states and in. but we did is fundamentally about standing up amherst tackiness middle-class taxpayers in pain once and for all three are going to let you be the ones we think about first and adabas and union leader in washington and then he later in that and, but instead we will make decisions that ultimately protect them. view is we should

budgets and then in the areas where government belongs, we should demand better services. our reforms not only balance the budget but do that long term and the other benefit and i think mitch has done this in indiana we get to reward excellence. we get to empower good employees to make better decisions. that's ultimately good for the public and just as all of you do on the private sector, we demand excellence there as well. i always said there's a false choice in government between either raising taxes or cutting services. no one would accept that in the private sector. you wouldn't double the price of your product or cut your quality in half if people would run to your competitor and yet for generations that's been acceptable in government. it's no longer acceptable in wisconsin. >> one of the things we're interested in is the extent to which -- what's going on in wisconsin, the reforms may be a model for other states. one of the things that's extraordinary about wisconsin history is that maybe more than any other state it has a

tradition of being ahead of the curve in all sorts of reforms, they progressive or conservative. do you have the whole wisconsin idea, folks like bob la-fowlette and tommy thompson and tommy your friend, what from this process -- you mentioned you talked to chris christie and mitch daniels and people like that -- from what you've learned from the battles and also the successes that you've had, how applicable is this to other states and to the situations they're facing as you talk to other governors and legislators? >> yeah, well, first on the history, a year ago, on january 3rd when i took the oath of office, i did it in front of the state's constitution. the reason i did -- i moved it was because i want to go up to the constitution that's never been altered, never been amended. it's the frugate clause. it talks about spending and it talks about moderation and frugality in spending leads to freedom and prosperity to our

people. that came from more than 163 years ago. and over our time, no our state, and i think it's a similar tradition to our founders more than 200 years ago here in this country, was that their sense of a limited government, certainly a government that put the power back in the hands of the states but in turn to the states and the hands of people was about a limited government, one that should excel in certain key areas but one that shouldn't be expansive. and so our tradition -- you know, we've had, you know -- like a lot of midwestern states we had folks who advanced the clause in the left and the right and everywhere in between. and tommy thompson with welfare reform and school choice and other reforms like that. i think, you know, in our regard again we didn't look to do this. i didn't set out in my mind and say oh, i want to chart out a way to lead the country. i just said, fix the problem, make your state great again. and -- but i think other states can do that. we took a page out of what mitch daniels did in 2005 in indiana

when he through an executive order, it's a lot easier than a statutory change but an executive order was able to change collective bargaining and turn his state, his employees in government got more efficient, more effective, more responsive to the taxpayers. i think that's paid off over time. we looked at what other governors did and i think others can apply. you know, chris was out the year before me talking about this. but it was really this year to his credit with a legislature that was controlled by democrats, he was able to convince enough folks in both parties that this had to be done. i think other states can and should do that because if they don't, again, whether you're a liberal or a conservative, there's going to be less and less resources left to give back to the people whence they came or spend on other programs out there. i think it can be done elsewhere. but i think that is precisely why you're going to see the tens of millions of dollars coming in from outside of the state into

wisconsin because there are some interests here in washington that don't want this to happen. and they don't want it to happen again just in republican areas but, you know, whether it's lincoln chaffey or the treasurer up in rhode island or others on the way, they want people to think twice about that because they don't want to think there will be retribution if they ever consider those changes. i think they're imperative. i think what happens now or a few years down the road, it's going to happen. >> that teases up nicely. we're going to open up questions to the audience in a little bit but i did want to ask you about the recall and what's going on there. i think our audience like to know what -- how thursday night off the ground, where things stand, where you see it going and just your take on it generally? >> it started officially november 15th although it was talked before the state democrats and the union supporting them, talked about it before, november 15th they kicked off the recall efforts they have 60 days by wisconsin law to collect 540,208

signatures. for a while, to make sure they were talking about collecting a million, i don't know that they'll get to that. but i assume they'll get well over the 540,000. in our state, that is equivalent to 25% of the votes cast for governor in november of 2010. i say equivalent 'cause you don't actually have to be a voter to sign the recall petition. all you have to be is eligible to vote, which means 18 years of age or older, not a felon on paper and lived in the state for at least 28 days so it's not an extremely high standard but it is what it is. i mean, and the burden to ensure that people only signed it once and they are legal residents falls not on the state but ultimately on the incumbent's campaign to challenge. so we'll look through those and obviously if there's excessive examples of multiple signatures and things of that nature, we'll challenge that. but in the end, i would imagine they'll probably get that. and in all likelihood after the

review, it will probably divorce an election sometime i would imagine now in june, early in june. in our state it becomes a new election. unlike some states where it's up or down on the incumbent it essentially forces a new election. so a minority of people under the law can ultimately force a new election. i think for most voters in our state, even those that aren't particularly political one way or the other, most folks are tired of all the elections, collectively there was more than $40 million spent by all groups and candidates in the summer on the state senate recall elections. put that in perspective, i spent $13 million running for the governor over 18 months. they spent more than $40 million in the summer on those senate recall elections. i think most people are just tired of all the attack ads. that's why our ads which started november 15th, we have have all been positive testimonials from people, teachers, small business owners talking about how the reforms are working for them, their families and their communities.

and we'll continue down that path -- people ask me who my opponent is going to be. it's not the person who doesn't matter. it will be the big governments in washington who will pour limitless amounts of money into our state and will try to influence our vote and we're going to have to be ready to get the truth out and counter that. and that's just about what we've done, but also i think elections are always about the future, not just about the past. we're going to have a stark contrast do we want to go back to record job losses, double digit tax increases and huge deficits? or do we want to move our state forward? i think we've taken our state forward. i think we can prove aggressively forward even more so together in our state but we got to get past these recalls. >> if i could ask, there any reforms on public employee compensation, collective bargaining that was passed in ohio and it was repealed through referendum. is there any lessons you take from the failure for the reforms in ohio do you think that you

avoided through the way you ran out things or lessons you would carry out to the repeals. >> the biggest fundamental difference between ohio and wisconsin and as much as we have a weird quirk with the recall law they have a weird quirk with the referendum question, the law in ohio says the law no longer goes into effect. so in ohio's case the voters never got to see the benefits of those reforms. and if i had a vote last march, i think it would be much more difficult to win because all people would have heard was the doom and gloom, it would have heard the scare stories and the attacks and it would have nothing to carry forward. the benchmarks, september 1st and the second week of december, those two things alone i have a tremendous counter against the attack ads because people say, my kids went back to schools and the schools are, you know -- my school's in good shape.

my school actually had teachers. that sounds pretty good and they say i got my property tax bill and i'm in pretty good shape. i actually have -- you know, one of my biggest hits on twitter and facebook in the past few weeks has been people responding to me asking how many of you saw your property taxes go down or at least stay the same? and people responding to that. you know, in ohio they never got to see that. so the biggest the challenge that kasich and others had was all people heard were the negatives. they were outspent by 10 to 1, 11 to 1 something like that. we'll be outspent just as our senators were in the recall but i think we can win as long as we have enough to get our message out. >> one more question before we open it up to the audience, is there you know, if i'm a reform-minded governor in another state and i look at this, well, god, scott did a great job but, you know, this big backlash and a recall, is there anything -- after going through this now you would -- you would do differently?

i know you would push for the reforms because they were important structural reforms, but what have you learned from the bruising nature of how this has unfolded? >> well, i think clearly we will lay the groundwork early in january and february. and i mean that not me speaking about it. i think we would have run an aggressive ad campaign because i didn't -- that's the biggest mistake i made, i just viewed this as a fix-it, you're elected to fix things and go in and do it. i had no idea the kind of national money would come in attacking us early on and really distorting the facts and the truth out there. people -- again, i said it before, if people had known how many tens of millions of dollars school districts wasted in the past by being forced to buy their health insurance from a sole provider without being able to bid it out, if they saw the millions of dollars wasted on the abuses of overtime, if they'd seen the examples of local officials like myself before i was governor cross the state who were trying to do innovative things, not just to

balance their budget but make their government work better -- if they heard those stories, for a lot of people who weren't involved in local government prior to this all coming up, a lot of people came out of the blue. and one of the routine things i hear from people -- and i think it's a legitimate critique, and they say, hey, you know what? the more i like at it your forums make some sense. i'm glad the way it all worked out but i really am still frustrated 'cause i think you could have done a better job of explaining it up front. and i don't shy away from it. i say in retrospect, you know, hindsight is 20/20. so for any other governor, for he or she, i'd say, you know, have an effective communications plan, build your case early, don't drag it out, early up front. make the case for why the reforms are needed and then not just do it but then repeat it. once we got engaged we got, you know, kind of up to speed in communications but you got to find ways to talk directly to your constituents, not just through press conferences. we have town hall meetings and

listening sessions and brown bag lessons and other things like that. we've crisscrossed the state and it's pretty engaging. for all the talk you often see in the national media seas of all the attacks and this and that and the protesters, you know, for every protester i get, there's five or six people that quietly come up to you when you hold a listening session or you're on a tour of a factory or go to a small business and flip you a note and tell you to persevere. telling their family is praying for me and my families. people give you the thumb's up. they are people who aren't holding the sign up and don't have enough time left on their vacation schedule to take off from work for a couple of weeks at a time, but they're passionate, just as passionate. they're just not angry about it. and so they pass on that word as well and that's the other thing i tell, you know, governors. if you're going to do it, don't go halfway. to me, people say well, could you have done this? no, i knew from being a local elected official for all those years, that if we'd gone halfway, we would have fixed the

