we're very, very aggressive. we're leaning forward on the whole learning technologies paradigm. it's like the president delivered a speech at boston academy earlier in the year. he envisioned a world of dramatically more -- uses of technology in the classroom and incorporation of technologies as a learning tool. there's a future here you don't have to have a ph.d in physicness order to begin work only coding. in fact, there's -- we just had an event at the white house yesterday celebrating the summer jobs we're going provide for

young people. there are companies that are offering coding courses, how do you build iphone sapp android apps that would allow folks in school to play and tinker. so you're seeing in the investment innovation fund at the department of education, opportunities for schools to promote new curriculum. but in addition to that we're thinking about how to bring the principles of gaming. and every single interact in a game is an assessment data, which the gaming companies use to make better judgments. you look at our able to assess a child's performance in school. you get the letter grade and you take a test. if you compare the data file on a gaming assessment, which is like megabyte office data per

kids versus the two killbits on what we know about a child here. i think we're going to see a couple points from the president. stem initiative, more broadly, encouraging innovation in the x. you're going to see more investments in areas that think about the gaming and the other kind of learning technologies infrastructure, and then you're going to see a lot of these collaboration of private sector to bring new training programs into classrooms, into career and technical schools, ctes, and that's an area of great opportunity and promise. >> terrific. >> i'm professional faculty at the johns hopkins boons school a cofounder of a social media company focused on physician social networks and an applicant for one of the challenge grabs coming up. two questions.

about the structure of that kind of program. wouldn't it be better from a policy point of view, instead of like a billion dollar charge now and a billion dollar charge six months, a way to make it more even out over time? maybe it's a quarter of a billion dollars every three months, and so as new innovations pop up, especially in i.t., where things can happen in a matter of months, you can have a more cyclical process, and then after we win one of these, there's going to be i.t. savvy nurses, ph.ds in computer science and algorithms how much do you address the fact these other countries, like singapore, have these deep skill sets. you can't take someone who just lost a manufacturing job and put them in an i.t. intensive job how do you take that meddle part of america that maybe didn't have that background and give

them what they need in order to be able to do 21st century jobs. >> the vast majority of support comes by supporting people, labs, universities, with long-term basic support. so folks who have a good idea of tomorrow have the money they need to pursue it so the majority of our research funds result that new ideas pop up quickly and we have a structure that addresses that. so, i wouldn't worry about that particular issue. >> nip want to -- >> this is really important. the reason why this particular question is being asked. it not the money that the medicare innovation center is awarding that matters. i argue it's not relevant as much. it's the policy tools that say, if what you experiment with

is -- leads to a new reimbursement methodology that saves money, so to be specific, not basic r & d at all, it's basically seeding reimbursement pilots and help us create the market conditions for a better economy. i'll take your point. let's see what happens in the first charge. my only other comment is in the recovery act we funded a series of community college programs that are all open source so that now dozens of colleges around the country are training what you would otherwise have called middle class americans in other sectors to -- you could be a medical coder in as little as three months. so can't be a data scientist in three months but there's a whole range of jobs coming out of this new sector. in fact the grants look for the

creation of those. so that kind of investment in community college infrastructure was critical to the programming of the issue in enough general. >> everyone who looks at stem understands it's not just what you do at college or age 20. it's what you do at age five, six, ten, 11, that really matters, and in that sense working on stem is not just a matter of federal policy, it's what happens insides families and communes and the messages the media sendeds out. this is a national partnership. >> so, in the back and then we have chances for other people to ask questions in smaller groups go ahead. >> director of the center for learning learning and competitiveness at the university of maryland. also, questions on the talent issue. largely your report has been about framing the federal role. one of the talent area we hear

about is immigration, and i was surprised at your leaving that out and interested in your thinking why, because historically a we have welcomed the best. the other question that i would ask quickly is that, for a generation of current americans and parents, we didn't grow up in this world. so we're not used to making decisions about learning in stem or the importance of motivating and supporting our children in stem. so, how do we tell the story in english to a broad number of americans so adults and young people are making investments in themselves and voters are making choices to support this kind of framework that you all have discussed in. >> let me say a bit about the

immigration. there's a small section on immigration in the report. it isn't very extensive. i certainly aagree with you that immigrant is a source of skilled labor, and making the -- people to be able to stay in this country and use their skills within american businesses and american universities. something that we should be all working on to make that more available in terms of immigration reform. >> i can address the question about the step but if others want to. how do you motivate kids to be interested in this? i think -- let me say two things that are quite different. there are multiple issues here and there's no one single answer to this. on the one hand, do think we have to do a better job of teaching science and math at the elementary school level. many of our elementary school teachers, wonderful as they are, this is not their particular

area of expertise, and often scrimps on the curriculum and a variety of ways and there are projects trying to deepen hands-on learning and see what difference that makes. so, it's a curriculum issue. i believe the media here matters, and i just want to see a whole bunch of really great tv and youtube and other forms of shows, movies, where the protagonist is in a laboratory or is a doctor or engineer. you never see those roll -- role models. you can throw a little steamy sex in, in order to sell it. >> the commerce department is now promoting -- >> on this very point. today is a telling day. it's the launch of the first robotic challenge that will come out for the kids to compete in. tens of thousands of kid across

the country. in this particular example, i was a judge in my earlier life, and i was at the championships last year. will.i.am filmed the champions for first robotics and paid out of his pocket to buy an abc special for one hour and he said, look, if the black eyed peas can sing at the super bowl, he brought the black eyed peas to sing the halftime show of first robotic and that was in the special. so let's acknowledge that the celebration is a big part of this equation, and i want to just particularly say today is the day for firsts. so a good segway. >> that's an upbeat note for us to enus. better will.i.am than steamy -- >> coming up next, review of the british parliament's fall term. from today's state department briefings, questions bat suicide bomb attack in syria'll capital.

>> these young people will have difficulty fining a job. we have to clean this mess up and pass on the american dream to them.