problem for a year or two and it would have only gotten bigger a couple of years down the load to me that would have been just completely unacceptable. and i got to tell you, i don't plan on losing but i'm not afraid of losing because in the end, if you do something for the right reasons, those things -- i always say in this town, paul ryan and i love to point out. there's two kinds of people they're not liberal or conservative or liberal and democrat in politics and particularly this town. they are people to get elected either to be somebody great or to do something great. i always tell kids we try to mentor, do the latter. run for office because you want to do something great. that's what we tried to do. we tried to fix a problem in a way that made sure we weren't fixing it with a band-aid. we were fixing it so that the next generation can ultimately fix it. not to get too nostalgic, but i remember back in september i was at a governor's association conference and i got up real early and ran over to constitution hall. constitution hall is about as big as this room as we're in

right now. and i remember -- i love history and as a kid's used to think of our founders as kind of super heroes. they were supernatural. you go to a hall like that and it reminds you look at the chair in the back and there's the rising son in the back of the chair that washington sat in. and you look at those chairs and you remember these were ordinary people who just did something extraordinary. and as much as it took political courage in their case it took even more than that. they were -- it was franklin who said we don't hang together we will hang separately. they were risking their lives. they were not risking just their political lives but their lives and yet for more than 200 years, what has made our country great, in times of crisis, whether it was economic, fiscal, spiritual or whatever, is that we had leaders, men and women of courage in this country, those moments who were willing to stand up and think more of their children and their grandchildren than they thought about their own political futures. that's not just in wisconsin but across the country, state-by-state, and certainly here in washington, my hope is

that as we have these ongoing discussions, there will be more people willing to think about the next generation more than they do about the next election. >> and we want to open it up to folks in the audience, questions -- just a couple of ground rules. we got microphones that will be going around so please wait for the microphone. identify yourself and please make your question in the form of a question. we would appreciate that. >> max rosenthal from the huffing post. you spoke about the national money that came in over the recall process. >> yes. >> and you've been critical of unions and sources, money sources coming in from out of state but obviously you're in dc for a fundraiser today and a significant chunk of your money, almost half comes from sources outside of wisconsin. why are you comfortable with taking out of state money and not on the other side and are you concerned how it's going to play in the upcoming reason? >> i wouldn't ask for a penny if

outside groups hadn't forced a recall in the first place. the people at the grassroots level are trying to match the amazing levels coming in from the unions in washington and throughout the country. so i think it's a legitimate question. but for me i wouldn't be raising a penny right now if it weren't for these recalls which were largely driven by the national unions. and just so it's clear, you're right in terms of total dollars. but of all my contributions this last report, we had nearly 47,000 donors. 79% of those donors were people who gave me $50 or less. so even money that's coming in from outside of wisconsin, many cases is coming from people giving us 10, 15, $20 saying we want to help you counter the money coming from washington and elsewhere. so legitimate question but again we're just countering the excessive amounts that are coming in from outside of wisconsin. >> hi, governor, walker.

andrew ackerman with dow jones. the state data shows the private sector has lost private sector jobs in june including 12,000 in november. does that suggest maybe your reforms aren't working especially when the rest of the country is adding jobs? >> uh-huh. >> you know, the survey i just mentioned where we went up to 94% say wisconsin is heading in the right direction, in that same release, one of the things they talked about when they asked a random question to kind of open-ended question about feelings people had about the future, one of the things that group that the statewide chamber identified was the concern that they had about recalls. they liked the reforms and they feel it's moving in the right direction and they're concerned that that might stop if somehow against the recall or some of the senators were successful. i think the sooner we get past that, the more that's affirmed. we had a net increase of jobs since the beginning of 2011. but i think anything that adds uncertainty, that's one of those factors. it will continue to be a factor

for us. >> just one other quick question. when you were talking about fairness to taxpayers, you know, concerning the reforms, pensions, one of the things i never quite understood is why emergency responders were excluded from the pension reforms if they had the most expensive pensions. >> uh-huh. >> can you talk about that. >> great question. and that is one of the things that was unlike ohio where they did include -- which politically was part of the reason the referendum went down too. we didn't have a political consideration 'cause we didn't have a referendum process on that. it was simply practical. i had, as we -- in january and february, we looked at this, the budget, what our options were. we wanted to make sure we didn't do this in a vacuum. that we had a strategic plan should there be work shortages or walk-off anywhere at the state or the federal level. and so we had contingency plans that could cover my correctional facilities to the state, my mental health facilities, other 24/7 type operations but in wisconsin i've got about 1700 --

a little over 1700 municipalities and 72 counties. and my concern was i didn't have a way to cover all those jurisdictions should there be a work shortage amongst fire or police officers in the state of wisconsin. now, they're professionals. i would imagine the vast vast majority wouldn't consider a work action but if even one jurisdiction did that and someone's life was at risk because of that, i just -- i thought i had a higher responsibility to do that. and people say, well, how could that happen. the teachers in the madison school district walked off the job for three days and left parents kind of out in the cold, now, that didn't cause anyone's life to be at risk. it made a lot of parents upset who didn't have provisions for child care. and after a couple days, teachers went back because the parents were reacting very negatively politically to that frustration. but in that case, it was an inconvenience. in the case of public safety, you know, the fact that someone's life could be in danger because of that was too

high of a risk and so that's why we did it. it's a simple practical consideration but it's a very legitimate question. >> tom greer with nbc politics.com. governor, you said earlier in the coming year you'd expect tremendous job growth in wisconsin. >> uh-huh. >> if good times and prosperity return to the state, what's the likelihood that the legislature or perhaps you won't be the governor, the future governor, what's the likelihood that the reforms that you've enacted and collected bargaining will be rescinded when -- because after all, it was the recession that created the situation you faced when you came into office? >> the reason was we had to balance the budget and the structural reforms i thought were the best of all the other options other states that the governors picked.

if we were to rescind that that would have a devastating impact on local governance. conservative, liberal alike, you would be hard-pressed to find many local officials who would be out there right now arguing to rescind the collective bargaining reforms? why? because they benefit from this. i mean, the gentleman who ran for me for government, to balance his budget on my reforms. i mean, if that doesn't make the case, i don't know what does. and so long term, while i think some in the recall movement make the false pretense or presents this as a choice between yes or no on these issues, the reality is, if somebody is going to campaign -- nobody ran for -- in fact people the candidates who ran in the recall elections against state senators ran on the platform of repealing collective bargaining. a couple races they actually ran on medicare, as you all know it has nothing to do with the state. it has everything to do with the federal government.

they ran on everything but that issue and so i think that is clear to me that people like the reforms. whether they like the process is more debatable. but local governments certainly like it. the public has largely benefited from it and if some were to run on the argument that they were going to repeal it, i think politically that's a pretty negative outcome because people think about it, that means you've got this huge budget and you've got huge structural holds for local governances as well that would have to be filled either with -- by having massive layoffs, cutting things like medicaid or raising taxes at a time when it would be crippling at a time in the state's econom economy. >> i'm with atr. on your inauguration there were

unions who had been there, how much of this recall is about public policy and how much of it is just a foregone kind of political conclusion? >> you take it a step back, actually the domain from one of the recall sites, websites was registered november 2nd, 2010. now, they didn't go up with it until february. but you don't register a domain on november 2nd because you're the -- was it -- you remember the old tonight show they johnny carson would hold the envelope up to his head and predict things. it wasn't because somebody knew in advance that this was all going to happen. i think a lot of these left of center groups were looking for an opportunity. the unions in particular jumped at this chance and so -- i mean, i find it interesting because if you fundamentally believe this is the case, why aren't they going on a recall against duvall patrick and speaker of the legislature in massachusetts who

are doing similar things in other states? well, it's because there's political alliances there. i remember it was the "boston globe" that wrote a column months ago where they looked at some documents or something they got connected to the white house where they kind of told folks in massachusetts to quiet it down a little bit so they could more aggressively go after me and kasich and not make this -- make the public realize this wasn't just a public issue has that a lot of elected officials are looking at this. i think it's about power. i think it's unfortunate about the people in my state. people in my state are probably going to have to go through tens of millions of dollars more worth of negative ads largely funded by groups outside of our state, ongoing, seemingly endless elections. there will be a june election a swing state, a key house seat and my voters in wisconsin won't get much of a reprieve after the recall elections. i think most people no matter where they stand politically are

largely tired of it. but, you know, you got a handful of people for them it's about power. it's ultimately about power. it's about the fact that they don't like the fact that we gave public workers in our state a choice, you know, for a school teacher in milwaukee who pays almost $1400, when their contract is up now, he or she -- have the choices as to whether or not they want that $1400 roughly to go to union dues or whether they want to keep that or their health insurance premium or whatever they might want to use it for and that's really what's at stake. if you give them a choice, i think there's the fear that those public employees will choose to keep that money and that's ultimately what this is about. for the voters, i think it's simple. it is about as clear as a contrast you can. insert the candidate because it will be you someone hand-picked by the unions. someone who goes down that same path that i believe illinois is going backwards on where they'll have record job losses we had in the past, massive deficits and double digit tax increases which

we saw just a few years ago. or we can go forward with a much more optimistic better approach that we're headed on and we'll expand on in the future. >> shaun sullivan with "national journal." i want to talk about your read of your electorate with the 2010 electorate, nobody was sort of in the middle with no opinion, you know, either with you all the way or really against you. >> uh-huh. >> do you see a similar divide if there is a recall election triggered this year? and secondly, you've spoken about the effect of negative ads on the mood of voters in wisconsin. are you willing to say if and when a recall is triggered that your campaign will not be running any negative ads against a potential democratic opponent? >> two parts in that. you put this in context, you guys have followed wisconsin and other states. but in 2000 and 2004, wisconsin

was the closest blue state in america. so there's nothing that happened the last year that suddenly made wisconsin have different political views in different parts of the state. that's our tradition. we've had great debates for generations. i mean, anybody who comes in and looks at a state long before 2011, which say milwaukee, madison a overwhelmingly democra democrat, that's why normally in close competitive races, whether it was me, ron johnson or others out there last year is a 40-40-20 pit. 40 that lean republican, 40 that lean -- more or less lean are aggressively democrat and about 20% that's kind of up for grabs in the middle. that number shrink a little bit just because there's been so much debate and discussion. i think the facts -- we really haven't run a concentrated campaign getting our side of the

story out, throughout all those debates so i'm optimistic that the more the facts get out, the more people hear the truth, the more they see the benefits with the local governments, not only financially but long term, i think you'll see a shift. but i don't think it's going to be a tremendous shift. but i think you'll see a shift in our direction. and i think there will be battles just like in 2012, the u.s. senate race and the presidential race in our state. it will be very close competitive race because wisconsin, like a lot of other midwestern states is pretty evenly balanced. in our state, i can tell you we'll run ads that define the differences. we'll not take cheap shots. i don't think people want that but i also think people want to know what the difference is. and if i point out my record versus whomever the unions decide to put up to run against me, we're clearly going to define the difference. i don't view that as a negative. i think that's a legitimate comparison that voters want. but that would be our expectations.

we'll talk about our vision for the future and we'll talk about how that contrast whomever the unions put their money behind. and i should stress the public unions. there's a number of private sector unions that have endorsed me in the past and have not been involved in these recall efforts. >> john buhl with state tax notes magazine. .. magazine. allotted of this is about the legislation put in place but some democrats have been critical of tax breaks for corporations that spurred the economy and tap -- capital gains tax cuts. i was wondering first off what is your sponsor that? do you think that will be an issue in the recall election and if it might spread into tax issues and other parts of the economy and since the senate is so close i could possibly shift towards democrats depending on how these races go how do you think your administration will fare with his policies if the

democrats regain control of the senate in the future? >> a couple of good questions there. on the text part, i think all the elections more or less are about the future not just about the past so there'll be some discussion but if you look at the earned income tax credit, not as much money is going to offset people don't who don't pay taxes and give them, other taxpayers money. that is just a matter of how much of a subsidy is out there and on the other side, on the tax reductions, they were all tied into jobs. in fact these are the things we proposed. all the bills that i've signed into law, more than 90% of them have had bipartisan votes. out of all the legislation i passed in the past year, more than 90% of them have had those from republicans and democrats. including some of the tax. why?

because we didn't give blanket tax cuts. are tax cuts are tied into job creation. you create more jobs in wisconsin, and send us whether small business or any other size business out there, the ultimately capital gains we exempted all capital gains, 100% exemption for investments made in wisconsin-based companies. why? i want people to take their's and sand dumped them into companies that are in wisconsin that will create more jobs. i was elected to fix the economic and fiscal crisis in the state and those were things that we believed over time would have a tremendous impact in putting people to work. to the biggest things we have had so far were direct credits, tracks tax relief for agricultural-based industries in our state. those are the two largest industries manufacturing and agriculture. those are things that row over time and our tremendous incentive so anybody watching who is in agriculture should come to wisconsin because you'll

have one of the best tax burdens in the country and it will only get better over time because the tax bills into this budget. we didn't give it out to corporations and we didn't give it out to individuals. we targeted areas that would have a direct impact on economic growth and prosperity and i think that's part of the debate. someone wants to run against lien say they are to make it harder for manufacturers and others to create jobs in our state, that's a debate i would love to have because i think people understand that for the small businesses and others in our state that create jobs we need every ability to create more jobs and move in that direction. you had one other part of your question. >> yes, the recall elections and the putting -- in the senate back into democratic control. how do you see that affecting the fiscal policy debate? >> again like i said more than

90% of the bills passed passed with bipartisan support that i signed into law. i still think somehow, i think republicans will retain the majority but it will flip a 17-16. i think there there is enough discerning democrats including a number of whom voted for almost all of our major jobs initiatives that will continue to work with us on the state issues. i would imagine even coming up in the next month or two, we have got some issues to further create incentives for venture capital investment in our state, to look at reasonable opportunities in our state. i've talked to a number of democratic senators who want to vote for those measures as well as republicans. those are things that as long as we can get done no matter what the layout is of the legislature i think it's better for us long-term if the majority continues but if not, either way.

>> my name is jane norman. i'm a reporter for congressional quarterly and i want to ask you about the health care law which is a major issue for your state in terms of budget policy. i understand you recently said that you were going to put off implementation of the state exchanges until after the supreme court case is resolved on whether not the law is constitutional. i'm curious about your thinking on that and if if you are concerned the state is going to have problems catching up if the law is found constitutional? secondly i wondered if you plan to return any of the money for the health longbow mentation? >> well, on the first day i took office, january 3 i authorized our attorney general join the federal lawsuit. i just wanted the federal government should not ever rolled. does not clearly have a role defined by the constitution and in health care mandated not only

by the state but also i don't particularly care -- i think that is the decision that individual families and employers should be make you not dictated by the government in and of itself but i predict or you believe in reading the 10th amendment that is the right inherently in the hands of not only the state but of the people and so i think we have a very good convincing case in that argument. the supreme court is going to take an unprecedented mount of oral arguments in that regard. i think for any state, the move forward on that without knowing what the impact will be, probably sometime by midyear is particularly in in the state involved in a lawsuit is a poor decision and no i don't think long-term, i think certainly i oppose the mandate. with testified before that the president's mandate in wisconsin's case cause the majority people to pay more for

less health care. in our state, that is a negative for the vast majority of people in our state. we are the one of the highest percentage of states that cover people with insurance. 96% of our people are covered so for us to fix -- to 4% to throw upside down the current health care system even though it needs some improvements, seems like a poor decision for the vast majority people in our state. we would prefer better alternatives to that with federal health care mainly. so for us we are going to push both legally and politically any and all apprentice to that and it doesn't make any sense now. in the end after exhausting all legal and all political alternatives, we will re-examine that. but until that time, we are still holding out hope that power can rest in the hands of people and not the federal mandate. in terms of funding that the state has acquired under my

predecessor, it is not in our hands to begin with. we are just not drawing any of that money down. >> thanks audrey of in her. eric lawson from "the hill" newspaper for your. i was wondering what you are seeing as far as the enthusiasm for fiscal reform nationally. there seems to be a narrative emerging here that the tea party for example may end up having. do you see it a more difficult to push through reforms and you think your you're bold move has played a role at all in the backlash that we may be seeing? >> on the latter part i don't know and i will leave it back to the pundits to decide but i do think, and is not a popular discussion to have ongoing. people like to move bond, both the media and the public in general likes to move on from one hot topic to the next. anyone who looks at what happened in august when our bond rating was dropped, all those

governors and executives at the local level, we know how incredibly important it is to guard our bond rating and what that means not just to bond investors but investors in general. what is says about stability in our governments government so that for the federal government to have that dropped i think is a really, it's a warning sign we should not take lightly. we have a limited amount of time to deal with that. whether or not that is continued or not, anybody who looks at that, i go back to thinking not so much because it's a hot topic of the day that when i think about my sons nat and alex in a couple of years heading to college and a couple years after that getting into the workforce it scares the dickens out of me that they will come into a world where state-by-state and particularly in this country, we are not just generations or even a decade away. we are years away or manager crisis, and you know we need to look across the ocean to greece

and increasingly others to see except what happens when you don't tackle this tough issues. it may not be a fun topic to talk about but long-term -- a lot of times in politics like -- people like to shy away from these issues and understandably but as long as you are constant it you don't -- one of the lessons i used to give lawmakers when i was in office and i would mention the numbers, never personalize your differences. your opponent made be your ally tomorrow. as long as we don't personalize the disagreements on this but really keep repeatedly over and over and over again talking about these great fiscal challenges we face at the state level and similarly if the federal level i think we have no choice but to do that no matter -- no matter whether it's at the top of people's list or not. it should unit will be in a few years. >> time for one more question.