♪ >> welcome to the record review. a look back at the big events in westminster since parliament returned in october. david cameron vetoed an e.u. threat use. >> the choice was a treaty without safe guards. >> this since the continuing economic gloom dominates as westminster. >> if the rest of europe heads into recession, it me a prove hard to avoid one here in the u.k. >> we hear from the veterans about why it's important to remember our war dead and why a

lady should never be remind of her age. >> he said even the people who were in the last war were starting to look very, very old. and i thought. what is that? >> it's become a familiar scenario on our television screen. european leaders gathering for the latest summit to try to find a way to resolve the euro crisis. the trouble started in greece as its economy floundered. some predicted the possible breakup of the euro. here at westminster, that meant for potential troubles for the prime minister and a call for a referendum's police in the eu. >> it is not right because our

national interest is to be in the e.u. helping to determine the rules, our biggest export market which consumes more than 50% of our experts. this is not an abstract theoretical argument. it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families and visitors in our country. >> hear hear! >> that's why successful prime ministerrer if advocated ore membership in the e.u., and when your neighbor's house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help them to put out the flames, not to leaves to stop the flames reaching your own house. this is not the time. this is not the time to argue about walking away. >> but some of the back benches remained up convinced. >> the situation we find

ourselves in today is rather like someone who has boarded a train, slow train, going in one direction, then just as your pulling in, the train starts katrinaing -- careening off in a different direction. you're locked in and have no way of getting off. worse still, the longer you're on the train, the more the speed goes up, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it also any negotiation with the driver is virtually impossible. >> from parliamentary private secretary announced his resignation. >> enthusiastic about the coalition in private, and if you're part of the team, you support it. but if you can't support -- the honest course of action is to stand down. i want decisions to be made more closely by the people they effect, by local communities,

not upwards. i'm not prepared to go back on my word to my constituents. >> hear hear! >> i'm really staggered that boil people like me have been put in this position. i'm old enough to remember a europe where military, communists and fast cyst dictatorships outnumbered democracies, and one of the greatest achievements achievemee european union is we have between us 27 sovereign states and 500 million people creating a peaceful democratic federation of which we as brittons and europeans should be profoundly proud. i am very proud of this. this motion is the wrong motion at the wrong time, calling for a referendum that wouldn't work.

this motion is in the national interest because it is for democracy, for trust in politics and for the integrity of this house. >> hear hear! >> at the end of the bait there -- debate there was a mass rebellion. euro leaders are due to meet again for talks to resolve the crisis. >> question conservative mps trying to get something become for britain. >> the british people want to see two things from this week's european summit. firstly, a resolute and uncompromising defense of britain's national interests -- >> hear hear!

>> and an end to the disastrous euro crisis, a crisis the party opposite still wanties join. will the prime minister do britain proud on friday and show some bull-dog spirit in brussels? >> hear hear! >> our history of repate traiting is not a happy one. might i south a relationship based on free trading both, and competitiveness which other countries enjoy and not political union and weighted regulation. this e.u. summit is a defining moment, a ones in a -- once in a lifetime opportunity. >> choosed the prime minister of sending out different messages. >> on the eve of the biggest postwar rebellion against a prime minister on europe, he was telling his back ventures that the opportunity of treaty change

would mean in the future the repateotas of powers. why does the prime minister think it's in the national interests to tell his ventures one thing to quell a rebellion on europe and tell his european partners another. >> i don't resolve a single word i said in that debate. what we want to do specifically and particularly in the area of financial services where this done country has a massive national interests that reminds him it's 10% of gdp. 7% of uk employment i want to make sure that we have more power and control here in the uk to determine these things. >> david cameron went to the brussels conference with the

words ringing in his ear and vetoed a new european treaty, arguing it didn't protect the city which is u k's national heart. he said he was acting in the uk's best interests. >> i have to tell the house the choice was a treaty without proper safeguards or no treaty, and the right answer was no treaty. it was not easy but it was the right thing to do. >> nick clegg sent out a clear message of his proeuropean party disappointment. >> he has given up our seat at the table. he has exposed, not protected, british business, and he has come back with a bad deal for britain. >> hear hear! >> how can the prime minister expect anybody else to get a good outcome when he can't persuade his own deputies.

the prime minister claims a veto but a veto is supposed to stop something happening. it's not a veto when the thing you wanted to stop goes ahead without you. mr. speaker, that is calls losing. that's called become defeated. [shouting] >> that's called, letting britain down. hear hear! >> would my right honorable friend agree with me that britain today has much more negotiating strength because they know they're dealing with a prime minister who will say know if he needs to, than when we had two prime minister who gave into bad deal after bad deal, including giving our rebate away for no good reason. i'm sure the prime minister will want to know that the toast of the people in somerset was to the pilot who weathered the

storm because he stood up for democracy, constitute up for treaty and stood up for free markets and is to be commended. >> he walked out without using his veto. walked out without getting a rebate. walked out without a couple of -- like major, what a plunker. >> so bag bench mps delighted but at what cost? i asked leading economist why it's been such a headache for david cameron. >> he has been squeezed on both sides of the coalition. his own party is skeptical and want him to veto the treaty and do further and repate trait pours from the europeandown and the other side are the most europe involved party in british politics and will pressure him

in the coming years to effectively undo the veto by softening his demands and seeking a way back into the new club of 26 countries in the european union. and david cameron by being squeezed between those two pressures in is an almost impossible bind. >> is this so serious it could drive the coalition apart or will they find a way to trudge through it? >> what keep the coalition together is the survival instink of nick clegg. they have no rational reason to do anything to bring the government down and provoke an election. they could be wiped out. at it more likely if anybody pulls the plug it's david cameron, i'm slightly ahead of labor in the moment, in a one-on-one contest i fancy my chances so david cameron would be the one to provoke the second

election. i don't think it's likely. i think what we're going to see is a five-year coalition, and we're -- i would have been # 0% certain of that a few weeks ago, me a only be 60% now but it's more likely than a breakdown of the government. >> tell us that would look out for in the new year, what's the big cloud coming up in 2012? >> the huge external event which is possible, if not probable, is a breakdown of the euro itself. you could end up in a situation where at least. >> if not more countries than that, fall out of the euro zone, and the accord, which was agreed in brussels this month, would almost certainly fall apart with it. at which point suddenly david cameron's veto, a., looks moot and, b., maybe even slightly looks prescient and could gain another political windfall for staying out of the treaty. so a breakdown in euro zone

relations could be the single biggest event for the coalitions, and the slow war of addition between europe and they want david cameron to fix relations with europe, and euro skeptics who want him to be even more hostile and seek to win back. that slow, gradual process will, i think, be one of the defining events of 2012, and sadly for the coalition, the next few years. >> a political fallout, the euro crisis is one over the factors having an impact on our economy. the government needs to boost growth and manufacturing. the head of the -- gave a gloomy forecast. >> the concerns we have are less on the domestic side, domestic demands, because we expected that be weak -- we expected the exporting to bounce in terms of

seeing some stimulation of growth. we have seen that over the last year or so but going forward we're concerned that problems in the euro area, unless quickly resolved, could lead to weaker exports. >> the governor of the bank of england. and that gloomy economic forecast was a concern when the chancellor came to the houses of parliament to give his summary of the attendance's -- nation's finances. there was a low economic growth prepredicted. >> the policymakers find a solution that delivers sovereign debt sustainability. if they do not, then all be warned that could be a much worse outcome for britain.

we hope this can be averdict but if the rest of europe heads into recession it may move hard to avoid one near uk. we are undertaking contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis. >> he described britain's debt challenge was greater than the government first thought. >> the boom was even bigger, the bust even deeper, and the effects will last even longer. >> britain has had the highest structural budget deficit of any major economy in the world. and the highest deficit in the entire history of our country outside of war. and the last government left it to this government to sort that mess out. >> hear hear! >> announced public sector pay and transport and the chancellor finished like this. >> people know that the promises of quick fixes and more spending

this country can't afford at times like this are like the promises promises promises promises promises promises promises of a qrack doctor we need a government that supports businesses and jobs, government committed to take britain safely through the storm. leadership for tough times. >> hear hear! >> the chancellor argued the government's strategy for dealing with the economic woes is wrong and should change course. >> as a result, his economic and fiscal strategy is in tatters. >> hear hear! >> after 18 months in office, the verdict is in. plan a. has failed and it has failed colassaly.

if you try to raise taxes too much, you risk choking off recovery. we said he was ripping out the foundation of the house, leaving our economy not safe but badly, deeply exposed to the growing global storm. >> he concluded. >> the country either needs a new chancellor or a new plan. a credible plan on jobs growth. we need real tax cuts, real investments, a real plan for jobs growth and deficit reduction, labor's five-point plan for jobs growth and deficit reduction. i have to say, mr. speaker, protecting our economy, businesses, jobs, and family finances, is more important than trying to protect a failed economic plan for his sake, for his party's sake, and in the national interests, the

chancellor needs to change course and he needs to do so now. >> hear hear! >> the next day the reality of the economic situation was clear, as around two million public sector workers went on strike. tens of thousands were in marches and rallies in tens of thousands of cities. the national walkout by the unions meant closure of thousands of schools and hospitals canceling operations. >> workers don't think he is listening because they declared negotiations at an end four weeks ago. they said they made their final offer. they said they made their final offer, mr. speaker, and they haven't even met the unions for four weeks. since november 2nd. and what has the prime minister gone around saying to people? he has gone around saying he is privately delighted that the unions have walked into this trap. that is the reality.

he has been spoiling for this fight. it is extraordinary that what he just told the house is completely and utterly untrue. >> hear hear! >> the fact is there were meetings with the trade unions yesterday. there will be meetings with the trade unions tomorrow. there will be meetings on friday. these discussions, these negotiations, are underway, and let me repeat again what he said in june. it is wrong to strike when negotiations are going on. and yet today he held back the strike? why? because he is irresponsible, left wing, and weak. hear hear! hear hear! >> mr. speaker. the difference is that unlike him, i'm not going to demonize the dinner lady, the cleaner,

the nurse. people who earn in a week what a chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday. hear hear! >> the truth is, his plan has failed. he refuses to change course and he is making working families pay the price. at the very least, we now know he'll never, ever be able to say again, we're all in this together. >> let me tell him this. the shadow chancellor -- mr. speaker, they're all shouting in unison, or should i say -- [shouting] >> or should that have been they're all shouting on behalf of unison. i'm not clear. >> david cameron battling it out at prime minister's questions. so many of the prime minister's questions is the highlight of the parliamentary week. so we brought together three

politicians who know most about the headline making hour. michael howard was before david cameron the leader of the conservative party. and david hansen was a parliamentary aide for tony blair. what did they make of it? love it or loathe it? >> i think people are very interested in it. i think people are interested in it. i think it does encapsulate the big issues of the day. ...

it's important in that sense. but this stuff has never done anything for me to be honest. so as a spectator in the chamber, not a fan. of course as party leader i had to ask him every week. and i didn't enjoy that either. i enjoy watching tv at home from the office. >> but in the chamber? >> i think you get a slightly more balanced view of that when you watch it through the time that should a good sense between you and ed. what she given the chamber is often so far removed from the inflation left us wide is quite

remarkable. >> i think i love it because it does do what michael said. charges party morale of those sides. it holds the prime minister account, even if it is a sort of way. it's something the prime minister's have to prepare for and do worry about. people after virus not the house on the festival and people attended the prime minister's question is that the house of commons does. it's wider than just that half an hour once a week. >> is also very important in the sense that it is people's most opportune window on what happens in parliament. so how they perceive parliament very often is how they see questions. >> john burke or the speaker tells us again and again that the public doesn't like the rowdy fans. you think he's right about that? >> i'm not so sure he is. a lot of people tell you they don't like the rowdy scenes, but i suspect quite a large number

of them really rather relish it. >> charles kennedy, designate quiet down a bit? >> actually, it does quite well. there's questions in the moat heeded teens to be the leader of opposition in the prime minister. and the leader of the opposition has six questions. so if he or she wants to deploy all six on the same subject one after another, that really develops into a tennis match. the race to the questions go against two questions, but everyone else is just one supplementary. so that those can be highly charged. but they are not the sustained high charge that you get between the two individuals close to each other with major forms directly across the dispatch. >> and the present coalition, the letdown later is not us in anything, which means that pankey is now? that second highlight that he used to having your day. he think it's really lost

something? >> it is a carrier be because what now has to happen with the lib dems as they are encouraged to stand up and ask questions and usually one or two of them look at asp because the speaker wants to obviously spread around in terms of party balance to a certain extent. but of course they can't be too critical because the coalition government. so you see their point of view. also when we were in opposition at a convention a one-party government, you are very dependent on what the leader of the conservative party did because i would have to go in with two or three sets of questions, knowing that for example michael, tuition fees, the issue of the program is all over the place. shania twain to say a seventh or eighth question question that gives me a twist that isn't going to be used behind me.