>> heiko on her. i am at work but right from the comments. i'm just wondering about the element of the reforms that capped base pay increases. it strikes me that you know, that is an element that isn't mimicking the private sector. it would be dispiriting to know that your salary would never increase in real terms ever by law and that seems to me to be the effect of that. can you just talk about the logic behind that? >> basically as a group, a group that previously was in a collective bargaining unit couldn't automatically have a whole days salary for that entire group go up as a wage beyond the cpi. but, state government, local government in the past week or two have given out on this is for example. they can put in performance incentives and do all sorts of things that the private sector

doesn't do. they can build and to that but the idea being we want to empower local governments to make those decisions to tie into performance, not just providing away without regard to merit or reforms. >> you would have to be, right? >> as the economy improves that can go up, but it will allow distinction between those who hit performance benchmarks and those who do not. that may be one of the issues that we come back and examine. that was one of those we debated and whether we change that entirely or not and that which is one of those remnants left that would have some rolled over time we may find the will change all that and have a wide-open debate as -- about sellers as well. said let's get to the final question i want to ask you

please at elections are about the future. are there other reforms that you are hoping to pursue this year? obviously you're going to be very busy for the first half of the year with some political fights you have an anticipated or you have done what you wanted to do to get the structural reforms. >> on the structural financial side part of it is the implementation. one of the things i stress to my cabinet cabinet and the reference before is now its, we have been given these tools and it's our charge to make sure the areas we are logically to be involved and we will do well. a number of our agencies have been taking on principles like manufacture and techniques that haven't been used. amazingly many of our -- haven't had real training of madison -- managers for years if at all. anyone running a business knows that not just your top topic your whole management structure has got to have measurements and

guidelines. we like to say you can't measure if you can't manage so we have tried to become much more effective. while we don't have a profit margin, we do have a performance measure, so those aren't legislative reforms would reforms we are going going to do internally. the other part is for us to grow our biggest challenge is in fact in many cases we have employers particularly in manufacturing that have jobs available now. we have a 7.3% unemployment rate yet i have a web site in one of my state agencies that has more than 30,000 job vacancies right now. and in many cases particularly in manufacturing, they don't have enough people with the skill sets they need to fill those job openings. part of what we are going to do is put a greater emphasis on helping the private sector partner with the public sector to find more skilled job

positions and education reform. yesterday we came up with a major initiative that we did with the state superintendent of public instruction. a position traditionally elected with the help of the teachers union. 3% i have our differences and some issues but on this we are jointly together and the other big one is we may end up, and we will see how it works out, may end up been part of a national discussion in wisconsin's cases we are looking at an alternative to no child left behind that we have been spending months together on with various different interests of school and school district accountability where we would have a much more confident way of measuring the success of our individual schools and our districts and then provide that information not only to educators but ultimately to parent, community business leaders and others. we think we can do it better than the federal mandate on no child left behind so that is another major reform press. we think it's imperative not just for our schools and parents

world smiley for our employers to know that the skill set we are providing in our k-12 system are matching the job openings we have in the state of wisconsin. >> that is all we have time for. want to thank you opera, today [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> on the eve of new hampshire's first in the nation presidential primary, live road to the white house coverage on c-span. at 7 p.m. eastern jon huntsman told a campaign rally. you can watch that live on a companion network c-span. tomorrow night, after the polls close in new hampshire at 8 p.m. eastern our coverage gets underway and we will have speeches throughout the night from the candidates. newt gingrich, jon huntsman, ron paul, mitt romney and rick santorum. >> if you really want to see the candidates, see spence wrote to the white house political coverage takes you on the campaign trail. [inaudible conversations] >> go to town halls, campaign rallies and meet and greets.

>> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it was a pleasure to have you here. >> thank you for giving one. >> i do have a question for you. you talked about bringing manufacturing back into the united states. what are some of the plans that you have? are you planning on having some of these big companies shipping work overseas because i want a tax code that clears out all of the loopholes -- >> watch our primary coverage on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. >> in december, president obama issued an executive order designed to promote women's

rights around the world. it outlines a plan to include women in peacemaking and security roles, and to prevent exploitation of women in armed conflicts. secretary of state hillary clinton explained the initiative during a speech at georgetown university. >> thank you very much, carol. it is my pleasure to welcome all of you here this afternoon. it's truly an honor to have with us am a distinguished guests and national leaders, especially the united states secretary of state, hillary rodham clinton, who will discuss the u.s. action plan on women, peace, and security. i want to join carol and expressing what a privilege it is to welcome the president of kosovo, president jahjaga, it is an honor to have you with us today. your leadership example applies the deep commitment to establishing peaceful solutions to conflict. it's an honor for us to have you with us. secretary clinton's presence here today follows more than a

decade of international dialogue on the role of women in peace building and development. in 2000, the united states security council passed resolution 13252 firmly recognize the importance of promoting equality and empowerment of women to prevent, manage and resolve conflict and to protect the rights of women and girls. since then, countries around the world have adopted the resolution, supporting more equitable approaches to peace and security. for nearly four decades and in various roles, secretary clinton has championed these efforts. she has long been a voice for the disempowered and disenfranchised. most recently through her remarks in geneva, which addressed the dignity and equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. [applause]

secretary clinton's speech advanced and extended the work begun in beijing in 1995, where she declared that human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights. this is a legacy. this is the legacy that brings us together today. it is also a tradition that resonates profoundly with her work here at georgetown. guided by the university's catholic and jesuit identity, we are a community animated by a deep commitment to social justice. we recognize the responsibility prepare our young women and men to address the new kinds of challenges him urging him this time of globalization. as a result the university has developed new academic programs and initiatives, such as our degree in conflict resolution,

and are women's law and public policy fellowship program to broaden our students engagement with issues of peace building and the global status of women. we've also launched an initiative on women, peace, security, and development, animated by the vision embedded in a new national action plan that was released today. this initiative will focus on keeping leaders, scholars and practitioners dedicated to studying the role of women in conflicts, transitions, and humanitarian emergencies. it's primary purpose will be to contribute rigorous research and the wider dialogue on these issues. with all of this work, we are deeply honored to be a part of an international community of leaders of scholars and advocates, committed to ensuring that women's voices are heard.

there are a few more inspiring leaders shaping these efforts and secretary clinton. hillary rodham clinton now serves as the 67th united states secretary of state, under her leadership the state department appointed its first ever ambassador to focus on the status of women worldwide. as carol mentioned them we are proud to include. as a distant which member of our alumni committee. before being appointed to her current position by president obama, secretary clinton serve as a united states senator from new york where she was a strong advocate for the expansion of economic opportunity and access to health care. prior to that as first lady, for eight years she worked on many issues relating to children and families, including leading a successful bipartisan effort to provide care to millions of children, to the children's health insurance program. representing america abroad, she

has traveled to more than 80 countries, promoting human rights, democracy, the values of law and liberty, and the welfare of women. it is now my pleasure to introduce the united states secretary of state, the honorable hilary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you all very much. thank you. well, it is wonderful to be back at georgetown to give all of the students an excuse not to keep studying for the last finals. [laughter] that's what accounts for the enthusiastic response here in gaston hall. but thank you so much, president degioia. this great university has such a

long history of nurturing diplomats and peacemakers, and at least one former president who still bleeds blue and gray. [applause] and the little known secret, which i'll spill today, is that my husband and my lan and her husband were all at georgetown at the same time it, so knows what might happen in decades from now with all of you and your colleagues. i also want to acknowledge two members of congress who are here, russ carnahan and john conyers, thank you very much, as well as members of the diplomatic corps. and i personally wish to welcome president jahjaga of kosovo, who has been a champion for peace and reconciliation, and also for women in her country and beyond. president jahjaga has been a

strong voice and someone who we are very proud of and impressed by. i'm also pleased to be joined, as you've already heard, from a great group of colleagues from across our government, under secretary michele flournoy, admiral sandy winnefeld, deputy a.i.d. director don steinberg, samantha power from the white house, and others who are here in the audience. and on a personal basis, i want to say the michele flournoy, who has just announced that she will be leaving early next year from the defense department, what a valued partner she has been and a terrific leader for our country. and we will miss you, but we know your public service days are far from over. thank you, michelle. [applause] i also want to recognize all the

members of our armed forces who are with us today. i'd like to give them all a round of applause. [applause] all of you and those who you are serving with and leading are on our minds and in our hearts this holiday season. this is, after all, a time when we are called upon to think more deeply about peace and what more we can do to try to achieve it. and we also think about security and what kind of a gift we can give to future generations so that they, too, have the opportunities that all of us enjoy. today, i want to focus on one aspect of peacemaking that too often goes overlooked, the role of women in indian conflict and building lasting security.

some of you may have watched a week ago saturday as three remarkable women, to the library, one from yemen, except of the nobel peace prize in oslo. four years, many of us have tried to show the world that women are not just victims of war. they are agents of peace. and that was the wisdom behind the historic u.n. security council resolution 1325, which was adopted a decade ago, but whose promise remains largely unfulfilled. so it was deeply heartening to see those three women demand the global spotlight and urge the international community to adopt an approach to making peace that includes women as full and equal partners. and that call was underscored this past thursday when hundreds of leaders and activists

gathered at the state department to launch a new partnership with america's top women's colleges to train and support women and girls going into public service around the world. and, of course, those women were incredibly impressive, and some are quite courageous. one took me aside and said that she hadn't gotten permission from her government to come, but she came anyway. they are so eager to pour their talents and energy into their communities and to make their countries even better. they are ready to work for peace, enter politics, serve in the military, lead civil society, live up to their own god-given potential. they just need the opportunity. .. reconciliation

and economic renewal that are critical to making peace but often are overlooked in formal negotiations. they build coalitions across ethnic and sectarian lines and they speak up for other marginized groups and foster compromise and when women organize in large numbers they galvanize opinion and help change the course of history. think of those remarkable women in liberia who marched and sang

and prayed until their country's warring factions finally agreed to end their conflict and move toward democracy. if you have seen the movie and if you haven't, i highly recommend it, called "pray the devil back to hell." you know that these brave women literally laid siege in the negotiations until the men inside the rooms find a deal. now i know some of you may be thinking to yourself, well, there she goes again, hillary clinton always talks about women. and why should i or anyone else really care? well, you should care because this is not just a woman's issue. it cannot be relegated to the margins of international affairs. it truly does cut to the heart of our national security and the security of people everywhere. because the sad fact is, that the way the international

community tries to build peace and security today just isn't getting the job done. dozens of active conflicts are raging around the world, undermining regional and global stability and ravaging entire populations. and more than half of all peace agreements fail within five years. at the same time, women are too often excluded from both the negotiations that make peace and the institutions that maintain it. now, of course, some women wield weapons of war. that's true. and many more are victims of it, but too few are empowered to be instruments of peace and security. that is an unacceptable waste of talent. and of opportunity for the rest of us as well. across the middle east and north

africa, nations are emerging from revolution and beginning the transition to democracy. and here too women are being excluded and increasingly even targeted. recent events in egypt have been particularly shocking. women are being beaten and humiliated in the same streets where they risk their lives for the revolution only a few short months ago. and this is part of a deeply troubling pattern. egyptian women have been largely shut out of decision-making in the transition by both the military authorities and the major political parties. at the same time, they have been specifically targeted both by security forces and by extremists. marchers celebrating international women's day were

harassed and abused. women protesters have been rounded up and subjected to horrific abuse. journalists have been sexually assaulted and now women are being attacked, stripped and beaten in the streets. this systematic degradation of women dishonors the revolution, addresses the state and the uniform and is not worthy of a great people. as some egyptian politicians and commentators have themselves noted, a new democracy cannot be built on the persecution of women. nor can any stable society, whether it's ending conflict, managing a transition or rebuilding a country, the world cannot afford to continue ignoring half the population, not only can we do better, we

have to do better. and now we have a pass forward as to how we will do better. that is why this morning president obama signed an executive order launching the first ever u.s. national action plan on women, peace and security. a comprehensive roadmap for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the united states government to advance women's participation in making and keeping peace. this plan builds on the president's national security strategy and it was jointly developed by the departments of state and defense, usaid and others with guidance from the white house. i also want to take a moment to recognize all our partners in civil society and the private sector who contributed, many of whom are here today, without your on the ground experience, your passionate commitment and

your tireless efforts, this plan would not exist. and we look forward to working just as closely together with you on implementing it. let me describe briefly how we will do that. the plan lays out five areas in which we will redouble our efforts. first, we will partner with women in vulnerable areas to prevent conflicts from breaking out in the first place. women are bellwethers of society and, in fact, sometimes they do play the role of canary in the coal mine. they know when communities are fraying and when citizens fear for their safety. studies suggest that women's physical security and higher levels of gender equality correlate with security and peacefulness of entire countries. but political leaders too often overlook women's knowledge and experience until it's too late

to stop violence from spiraling out of control. the united states will invest in early morning systems that corporate gender analysis and monitor increases in violence and discrimination against women, which can be indicators of future conflict. [inaudible] >> i'll let everyone settled. [inaudible conversations] >> i had to switch around the briefing schedule a couple times. i actually have to be done at 4 1:45 so i'll try to move quickly through the questions. let me begin a announcement -- or rather a statement on

wednesday, president obama invites president biden who will host an enforcing america's job at the white house focused on the increasing trend of companies choosing to insource jobs and invest in growing in the united states. as part of the enforcing america's job business -- [inaudible] >> and the private sector that is taking steps to encourage companies to insource in america. this afternoon cabinet officials will host panel discussions with both small and business leaders on insourcing and investing in america. there will be over a dozen and large small businesses in attendance at the event that have made decisions to bring jobs to the united states and to increase their investments here. they will attend the forum. with that i go to the associated press. >> thank you, jay. a couple of topics today. i wanted to get to your updated

reaction of what's happened with iran, iran sentenced to death an american who iran accuses of spying. i know the white house has demanded his release. but i'm wondering what more has asked the president to do? >> well, it's accurate that we have seen iranian press reports that he has been sentenced to death by the iranian court. our state department is working through the swiss protecting powers in tehran to confirm the veracity of those reports. if true we strongly condemn such a verdict and we'll work with our partners to convey our condemnation to the iranian government. allegations that he worked for or was sent to iran by the cia are false. the iranian regime appearance history, as you know, of falsely accusing people of being supervise, of illiciting forced confessions and holding innocent americans for political reasons.

we called upon the iranian government to grant the swiss protecting power immediate access to him, grant him access to legal counsel and release him without delay. the state department can give you more details. >> the question still stands, you're calling for his release, if true, the reports appear to be true so what more can you do other than making these calls? >> well, i mean, that's a broad question. we are putting a great deal of pressure on iran broadly because of its rogue behavior, if you will, the fact that it won't live up to its international obligations with regard to its nuclear program. those actions that we're taking in concert with our international partners have had a significant impact on iran, on the iranian economy. i believe it was just last week where the new sanctions -- when they went into effect had the impact of causing the iranian currency to drop dramatically.

so we work with our partners as well as unilaterally to increase that pressure. as regards to this particular incident, we'll work in the matter that i described to you, to call iran to release him immediately. >> is it fair to say in a case like this that the administration would consider any other option to try to intervene and prevent something -- >> i don't want to speculate about that. i think that we take this matter very seriously and we are addressing it in the appropriate matter. >> one other topic, wednesday is the anniversary of the prison in guantanamo bay. and i'm wondering what the white house says now to critics to point to this as a pretty clear broken promise that the president wanted to close it in a year and now it looks like there's really no end in sight. how do you respond to critics of the broken promise. >> the commitments the president

has to closing guantanamo bay is as firm today as it was during the campaign. we are all aware of the obstacles to getting that done as quickly as the president wanted to get it done, what they were and the fact that they continue to persist but the president's commitment hasn't changed at all. it's the right thing to do for our national security interests. that has been an opinion shared not just by this president or members of this administration but members of the military as well as this president's predecessor. so the man he ran against for this office in the general election. so we will -- we will continue to abide by that commitment and work towards fulfillment. >> are we any closer to closing it than the day he took office? >> i think this is a process that faces obstacles that we're all aware of. and we will continue to work through it. yes, reuters?

>> thank you, jay. did the president watch any of the republican debates this weekend? >> you know, i didn't speak with him about that. i know because i know him that it's unlikely, not because they were debates but because he tends to when he's watching television, watch -- not watch news or politics, but sports or movies. so my -- i will venture a guess and say no. >> as the republican field starts to narrow a bit and the frontrunner is gaining traction, what has the president and the white house says about your own strategy in the next few months? >> well, jeff, as you know, there's a re-election campaign located in chicago. and this president is doing the things he needs to do to prepare for his campaign. but his -- the level of his engagement is relatively low now because he has work to do as president. he is very focused on his number 1 priority, which is doing

everything he can, as president, working with congress, or using his executive authority or working with the private sector to grow the economy and create jobs. we've had some signs of improvement in the economy, some indications that the recovery is strengthening, but we are a long way from where we need to be as a country and that's why this president is focused on the initiatives that he's put forward in the american jobs act, including the extension, the full extension, the payroll tax cut, the full extension of unemployment insurance, working with congress to fund infrastructure projects that will put construction workers back to work, but also build a foundation for this economy that we need to be competitive in the 21st century. and doing the kinds of things that he'll do on wednesday with this in-sourcing forum to work with the private sector to focus people's attention on the fact that america is a great place to invest. it's the right place for

american companies to insource, if you will, to bring their investments and jobs back to the united states. so he'll use every tool in the toolbox to do that. the campaign, when it comes, in terms of his enhanced engagement, will, you know -- will consume more time at the appropriate time. but it's not -- that's not now for him. >> even if the two operations are separate, as they clearly are, are things like the nomination of richard cordray last week and even the in-sourcing event right now, milestone that will be used for the campaign season? >> anything you do as president is inherently political, and the fact is that he is running for re-election to a political office, the presidency of the united states. and he will, obviously, have a lot to say about what has been accomplished during his time in office and even more so, what

needs to be done in the ensuing four years. and why he believes that he has the right vision for the country going forward. and having said that, you know, his job is to be president. his job is to do everything he can to help the american people as we emerge from the worse recession since the great depression to work with the private sector, work with congress, use his executive authority to grow the economy and create jobs, to make sure that he's doing everything he can as commander in chief to ensure the safety of the american people, both here and abroad. to take the kinds of actions that allowed him to fulfill his promise to end the war in iraq as he did late last year. and to continue to drawdown forces in afghanistan, even as we step up our fight against

al-qaeda. all these things are part of his day job and they're quite consuming. because he does not need to now, he is not engaging particularly aggressively in his re-election campaign. it's only january. there is not a republican nominee. >> isn't a recess appointment engaging on some levels? >> i can't remember, maybe you weren't here last week. but the president recessed appointed richard cordray because republicans refused despite overwhelming bipartisan support, overwhelming attestments that he's enormously qualified and the overwhelming need to have a consumer watchdog in place -- the republicans in the senate refused to confirm him, refused to give him an up or down vote. every day that there isn't or wasn't a consumer watchdog in that office was a day when

americans weren't protected from abuses by payday lenders, nonbank, financial institutions, mortgage brokers, student loan providers. so he insisted that he was not going to wait any longer to allow those americans to be unprotected. republicans who oppose that nomination almost to a person says it's not they have any problem with richard cordray, they have a problem with the bureau itself. and our position is if they want to change the law they should change it through the legislative process. it is the law. it was through congress. wall street reform is absolutely essential given the crisis we went through, that contributed to the worst recession since the great depression and richard cordray needs to be on the job and that's why the president made that appointment. mark? >> if i could go back to iran for a moment. the actions that the president signed into law over the

holiday, you know, are sort of requiring the u.s. to go to a lot of long-time allies and make the case that they should curtail purchases of iranian oil. i'm wondering in the week or so that those sanctions have been in effect, what's the early response been from countries like china, south korea, japan? are you confident that at the end of this six-month period you'll be able to go to congress and say in each of these cases, these countries have significantly reduced the amount of oil they buy from iran? >> i don't want to speak for other countries, our belief is that for these sanctions to be most effective they said to be multilateral and have multilateral participation. they need to be timed and faced in a way that avoids a negative repercussions to international oil markets. and in ways that might cause more damage to ourselves and to iran. that's why we worked so hard