if i could do something else, chances are it chops off the edge completely. >> a quick final word from each of you. it's lasted for 50 years. he think will be run the next 50 or law reforms come in or would do exactly as it is now? >> i think it will stay as it is now. it is combative and testing the prime minister and asking questions. we have liaison minister promised a very different different ways that this will be perhaps as long. >> distinguish parliament didn't have the shrapnel were once a tumor silence is much more ominous than too much noise in a parliament democracy. as much as i do subscribe, and i can than to science. >> when i first came into the house of commons, i remember being told by a very wise experience colic on our side, when people complain about the noise, tell them to remember that we are carrying out our

documents inherent and fighting them out on the street. >> review of pmt from a common sentiment. bbc parliament's keith mcdougall asked the speaker, john burke out what he made of it all. >> you guys in the media like things to be black and white. simple message undiluted hit i'm going to disappoint because my view about premises questions is an unashamedly mixed one. at the one hand, i think it's great that the prime minister and our democracy comes to parliament for half an hour every week and answers questions at a great many of which he has no advanced notice and that is a good thing. i think it's a bad change is that sometimes, noise reaches decibel levels that people wouldn't have dreamt of imposing on it audience. but science is not really what politics is all about. >> that he was arguing for silence? i'm not arguing key for silence. we are not trapped this month

and you're not going to have a display of passion. periodic frustration and extreme irritation, occasional incredulity is a question master and answer given. sure, but i think the idea that the prime minister should have to fight to be heard, although really juvenile downmarket, low-grade insults should be held across the chamber is extraordinary. >> re: the person to make that judgment? >> yes, because i'm the speaker in and put in charge of keeping order. and i think that if there is a threat to order for the sequel in a separate concept someone has to decide. if you're asking this speaker last with special wisdom, probably not. but somebody has to be the referee in parliament has decided it should be. just one last point if i may on this. i intervene in the best interest of the house to the best of my ability. and what i would ask you to

accept is that i am doing so with good will because i about parliament. >> we have come near to the house of lords to look at a bill that's proven hugely controversial. a radical shakeup of the nhs in england. the proposal made it to the house of commons only after a briefing and a rewrite following opposition from house professionals, labor and liberal democrats. but even after that, demonstrators took to the street to progress in the nhs and give clinicians control of budgets. when the bill arrives, the health minister insisted it would hear fundamental shift in the balance of power away from politicians to help professionals and patients. >> a shift would have two advantages. it was served to be politicized and it would promote efficiency and quality by making those who take clinical decisions on

behalf of their patients responsible for the financial lives of those decisions. both the gp fund holding in the 1990s and more recently practice-based commissioning shows that empowering clinicians directly could improve the quality of care that patients experience. the potential is truly a norman, although i doubt there is, nurses hospital specialist and other professionals the freedom to define care part ways that are integrated into commission them on behalf of their patients will only be transformed the quality of care and treatment that the service delivers. >> you moved on to another area that concerns the accountability of the health secretary. >> the bill provides that the secretary of state should remain accountable to parliament. as it's been since 1948 let me

be clear. the bill does not undermine the secretary of state's ultimate accountability for the nhs or the responsibility that he carries for a comprehensive service. >> no change from a house system into a competitive market. the returned patients and to consumers. it will turn into shopping and most crucially it will turn our health care into a treated commodity. the simple point. people did not expect, did not vote for him to not want these changes. [here, here] the government was not elected to do this. they do not have the let your mandate. >> some in this house disliked this comparison to the commercial world, but i'm going to make them. one of the most successful of which is consumer responsive to

its tesco. tesco has half the number of people and have the budget. it remains a huge and complex organization. chief executive has been on the board for 19 years and he was chief executive for 12 of those years. so i think it is romantic to think that the secretary of state personally should be involved in all these various issues. >> whenever a pin drop the noise reverberates down whitehall's. but the point is it isn't the pan that the secretary of state should be concerned with. it's the strategy and of course the accountability of this past. the endless interference at the discretion of clinicians mvps and for that matter of professional recidivism. change for a sensible outcome. there is no reason one cannot be

ruled out. much the rest of the bill suggested without having discussed rear commiseration upon us. >> a.d. williams will continue to detailed scrutiny of that bill in the news here. staying in the house and had a remembrance day sees how the sacrifice of britain's war dead. >> it is a tragic fact that 16,000 members of the armed services have lost their lives serving since the end of the second world war. they are commemorated at the national bearing immense stature in the suit held in the two world wars i and many thousands of war memorials throughout the united kingdom now say today to the minister that strongly i'd applaud the appalling actions of those who vandalize such monuments because they wish to sell plaques and statues to

unscrupulous pack bundled dealers to be melted down. this desecration has to be stopped. i hope the minister will consult urgently with our departments and with the british transport police to establish what concerted action should be taken to prevent these shameful crimes. >> a former singer serviceman said the governor's covenant would be on force with failing in three areas. >> i do not believe that the third factor should be exploited to find men and women who are still serving in the forces. that is the irrefutable responsibility of government. charitable monies desperately needed to support those who bet the services and problems of the charities commit to those in service denies help to deserving veterans and their families elsewhere. secondly, when others have spoken about this far more eloquently than i., there is an absolutely compelling case for the retention of the chief corner. we have as much to all families,

whether in the services are not. but the ramifications of not retaining such a post for those who have lost a soldier, son, father, mother or daughter in some far-off unimaginable war are extreme. thirdly, there is no way that been made compulsion labor done that when you have so recently fought for your country is morally defensible. we are not talking about a situation here and demobilization. the circumstances are entirely different. are we talking about large numbers. it is likely the majority of the redundant system air force air force is telling the sts would be voluntary, were probably talking that a few thousand been made compulsorily redundant. difficult to imagine how these people feel having to fight for their country and sent to do so often several times, having survived life-threatening battles with their enemies. they return home, came to the survey sent to find the