with congress to ensure the flexibility was there. to implement this legislation. to implement the sanctions in a way that had the most negative effect, if you will, on iran while protecting our international partners and protecting us from shots in the oil markets. and we're proceeding with that approach. with the risk of going into the weeds a little bit, instead of going to congress, the phraseology to show that these countries are importing significantly less oil. can you be more precise. what constitutes a percentage terms of significant decline in purchases of iranian oil? >> i won't -- i won't be more precise. i know that we believe strongly that the flexibility that is necessary for the president to implement this law effectively exists in the legislation. we worked with congress to make

sure that was the case. and we are now in the process of doing that. all the way in the back. >> my question is if there was an -- [inaudible] >> with the u.s. and pakistan, is this the kind of cooperation you're receiving from pakistan now -- [inaudible] >> as you know, and i've discussed from here on numerous occasions we have an important relationship with pakistan. we have a complicated relationship with pakistan. and we continue to work on it because it's in the interests of the american people and the interests for us to do so. i don't have any updates on that for you except to say that we

are working with pakistan precisely because it's in american national security interest to do so. and we will continue to do that. yes. [inaudible] >> coming up tomorrow, details tensions between the first lady and some -- well, former top aides to president obama. i'm wondering what you think about her accounts in the book? >> well, let me just say that books like these tend to overhype and sensationalize things, and i think that's the case here. the fact of the matter is that -- and i think this is depicted in the book that the relationship between the president and the first lady is incredibly strong. their commitment to each other, and to their children and to the reasons why this president ran

for office is all very strong. the fact of the matter is the first lady is very focused on the issues that matter to her, helping military families, fighting childhood obesity and she's done that remarkably well. and i think that's reflected also in the book. >> what do you make of the account that's getting so much attention -- [inaudible] >> again, i think that books like these generally oversensationalize these things. i know some people groan a little bit when i do this, i've covered a couple white houses myself and the fact of the matter is, i've been all three years, although not in this position. the atmosphere and coliegiatly is much better than any of the white houses i covered. and that's been the case from day one here and continues to be the case. but these are high-pressure jobs. there's always a lot at stake. and the commitment that people showed to the president, to the

first lady and to the causes that brought them here is fierce. and sometimes that intensity leads people to raise their voices or have sharp exchanges. but the overall picture is a -- i mean, i think you guys know this. a lot of you have covered previous white houses, this is a remarkably harmonious place given everything that's at stake and the enormity of the issues that are discussed and debated here every day. >> the veracity -- >> i'm not going to get into individual anecdotes from there and i'll definitely say that isolating one incident where there were sharp words, whether it's accurate or not doesn't reflect overall atmosphere and tenor here or doesn't make

clear -- also doesn't make clear in some cases these anecdotes -- you know, what really is the focus here, which every individual at the senior level that i know is determined to work for the president, work for the first lady towards achieving the things that they set out to do when they came here in january of 2009. so that's what i see every day. that's what i saw in my first two years in my other job. and i think it's a testimony to the commitment the folks here have to these causes that we have this kind of relationship ourselves. >> in your three years here has it been common for mrs. obama to talk about west wing policy -- >> no, as the author of this book herself said just the other day, if not today, in fact, no.

i mean, the first lady is very focused on the issues that matter dearly to her, military families and the fight against childhood obesity. she's very focused on raising her two children and giving them an upbringing that is as normal as can be in these rather unusual circumstances. >> has anybody said about the loss -- >> there wasn't anybody who comes to work here who wasn't disappointed by a political loss, the one you're referring to. i don't know that she was -- personally, she doesn't come to meetings in the west wing, so -- but i think everybody had hoped for a different outcome to that race. >> how did the white house confirm the time that johnny depp was here. >> this is a perfect example -- it goes right to my first point about how these books -- book like these take these things out of context.

a couple of outlets that i won't name, you know, reported a secret party -- well, if it was secret, why did we invite the press in, why was there a pool report and contemporaneous photographs. >> there was a story about johnny depp being there. >> there wasn't a publicity event for the outside. it was a military event for their children and their families inside the white house where the press came, photographs was taken. it was contemporaneously known who was here. if that's -- if we're trying to hide something by bringing in the press, we're not very good at it. so, again, i think as many people have said in the wake of those reports, it's an example of the kind of hype and sensationalizing that books like this do. >> for the record, there's not one statement from this white house -- >> but, again, the purpose wasn't for -- we do a lot of these things july 4th, other events here, including other events that are geared towards

military families and their kids where the purpose isn't to publicize them externally for you guys but to have a nice event for them here, which is different from trying to hide anything. again, you don't bring the press in. you don't have photographs going out of here in real time if you're trying to keep something on the down low. but the focus of the event was on celebrating and giving a nice time to military families and their kids. and the event itself was overwhelmingly for children. yes. >> the allegations that this author is making is that the white house did deliberately give johnny depp and in general the hollywood angle out of this. >> pictures of johnny depp instantly available? >> where? >> to who? >> there were pictures

everywhere. >> that part where johnny depp was. >> there were many, many people in the white house, public, staff and others and there were photographs out there. i mean, honestly, again, there are outlets that have reported this as a secret party which is just silly and it's irresponsible reporting to suggest that you would have a pool report and the press and an event that's secret. and have it attended by hundreds if not thousands of people. the focus was on the military, their families and their kids. and it was not on publicity outside of here. it was on those who were invited. >> so if you say the book is overhyped and sensationalized, including that anecdote, why did 33 people around this white house including senior aides cooperate with this author? >> again, that happened before the book came out. but we cooperated with all of you on the stories that you

worked on. you know, we give access to you, you get interviews. some of your stories turn out to accurately reflect what we know has happened here and some of them in our view don't necessarily reflect that. but, you know, that's part of our job and the press shop here is to work with folks working on broadcast reports, radio reports, books, you know, prose poems, short films. [laughter] >> haiku. >> all that kind of stuff. >> are you aware on the anecdote that brown was talking about, about robert gibbs apologizing to the first lady about. was that something the first lady was upset up. >> while i was at the white house, i wasn't in those meetings at that time and i don't have anything more for you on that. what i can tell you is that, you know, robert, as you know, focused on helping the president get re-elected. he's out there every bit as much

of the team and a member of the team now as he was back then. and then i would just point you to what i want before, these are high pressure jobs with a lot at stake but the fact of the matter is, the overall story here is how collegial and harmonious and focused everyone is here on the task at hand. >> what's the white house's response to these attacks by republican candidates over iran saying that he cause sanction policies -- [inaudible] >> again, i don't have anything specific to those criticisms. i'm pretty clear what our approach is to iran. we have sanctions that are unprecedented that are having demonstrable effect on the iranian economy. iran is isolated in a way it's never been and the pressure on

iran is significant and increasing. we will continue to work with our international partners to pressure iran to change its behavior, to abide by its international obligations. and i think stepping back, this president's approach to foreign policy, the successes he's had, i think, are pretty clear. so when that debate comes, he'll be ready to engage in it. let me get some more folks in the front row. yes. >> has the president or the first lady responded at all to this so far? and then secondly, what's the response in the book of the first lady's -- what seemed to be unhappiness we are role or seemed to be back then? and what's described as living in a bunker-like atmosphere of the white house? >> well, i would point you not

to -- obviously, she wasn't interviewed for this book, but she has given interviews and answered this question as recently within the last few weeks about the remarkable privilege she feels to be first lady and feels blessed to have the opportunity of being the first lady. so i would point you to the first lady's words to answer that question. and broadly, you know, i think you have to remember that the story here is of a, you know, a husband and wife, a mother and father whose lives were enormously different five or six years ago from what they are -- and what they were when they came to the white house. and that's an incredible transition. that i think observers rightly point out has been done with remarkable grace and success in terms of the priorities that the president has set for himself

and for the country and in terms of the priorities that the first lady has set for herself and for her family. so -- i mean, that's my reaction. >> have they reacted personally to it? >> no. you know, my guess is they both have a lot on their plate. maybe they've seen a story or two, but it's probably not something they're going to spend a lot of time reading. don't forget, there are tons of books written about this white house's administration, this president, this first lady. this is just another one of them. so my guess is they stay focused on the things that matter most to them. >> what's the white house doing to prepare for challenges from congress in the chambers during the recess and what is the counsel's office doing in conversations of members of congress? >> i don't have any specific conversations or meetings to report. you know our position. we feel very strongly about the

legal foundation for the course of action the president took. the fact of the matter is, and i again, if you have any doubts, please head up to the hill and check out for yourself. congress is in recess. chambers are empty. the halls are quiet. senate republicans decided to block this nominee and prevent middle class americans for having a watchdog looking out for their interests in washington. as i said before, financial institutions have a lot of well-paid lobbyists in washington working with congress to try to get their interests served. the american people deserve and this president believes they deserve consumer watchdogs their concern is the only dogs is from abusive practices and that's why the president took the only

action he did. [inaudible] >> i don't have any comments. >> general dempsey about the strait of hormuz if iran closes it. what preparations, what kind of action is he referring to physically? >> i would refer you to the department of defense for any specifics, you know, we're very confident in our capabilities and i'll leave it at that. julia, i'm sorry, bill and then julia. >> back to the american prisoner in iran. you're saying you heard reports. do you have have any official word from the swiss -- >> well, we're working through the swiss-protecting powers to confirm those reports. i'm not saying that we doubt them. i'm just saying we've seen the reports and we're working with the swiss who represent us or with whom we work to represent us in tehran in our dealings with the iranian government. [inaudible] >> again, that's right. that's what i -- that's what i just said.