ungrateful government is kicking them out. one way to show that the nation value such people. >> i have to say that we do need our armed forces. we faced major challenges is more than the failures of politicians come the sad truth is all make mistakes again and it's against that background that we do need to ensure that it's a duty to those who serve and paid the ultimate sacrifice for their successes are properly equipped, properly maintained, continually sacred task of defending our nation's interests. >> working with other remarks wanted a surprised reaction. take a look at the trump intensity near him on the conservative benches. >> they look pretty as well. so my noble friend baroness were my mate to be the only survivor in this house of those who did great service to their nation in

the second world war. >> it became an internet sensation, but probably didn't surprise those in the know here the robust lady dan stared at the code breaking apart during the second world war before becoming an minister mna conserver here. ari parts of duncan smith and asked why it is important to hold a remembrance day debate. >> i think any talk about those days should be remembered by people who don't really know what being in the moralists might. i think memory is very short you actually experience the result. therefore, i thought it was extremely interesting but hardly any of those people who took part in 28 speeches were alive then. if you appear to actually work

in the second world war. what exactly did you do? for 1941 until the end of 1946, i worked at two to the work, the great and the factor was the marshal montgomery because the naval -- the german naval code was broken and that meant that the u-boats couldn't attack our suppliers and our men going to the middle east before alamein. it was all to do with that that we are working. >> during the m.'s debate, tom kean made reference to the advancing age of the veteran second world war. how exactly to juliet to that? >> to my horror, the moralists even the people who were the last were returning to the very, very old. i thought tahoe with that.

it was just meant to be between him and me. i did actually raised two fingers and i try to pretend that my hand had slipped, but it was quite obvious my hand hadn't slipped and in fact, him and i aren't even friends. he's gone too far looking at me and said look. >> act in the comments there is one debate put forward by backbenchers which provoked huge interests. that is about the death of 96 football fans at the stadium in sheffield in 1989. several mps want all the papers related to the disasters to be released and after 140,000 people tried to petition on the website, one mp said the disaster with the tenderest of his life. >> on that beautiful spring day

22 years, six months and two days ago, before 1989, hillsboro which is the name of one of england's famous old football ground work for the last two decades the world has evoked memories of britain's sporting disaster. it was a day when i hopelessly walk as people travel to see if the match children laid injured and dying as they were pulled from the telesis. i was one of the lucky ones that day and all of my close friends and members of my family returned home. was touch and go whether he would survive. thankfully she did. this unfortunately was not the case for 96 men, women and children who were killed in for hundreds of others, injured and left permanently traumatized,

the loss of 96 innocent lives to be here, but the tragic nature with exacerbated by what happened next. instead of those taking responsibility for their actions, a coordinated campaign began to shift the blame and lose the scapegoats. to this day, nobody has been held to account for hillsboro. >> the secretary made a firm commitment. >> let me say here and now in this house and on the record that the secretariat would do everything in my power to ensure that the families in the public at the truth. as a government, we fully support the hillsboro independent panel on the process the panel is leading to disclose the documents telling the whole story. no government papers will be withheld from the panel. no attempt to suppress publication will be made.

no stone will be. >> the independent panel began work in february 2010. >> the reason for this debate concerns a cabinet office decision not to disclose papers relating to the disaster in response to a freedom of information request from the bbc reporter. i want to state very clearly that the government's position has absolutely nothing to do with attempting to suppress the release of these papers or to somehow hide the truth. and i am sorry that the way the government responded to the foia request caused anxiety among the families and can turn for those beyond. [here, here] 's >> mr. deputy speaker we are here between a because 139,850 people have asked this house to revisit 22 years old. they are right because i believe they can serve one of the biggest injustices of the 20th

century. for 22 years, hillsboro families faced in swords, had obstacles placed in their way at every step as they pursued their dignified campaign for truth and justice. >> the government said the papers would be released first of the families then later to the public. >> after days of uncertainty, the body of the former libyan leader colonel gadhafi and one of the ministers were buried in secret. witnesses said the bodies had been removed late on monday from a storage warehouse in this ride it where they've been on display. but after months of conflict, how dangerous is libya for its citizens adjusting to life after gadhafi? >> mr. speaker, during disturbing reports this morning of a fuel tank that was more than 50 people dead. of course that event needs to be investigated, but it is surely remain that libya today still awash with weapons including heavy weapons from the gadhafi

year. but steps of the british government taken to support the dean authorities to secure those weapons so we need to threaten libyan people nor international security? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the right gentleman is eye to focus. there's already a team of people from the united kingdom assisting both in dealing with the collection of weapons and small arms and also looking after the issue in relation to the missiles but also gone missing in the area. we've also got people involved in the mining and decommissioning. united kingdom takes the issue very seriously. essential the militia come under control and the proper direction at arms to return in the politics of libya can now get on. >> does the government share my repulsion at the thought that supporters of gadhafi have been subject to revenge executions without any semblance of due process? should not our satisfaction that the military outcome now be

accompanied by determination to persuade the new government of libya to align any dissent into brutality? [here, here] 's >> mr. speaker, unequivocally, yes. but we have to do is pay tribute to the work of the national transitional council who set a clear set of print polls on which they would seek to remove the regime and also by which to govern in which indeed chairman julio has made it clear in a variety of occasions no reprisals, no revenge and respect for human rights. in the circumstances of conflict, that can be very difficult to deliver, but there is no doubt the new government has made it clear what his stance and objections in principle fire. it wishes to be different and we are indeed right to stand by in his determination to make those principles come under the circumstances. >> defense secretary william fox resigned from the government of his working relationship with

this farmer flatmates unworthy. william fox said distinctions have become blurred between his professional responsibilities and his personal loyalty. mr. words he had described himself as an adviser to mr. fox and attended meetings including some overseas. following his resignation, dr. fox made a personal statement to the house. >> feminist reports have been found to be breached and for this i am sorry. i accept that it's not only substance, but perception that matters and that is why i choose to resign. i accept the consequences for me without internet. >> we've come here to the committee corridor next to the houses of parliament, where a group of mps have been looking into the causes of the summer riots in england. the widespread violence in august. the trouble started in the inner-city suburbs of london and then spread north.