we're working with the swiss to do that. >> that sentence that he's reported to received, he's to be confirmtion of some larger tribunal of some kind. [inaudible] >> well, we're pushing very clearly, as i just stated, that iran release him. i clearly stated and others have that the charges against him are false. and we want to see him released. i mean, the intricacies of the judicial process in iran are not what interest us here. our interest is in seeing him released. >> he's definitely not cia? >> that's right. >> angela merkel met today to discuss the european debt crisis. has the president been briefed

on that meeting. has he received any phone calls. >> i haven't received any phone calls. he may have been briefed on it at his presidential daily briefing earlier today. i don't know that for sure. but i'm sure he's aware of it. we continue to work with our european partners, the president does, secretary geithner does, others involved in this -- in this area do. and we continue to monitor the progress that european leaders are making towards ensuring that the right measures are taken and are in place to stabilize that situation and bring it to a decisive conclusion. >> and given the current situation, how much concern is there in the administration that more european countries will , rating agencies downgrade? >> our potential for that situation to worsen has been there and continues to be there. we've seen some progress by the

europeans. there's more work to be done. it's always a reminder in this case that we need to focus on the things that we have control over, that can strengthen our economy and improve prospects for growth and job creation. that's why the president will work with congress to extend fully the payroll tax cut, to extend fully unemployment insurance and he hopes to pass other measures of the american jobs act that will put people to work and grow our economy. you need that kind of insurance in a global economy like this because whether it's europe or the other shocks that we saw in the global economy last year, the arab spring and the effect on oil prices, the earthquake on the tsunami and the effect on the global supply chains, these are the kind of things that you sometimes can't predict. or often can't predict having effects on the economy. you need to do the things that you need to do.

that's what the american people sent this president to do and that's what the american people sent congress to do and i think they need to focus that challenge when they -- those members of congress return to washington. they would be, i think, a great gift to the american people if -- upon reflection over the recess, members of congress and the republicans in particular decided that cooperation was the right way to go for the sake of the economy. let's extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance without drama, without brinksmanship. let's take up the measures on the american jobs act that have been left undone that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. let's get that done for the american people. let's show them that we can work together on their priorities. i'm going to have to -- do two

more. julia? >> on extending payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for a year, has the president yet reached out to countries before they return to congress? and what can the session specifically in relation to unemployment insurance might the president be willing to make? the house republicans did propose making some changes to unemployment insurance that would restrict those who qualify? >> well, the president put forward in his own proposal reforms to unemployment insurance and i refer you to the american jobs act for that. in terms of overall concessions, let's just be clear here. these are things that the american people believe are necessary. these are things traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, this is a tax cut for 160 million americans with regards to the unemployment insurance extension, economists across-the-board recognize that extending the unemployment insurance benefit is vital not just to the people who receive it but to the economy because

that money is injected right into the economic bloodstream and has a significant impact on growth and development. i don't think the house republicans are in a position, if they're serious about growth and job creation, to try to play politics with this. we saw how that went not that long ago. and i think the american people would be extremely disappointed if that approach were taken again. we can -- we can do this. we can do it quickly and without drama and we can move on to the other priorities that the american people have. one more. yes, ma'am. >> is it safe to say on north korea, north korea announced yesterday that north korea never, ever give up their nuclear program. >> i would have to refer you to the state department. i don't have a specific response on that. thank you all very much.

>> tonight a look at the major telecommunications issues of 2012. >> one thing that we'll be tracking as we always do is cybersecurity. this is increasingly something that has come to the forefront, like some of these other issues, it took a while. we've been talking about cybersecurity for 10 or 20 years but now it's something as a result of some of these data breaches, as a result of some of these high profile events and just the increasing reliance of our society on the internet to run critical sectors of our economy and infrastructure, there's an awareness that this threat is very will. the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the british television network bbc parliament looked back in the major events in the british house of commons in september.

this program is one hour. ♪ >> hello there and welcome to the record review, our look back at the big events here at westminster since parliament returned in october. coming up on this program, as the euro crisis rumbles on, david cameron delights his backbenches by vetoing an e.u. treaty. >> the choice was a treaty without proper safeguards or no treaty. and the right answer was no treaty. >> this is continuing economic gloom continue to dominates events at westminster. >> but if the rest heads to recession it may be hard to avoid one here in the u.k. >> also we hear from veterans here about why it's important to remember our war dead and why a lady should never be reminded of her age. >> to my horror he suddenly

said, more or less, even the people who the last war are starting to look old and i thought to hell with that. >> but first it's become a familiar scenario on our television screens. european leaders gathering for the latest summit to try to find a way to resolve the euro crisis. the trouble has spread in greece as its economy has foundered and some have talked about the possible breakup of the eurozone. here at westminster all that meant potential troubles for the prime minister as his back benches in the commons threw their weight behind a motion calling for a referendum on britain's place in the e.u. >> let me say why i continue to believe this approach would not be right, why the timing is wrong and how britain can now best advance our national interests in europe. first, it is not right because our national interest is to be in the e.u. helping to determine the rules governing the single

market. our biggest export market which consumes more than 50% of our exports and which drives such investment in the u.k. this is not an abstract theare the cal argument, it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families and businesses in our country. >> here, here. >> that is why subsequent prime ministers have advocated our membership in the e.u. it's not this time in our economic crisis a legislation that includes a in/out referendum. when your neighbor's house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help them to put out the flames, not 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 his backbenches remained unconvinced. >> the situation that we find ourselves in today is rather like someone who has -- who has boarded a train, a slow train

going in one direction. and just as you're settling in, the train starts careening off its high speeds in a completely different direction. yet, you are locked in and have no way of getting off. worse still, the longer you are on the train, the more the fare goes up, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it as any negotiation with the guards or the driver is virtually impossible. >> some parliamentary private secretary announced his resignation. >> i am mostly enthusiastic about the coalition in private and if you're part of a team you support this, but if you can't support a particular policy, then the honest course of action is, of course, to stand down. and i want decisions to be made more closely by the people they affect by local communities, not upwards towards brussels. well, i'm not now prepared to go back on my word to my

constituents. >> here, here. >> and on that staggered note, i'm really staggered that loyal people like me have actually been put in this position. >> i'm old enough to remember a europe where military communists and fascist dictatorships outnumbered democracies. and one of the greatest achievements of the european union is that we have between us 27 sovereign states and 500 million people created a peaceful democratic federation of which we as britains and as europeans should be profoundly proud. i am very proud of that. i think this motion is the wrong motion at the wrong time calling for a referendum that wouldn't work and that would do profound damage to britain's national interest and mr. speaker i think we should spell it out tonight. this motion is in the national interest because it is prodemocracy, and for the

integrity of this house. >> here, here. >> while at the end of the debates there was a mass rebellion with 81 conservatives openly defying the prime minister's controversial three-line whip and voting for the motion demanding a referendum on the u.k.'s relationship with the european union. six weeks and euro leaders were to meet again to try to resolve the european crisis. germany was looking for greater integration for the 17 countries that use the euros to stabilize countries. conservative mp's urged david cameron to get something back 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 interest. >> here, here. >> and secondly an end to the disastrous euro crisis, the current opposite party wants us

to join. will the prime minister do britain proud on friday and show some bulldog spirit in brussels? >> our history repatrioting powers from the e.u. is not a happy one. may i suggest a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the e.u. based on free trade, growth and competitiveness which other countries enjoy and not political union and deadweight regulation. this e.u. summit is a defining moment. once in a lifetime opportunity. will the prime minister seize the moment? >> the labour leader accused the leader from sending out different messages. >> let me remind him on the eve of the biggest post-war rebellion against the prime minister on europe, he was telling his backbenches -- he was telling his backbenches that the opportunity of treaty change would mean in the future the repatiation of powers. that was his position six weeks

ago. today he writes an article in the times, 1,000 word article, not one mention of the word repatiation of powers. why does the prime minister think it's in the national interest to tell his backbenches one thing, to quell a rebellion on europe and tell his european partners another? >> here, here. >> i don't resolve a single word i said in that debate. yes, what we want to do specifically and particularly in the area of financial services where this country has a massive national interest that remind him, it is 10% of gdp. it is 3% of our trade surplus. it's 7% of u.k. employment. i want to make sure we have more power and control here in the u.k. to determine these things. >> but david cameron went to the brussels summit with the words of his backbenches ringing in his ears and vetoed a european try to intended to shore up the euro intending it didn't protect

the history. remarking back he was protecting the u.k.'s best interest. >> i wish they would have been accepted but frankly 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 an easy thing to do but it was the right thing to do. >> the deputy prime minister and liberal democrat leader nick clegg wasn't in the chamber to hear the statement sending out the clear message of his pro-european party's disappointment. >> he has given up our seats at the table. he is exposed not protected british business and he has come back with a bad deal for britain. >> how can the prime minister expect to persuade anyone else it's a good outcome when he can't persuade his own deputy? >> here, here. >> the prime minister, mr. speaker, claimed to have wielded a veto, but a veto let me explain to him is supposed to stop something from happening.