millions of shopkeepers and homeowners are still waiting for compensation. the committee heard from the effect to her who was asked if police were able to deal with such situations. >> what we have seen i think over the last year or so is the ability of people to use social media and other mechanisms to organize themselves. all of that point me towards the bold command in order to make an immediate assessment and then have done enough in the hands said that u.s. more than one game to play a footwear in order to protect the public. now, our analysis suggests a police training is insufficient for not. people do not get an opportunity to look at the on train number scenarios when people actually don't retreat from the junction and happily go away when they scattered reappear somewhere

else. it all commands this way forward, but she needs to wait for that in the way we haven't before. >> he was asked about police numbers. >> will never have enough lease officers. leslie is the ones we have really what it would give them a clear view about the priorities that the attachment to this in our civic life. let's be absolutely honest. we have gone through relatively quiet period and setting aside the protest issue. has not been before. >> what you're saying you obviously put an elegant terms, but they had to have mobilized earlier. and above list earlier wasn't a question of numbers. it was a question of how to use people. they didn't use people effectively or bring people on the streets earlier. when the chief saw this happening when he was about as most of us were brought in

august, he got his forced out as did they teach council of nottingham. the difference for the differences in the police response to lack of confidence. it just wasn't happening. i think it's a matter of public record that they may acknowledge that they didn't do his bonuses they should to say the least. i think what mr. murphy had come he had the advantage of seeing on television and he would know from his memory a copycat readiness in tightly possible. so he had that advantage. >> the committee had a panel of site to investigate the cause of the riots. >> i think if there was to be immersed, it would be the conversation of some young people including variety in the absolute absence of those individuals and their feeling that the real level of

opportunity and the jobs in terms of accessing education. and not for me was actually profoundly shocking. >> you are quite tough on the police, weren't you in your report? i'm reading a headline here because i haven't seen your report. it basically said that they were pretty slow dealing with these riots and if they'd been quicker quicker we would have had less disorder. is that right? 's >> chairman, can i expand on that? we've been very clear from the outset we are not experts in policing or an operational methods with how the police deploy result in public disorder. we went where the views of the densest communities such as in every engagement in every location had 20 areas in total, 17 affected areas and descriptions with members of public shopkeepers who have been affected with the dems and raised fears about policing. >> is very much the perception of what people were seen on their screens that we were

trying to reflect in the report, which i think is a challenge for policing in the future. the perceptions of certain images were very much social media platforms and clearly social media in a bold people to contagion if you like of the disorder to spread in the way that it did. >> there is another huge news story still making headlines. the fallout from the fun hacking and a. and inquiry -underscore jeffrey levinson was set up by the prime minister to look in the culture, practice and ethics of the press. so her friends celebrities and employees of the now debunked news of the world. meanwhile the committee has heard from the head of news international, james murdoch and also former employees as part of its inquiry. meanwhile, joint committee of mps are holding an inquiry into whether or not there needs to be a change in the law to

protect people's private lives. >> committee asked actor hugh grant why he got involved in the anti-fun hacking campaign. he said he didn't crash after having his mobile access paled into insignificance compared with the outrage for the friends and family were hacked. >> for seeing children of girlfriend being chased down the streets by paparazzi in tears or by seeing paparazzi trying to run over the 61-year-old grandmother of my child or the name of profit for tabloid newspapers. it's doubled when you realize that for quite a number of years the police pretty much turned a blind eye to many of the spec says and politicians have betrayed their duty and doing something about this as a fear of intimidation. the mac what about apologies for

newspapers? >> if they have been unfairly treated, the apology should be proportionate. savaged on the front page you should in my view expect a front-page apology. >> it's more of a deterrent to find because it would make me think twice about whether they had faith in the story they were about to print. >> witnesses thought that would work for defamation, but privacy was another matter. >> ship ibc can never be forgiven a matter how big the apology. this is actually a private ordeal. it would really help me very much. >> the committee asked if the witnesses have ever used the press watchdog, plaints commissioner pcc. hugh grant city use them in the 1990s after his medical records had been published by a national newspaper. >> the track for a year before i

finally got a mention in the back of the daily mirror saying that my complaint had been upheld in faith or what. so i found that so profound that i never use them again. >> personally when people appear, it doesn't show me much confidence. >> matt mosley argued there needed to be tabloid stories having a chance to before published. after the pcc, everybody wanted a different structure. decided between making rules and enforcing them. >> so what is needed like the pcc in the body to which anyone can go, whether the charge has the power to fine what is necessary to prevent a story being published and to order a correction or an apology of equal prominence or whatever prominence they decide. in various other powers but that

kind. which again, free of charge, that is what is so important. we could do with it very, very quickly and start by people just have to be fair-minded in journalism, but also the law had nothing to do with the newspapers, nothing to do with the government or independently enforcing the body. >> committee members for criticisms to the complaint commission. >> there aspects which in my view should be continued in the area private see, social services that the panel we are talking about is free. is there some members of the public primary where does cover other people. it gives the result they want to see. the thing i rubber soul he has to agree and accept everything as it needs to do better. most of those people hadn't used

the pcc specifically in the complaint area or prepublication area that recently if at all. >> another very busy few months in westminster. we asked the common speaker what he thought was on the horizon for 2012. >> i would hope that in 2012 we have fewer leaks, we have a continuation of the commitment to make statement to the house. i hope the debate about the nature for them of the house business committee look at on the way. and i hope it is a year in which parliament asserts that so and we try to get across to the public the parliament is not the same as the government and all parliamentarians have got a responsibility to hold the executive branch to account. the government has cut power

perfectly properly and we wish them well in the national interest in exercising that power, but they've got to be subject to checks and balances in the crucial check and balance on the executive power is a strong parliament, in effect is, robust, inquisitive comment demanding, curious legislature. so here's in 2012 to in effect give robust, demanding, inquisitive and curious legislature. >> and that's it for now. but remember to join us again when parliament returns on january 10th. catch up with the best of the day with westminster in the record at 11:00 at night. but for now, for me, good guy. ♪ >> as you just heard, the british parliament returns on tuesday. weekly coverage of prime

minister's resumes wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. watch it live on espn2. -- c-span 2. >> if we begin now to match our policies with ideas, i believe it is yet possible that we will come to admire this country not simply because we were born here, but because of the kind of

great band that you and to be and that together we have made. that is my hope. that is my reason for seeking the via the united states. >> the leadership of this nation has the clear and immediate challenge to go to work perfect ugly and go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to election day either. >> these young people when they get out of this wonderful universe needs will have difficulty finding a job. we've got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape in pass on the american dream to them.

>> at the daily state department briefing, a major topic of questioning was the suicide bombing in damascus, syria that killed 25 people. the tory a nuland top with reporters for about 25 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. happy friday. before i start, i have a couple little things. first a big welcome to the state department and a shout out to the students from the industrial college of the armed forces of the national defense university. they are not in the room because they can't state for the whole thing. were very glad to have you here. second, as we discussed us can make yesterday, it is 21st

century 21st century statecraft month here at the state department. as you know, secretary clinton has made the use of new technology and innovation a key by of our foreign policy agenda around the world. so here at state and aad we are adopting approaches to meet the diplomatic challenges that we see. part of this effort is making sure that we are making full use of digital networks and technologies to more quickly and more directly engage people and audiences at home and abroad around the world. so this month we will be showcasing some of the way that we are using the new site knowledge he had none are diplomats in washington and on this he is around the world use technology. for example, we now have -- we have about 193 social media accounts connect it to the state department, either at home or abroad. we have more than 100 which use

social media as caps on facebook or twitter. some of the examples of our 21st century statecraft month. today in each friday during the month of january in a separate and distinct event from the daily press briefing, which is obviously for accredited journalists, we will be having a set rate twitter session, taking questions from the department of state 10 official twitter feeds from citizens around the world. they can submit their questions directly to us on twitter using the hash tag #askstate. next week will have the secretary senior advisor for innovation, alec ross participate in a life estate video chat with journalists and bloggers around the world. as another example of the kinds of things will be doing this month, our embassy in

port-au-prince is going to hold a twitter q&a session on our ongoing partnership with the people and government of haiti two years after january 2010 earthquake and you can take a look at all the other events are your plans for this month by checking interface but page or our @statedepartment feed, so boing blog and our official site. welcome to the 2010 briefing. what's on your mind quite >> is going to ask all about baluchistan. since it looks like you're going to be answering questions about lucius fan for about a day and have put this briefing over. so i won't ask about that. >> excellent. i was going to ask about the mek, but i think that might be the same thing. i don't really have anything to ask. >> okay, amazing. it must be friday. >> any ideas you might be behind

it? what does this mean for the arab observer force, what we should be doing clouts >> woofers, but they say that we categorically condemned the attack took place at the police station the damascus neighborhood of the dawn today located about three kilometers away from the u.s. embassy and apparently about 25 people were killed and at least 46 more injured. we were unable to vote to directly this casualty numbers. what is interesting here is that as with previous attacks, the assad regime has blamed just about everybody. they blamed the opposition. they blamed al qaeda. they be then blamed the united states. meanwhile the opposition including the free syrian army has denied carrying out and has accused the regime's vision of

things. at the present time we can't say one way or the other how this happened. but what we can say is that obviously we condemn the attacks. we do not think violence of any kind anybody's hands is the right answer to the problems in syria. the right answer is for a democratic transition of power for a saudi step aside and for a national dialogue to begin. >> the muslim brotherhood called for a probe into the attack. could you see the arab league played a role in doing this? >> well, i would anticipate that when the arab league meets on sunday, it will be evaluating the work of its own mobsters and also the situation in the area. but large, you know, we have called for more international eyes on the street. arabic observers come international press, obviously anything like that but open up the country would make it more transparent and make it clear where the balance is coming

from. >> some of them have free -- [inaudible] they were able to get the accounts of the violence. this is kind of validating your mind their mission or what they're doing over there quite >> well, we really do believe that the monasteries are doing their very best. i think the question here is that they dysuria machine is cooperating fully with the monitors across the broad a term of commitments that it may. you know, we see them in places where monasteries are present, searing activists have been able to hold big rallies, but we also see that another place is the regime is firing on useful protests. it is not clear to us and we wait for the arab league report whether there are various request to see prisoners have been granted. clearly we don't have some of

the other things we're looking for, which is sold with drive syrian force has from towns and villages around the world, allowing the free press backend, et cetera. so again, we are not going to prejudge this, except to say we look forward to the arab league's own account of this than we do have concerns about whether the machine is cooperating fully with the commitment that he made to the arab league. >> a spokesman for the syrian army in fact promised by the end of the week there would be major operations across the country. so why should the syrian free are mere opposition be suspect in this case? >> again, we are not in a position to assess who is responsible. what i would reiterate as we condemn violence of any kind. it's not the right way forward in syria. >> yesterday, the prime minister of qatar is at the united nations and exploring something

with the secretary-general of the u.n. about u.n. measures. are you aware of any of these measures? have you discussed any of these possible measures to deal? >> we have broad consultations with all of the leaders of the arab league. we are also talking to the u.n. i think what we are going to ovate is the conclusion of the arab league meeting on sunday. our understanding of the consultation you mentioned were preparatory to the arab league meeting and then we will see where you go. i mean, we continue to believe and to consult in new york that in a strong u.n. security council resolution could be helpful here and the arab league has also been supportive of that. but i think serious consultation will result the weight of their ministerial unset name.

>> you talk about some technical support. what kind of technical support could this provide? >> well, the press reports resolve indicated that the arab league would make more training for monitors. the u.n. has done this monitoring and other international organizations and regional organizations like the osce. the u.s. program to train these monitors. our understanding is that the arab league is going to be getting into this kind of business, the survey is his first essay understood monitoring mission of this kind that they are open to training for an experienced organizations and entities around the world and that's a good thing. >> with respect from the u.n. security council meeting, do you expect any revolutions? >> i think this is going to be the next stage in consultations. i'm not sure there were expecting to finalize anything

on tuesday, but will get you more on monday and tuesday as those meetings throughout. >> i'm sorry -- >> still syria? about three kilometers away. some of our personnel were able to hear it. >> either an adequate measures measures -- [inaudible] >> well, i'm not going to talk about specifics of the embassy as you can imagine, we have very strict article in embassy around the world including some of the types of measures dimension. >> iran? >> yeah. >> the u.s. navy has connect it -- are you handing him back to iran or is there an asylum? what is the relationship? >> this is an incredible story. this is a great story. our brothers at the pentagon has spoken about this earlier today. george littler captain kirby spoke about it. the very same ship and set the

vessels that the ratings protested on its last voyage through hormuz, the john c. stennis carrier strike group just rescued this irani and out from pirate. they were actually pertain uranian signboard who claim that they had been held hostage by these pirates for some 40 to 45 days. as our colleagues in the pentagon in based year earlier today, the u.s. navy took the uranian signboard, provided them with food, with water, with medical care. they were obviously very grateful to be rescued by these pirates and then return them -- rescued from -- what did i say quiet rescued from. sorry crew of the stennis. and then they returned them.

they returned fiorini ends to their fishing vessels and they went on their way. with regard to the piraeus, they are still on board the stennis. we are reviewing the options for prosecution or consulting with international partners. you know, sadly this is not a new thing. we have more than a thousand pirates who have been picked up and see who were in their prosecution in 20 countries. so it is always a question of where to send them and who will do the prosecution. >> this serendipitous incident should be like an opening perhaps that the iranians to file tensions or lower tensions? >> you have to speak to iranians about that. it was obviously a humanitarian gesture on the part of the crew of the stennis to take them on board and feed them and ensure that they were in good health

before setting them off. >> have you spoke with the rating officials? >> location. >> where did happen? do i have it precisely? i don't have it precisely here, but i think the pentagon briefed on this quite extensively earlier today. we have not been in direct contact with the iranian government on this. these are private citizens. >> how did you decide that these are irani and? any papers he had come you contacted tehran? how was it decided these iranians? >> i can't speak precisely. i don't have any details, but my expectations but they declare themselves to be of iran and they may have been carrying iranian traveling documents.

[inaudible] >> i think that they anticipated that they were intercepting a pirate vessel. i don't think that day, you know, thought their hostages aboard. >> they were rescued because they were iranians. they were rescued because they were in distress. >> they were rescued because they were in distress. as we and our allies and partners involved in these antipiracy missions always take care of innocent civilians who've been victims of piracy. >> can you give us a little more on antipiracy efforts since the atalanta incident and the department has made efforts. what is the status? >> you mean in general what are we up to and what do we do? >> well, since 2009 we have worked with some 70 nations and international organizations as part of the international contact group of piracy off the coast of finale. some of those accomplishments include facilitating the court

nation of international naval controls. currently we have more than 30 countries working together to protect transit vessels. we coordinate closely with other multilateral coalitions. we were obviously in the nato effort through operation ocean shield in the european union's operation at lantana and coordinate with others in that regard. china, india, russia also participate in these international affairs. we are also providing shipping protection so that ships are going through can be better defended. we are partnering with the shipping industry to improve the practical steps that merchant ships and crews can take to avoid, deter, delay and counter pirate tax, including when and how to use private security in this regard. we are also working with the shipping industry on its best to

save common management practices, et cetera. we are also championing regional capacity building. we are strengthening the capacity of somalia and other countries in the region to combat piracy, to prosecute suspected pirates to the u.n. trust fund supporting the initiative of countering piracy. and finally, we've also tried to target the business model of the pirates if you will. we have launched a new initiative aimed at disrupting their enterprises assure, including their financial networks through, you know, through the banking systems of organized crime, et cetera. so we are trying to do all of these things and i think it's been one of the undersigned success stories of international cooperation as you can see involving a huge number of countries and a huge number of navies around the world. >> i know we talked earlier this

week about ahmadinejad upcoming trip to latin america next week. if he goes there in his relationships on defense and economic externalities countries, does the u.s. government be this trip is really nothing more than just a provocative announcement to the united states in the u.s. backyard cared how do you view this trip? >> well, as the regime feels increasing pressure, it is desperate for friends and flailing around in interesting places to find new friends. we are making absolutely clear to countries around the world that now is not the time to be deepening ties, not security ties, not economic ties with therein. rather it is in the entire international community's interest to make clear to iran that it's got a choice. they can, you know, remade in an international isolation or it can comply with its obligations to start collaborating and

rejoin the community of nations. >> who in cuba, ecuador, venezuela and nicaragua? >> well, if anybody here listens to the statement said the u.s. government whether they at the top level, the secretary level or from this podium, they know exactly where we stand. >> so you have it made -- you are not aware of any specific and separate treaties made to president chavez, president ortega? >> with regard to this particular -- >> we are making it clear to countries that now is not the time to be deepening ties with iran. have you made those specific points to senior officials in cuba and nicaragua, ecuador and -- venezuela? >> i can't speak to cuba and venezuela, but we're obviously in close touch with the other two governments about the upcoming trip. >> what about the european union

sanctions? and you have any with india and this other countries dealing with iran? >> as we discussed yesterday, the european union is in the process of tightening the sanctions. this may dissensions. we expect this at the end of the month. we are also in close consultation with india, china, with russia, countries around the world about strengthening their implementation of the international sanctions and about curbing, curtailing their dependence on iranian crude oil. >> any particular, like the last time when where indians consulted on this topic was brought up? >> well, since the new legislation was passed in the congress, i would anticipate we are going to have some more intensive comp locations in the weeks and months ahead.

[inaudible] >> and latin america? or iran or turkey? i know this is a white house thing, but do you say if you expect a high level u.s. delegation to attend president ortega's inauguration on the 10th? >> i can't speak to that until the white house makes an announcement. >> given the fact that president ahmadinejad is going to be a guest there. >> i don't have anything to announce at this point. if we do at some point i'll let you know. i would strongly doubt that the secretary would be there. >> so you wouldn't expect a high level candidate level delegation -- >> as you said, this is a white house decision so will wait there. >> for the specifics. but the white house level? >> i can tell you that her own boss won't be going. >> in tehran yesterday, just a couple of questions. they