it's not a veto when the thing you wanted to stop goes ahead without you. mr. speaker, that's called losing. that's called being defeated. that's called letting britain down. >> here, here. >> my right honorable friend with that statement and would my my honorable friend has much more negotiating strength because they know they're dealing with a prime minister who will say no if he needs to than when we had two prime ministers who gave in to 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 has stood up for democracy. he has stood up for treaty. and he has stood up for free markets. and this is to be wonderfully

commented. >> so he walked out, without using his veto, he's walked out without getting a rebate like mrs. thatcher did. he walked out without getting a couple -- and bellboy would say what a plum -- >> backbench mp's clearly delighted but at what cost? i asked a leading economist why the euro crisis had proved to be such a headache for david cameron. >> because he's been squeezed both sides of the coalition. the right wing of his own party increasingly euro skeptic and want him to not only do things like veto this particular treaty but also go further and repa repate -- repatriate and the lib dems will undo his 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, is in an impossible bind. >> is this so serious that it could be the thing that drives the coalition apart or will they find a way to trudge through it? >> i think what keeps the coalition together is the survival instinct of nick clegg and the lib de some, s as they are polling at 9, 10% they have no rational reason to do anything to bring the government down and provoke an election. they could be wiped out. i think it's more likely if anyone pulls the plug in the coming years, david cameron might look at the polls and think, i'm slightly ahead of labour in a moment in a one in one contest with ed miliband and so david cameron, if anyone, would be the one who provokes that second election. but even then i don't think it's likely. i think what we're going to see is a five-year coalition and

although i would have -- what we're going to see is a five-year coalition, i would have been 80% certain of that few weeks ago. i may only be 60% of that certain now but it's still more likely than the breakdown of the government then. >> what's the big cloud on the horizon that's coming up in 2012? >> well, the huge external event which is possible if not probable is a breakdown of the eurozone itself. you could end up in a situation where at least greece if not more countries than that fall out of the eurozone. if that happens then the accord which is agreed in brussels earlier 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 he could gain another political windfall which stayed out of the treaty which hasn't lasted. so i think a breakdown in eurozone relations could be the single biggest event that has implications of the coalition. the other thing is to look for

the slow war of attrition between lib dems who want david cameron to fix the europe debt crisis and the tories to be even more hostile in relations and seek to win powers 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. >> the political fallout the euro crisis is one of the factors having an impact on our economy. with unemployment rising, the government has manufacturing. one appears before a committee of mp's the head of bank of england gave a gloomy forecast. >> the concerns we have, i think, are less on the domestic side, domestic demand that we expect to be weak. we expected the exports to pick up a good deal of the bounce of some stimulating growth. we have seen that over the last

year or so. but going forward, i think we are concerned that problems in the euro area unless particularly resolve could lead to weaker outlooks for exports. >> the governor of the bank of england and that gloomy economic forecast with concerns when the chancellor came here to the houses of parliament to give his autumn statement, he began by giving the view of the independent office of budget responsibility which predicted low economic growth for 2012. >> the obr are clear, that this central forecast assumes that the euro area finds a way through the current crisis and the policymakers eventually find a solution that delivers sovereign debt, sustained ability. if they do not, then the obr warned there could be a much worse outcome for britain. i believe they are right. we hope this can be averted. but if the rest of europe heads into recession, it may prove hard to avoid one here in the

u.k. we are now undertaking extensive contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis. >> what he described as britain's debt challenge was even greater than the government's first thought. >> because the boom was even bigger, the bust even deeper, and the effects will last even longer. britain has the had biggest structural deficit of any major economy in the world and the highest deficit in the entire history of our country outside of war. ..

a government committed to take written safely through the storm. leadership for tough times. i commend the state that. here, here. >> the chancellor has argued the government strategy for dealing with the economic woes is wrong and should change course. >> and as a result come is economic and fiscal strategy is in tatters. >> 79 >> after 18 months in office, diverting essay plan a and has failed colossally. we on the side of the house wanted to try and cut spending and raise taxes to fire, too fast, you risk choking off recovery, pushing up

unemployment. it was backlist. we said he was ripping out foundations of the house, leaving our economy not safe, but that late, deeply exposed to the growing global storm. >> and he concluded. >> the country needs a new chancellor or a new plan. a credible plan our jobs, growth and deficit with real tax cuts, real investment, a real paned for growth and deficit reduction. labor's five-point plan for dataset and reduction. i have to say, mr. speaker, protecting our economy 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 interest, the chance there needs to change course and he means to do so now.

>> here, here. >> the very next day the reality of the economic situation was clear. at around 2 million public-sector workers. the marches and rallies in the towns and cities across britain as part of the process of her changes the public. the mass blackout by the union but the closure of thousands of schools and hospitals counseling operations. >> the workers don't think he is listening because they declared negotiations that ended four weeks ago. they need to find their final offer. they said they made their final offer, mr. speaker. and i haven't even met the units for four weeks. and so it's november the second. and what has the prime minister got around saying to people? he has gone around saying he is privately delighted the union into his craft. that is the reality. he's been spoiling for this

fight. it's extraordinary that what he has just sold the house is completely and utterly untrue. [shouting] the fact is they were meetings with the trade unions yesterday. there'll be meetings at the the trade unions tomorrow. it will be meetings on friday. these discussions, these negotiations are under way. and let me repeat again what he said in june. it is wrong to strike what negotiations are going on. and yet today, he unpacks the strikes. why? because he's irresponsible, left wing and weak. [shouting] >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the differences on my cam i am not going to demonize -- [shouting] people who aren't weak for the chancellor will face his annual skiing holiday.

[cheers and applause] the truth is, his plan has failed. he refuses to change course and he's making working families pay the price. at the very least, we now know he will never ever be able to say i can, we're all in this together. let me tell him that. the shadow chancellor -- mr. speaker, they are all shouting in unison. [shouting] >> they are all, i think -- [shouting] or should that be there all shouting on behalf of unison? b. mack david cameron and ed miller band bantering on the questions. prime ministers questions by the parliamentary weekend if celebrated its 50th anniversary. so mcdougle brought together three politicians who know better than most about the headline making half-hour. michael howard was before david

cameron the leader of the conservative party. charles kennedy led the lib dems for six years and david kennedy was for tony blair. so what they make of pmq's? did they love it or loath it quite >> people are very interested in it. i think people are interested in. i think it does encapsulate the big issues of the day. i mean, if you're interested in politics and want a quick taken what is important, what is the big issue of the day come the prime minister's questions will give it to you. and i think it does -- its importance can be exaggerated, but can also be dismissed. it is important. it is important in the ballot that benches and is important in terms of establishing in the public eye something about the characters of the leaders. >> charles kennedy, love it or though there? >> never been a fan of it actually. i rather agree with ken

livingstone who was once a cross of its street leader and the rubber stamp. the prime minister always gets the last word. michael was right. morale wise and stepmother is important to not say. but the staff has never done much for me to be honest. so as a spectator in the chamber, not a fan terrifically very rarely asked the prime minister's question myself except the party leader every week. and i didn't enjoy that either. i quite enjoy watching on tv at home or in the office. >> more than in the chamber? >> learned in the chamber. i think even a slightly more balanced view when you watch it through the sub dimension of a distance between you and it. what you get in the chamber is often so far removed from the inflation that left a night is

quite remarkable. >> david hanson, love it or loath it? >> i love it because it challenges party morale on both sides. it holds the prime minister to account even if it is any abu sort of way. it is something the prime minister's have to prepare for and to worry about. but i think people need to remember is that the house of commons as a whole and people tend to think the prime minister's questions is that the house of commons status. the house of commons is much wider than that hour once a week. >> fairly untypical. >> it's also important in that it is people as most opportune window on what happens in parliament. so how they perceive private very often is how they receive the prime minister's question. >> john burka says they don't like the rowdy scenes in the raucous noise. do you think is right about that? >> i'm not sure that he is. a lot of people say they like the rowdy scenes, but they look at them and i suspect a large number of them really rather relish them. >> charles canady, do they need to quiet down a bit?

>> actually, it does quite well, even during the half-hour prime minister's questions. an income of the most heated teams to beat the leader of the opposition. they've got leader of the opposition to six questions. if he or she wants to declare a six on the same subject one after another, that develops into a tennis match. the race to the questions, except to leader gets two questions come everyone else is on supplementary, so that laws can be highly charged. but they are not existing high charged that he could between the two individuals close to each other with microphones directly across. >> just am not in the present coalition, the lib dems leader is not asking question which means that the pmq's now ask that. do you think it lost something there? >> it is a curious because now it has to happen but the lib dems is that benj lib dems are

encouraged to stand up and ask questions and wonder to 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 this coalition government. so you have to seem from our point of view. also, when we were in opposition and there's a one-party government, you were very defensive of what later the conservative party did because i would have to go in with two or three sets of questions, knowing that, for example, michael, on tuition and fees is all over the press, you have six questions if you want to tuition fees. what am i going to say for a seventh or eighth question that gives me a twist? with the 6:00 news behind you. it's very typical. if i go with something else, the chancery drop off completely. >> it's lasted for 50 years.

do you think it's going to go on for the next 50 or will reforms come in or will it stay exactly as it is now? david hanson. >> it was stated is now. it's testing the prime minister and asking question. but we have the liaison committee, so there's different ways can but this'll be here as long as the house of, please. >> charles kennedy. >> sounds more ominous than too much noise and a democracy. as much as i totally subscribe, i still condemn noise rather than silence. >> when i first came in the house of commons, i remember being told by a very wise, experienced colic on our side, when people complain about the noise in the abu staff, tell them to remember that we are carrying out our arguments in here instead of fighting them on this trees. >> the view of pmq from a common benches. bbc parliament, keith google

asked john bercow would be made of it all. >> you guys in the media like things to be black and white. simple message undiluted i'm going to disappoint you because my view about the prime minister's questions is an unashamedly mixed one. i'm 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 of a great many of which he has no advance notice. and that is a good thing. but i think is a bad thing is sometimes noise reaches decibel levels that deep purple would have jumped of imposing in its audience. >> but silence is not really what politics is all about. >> who is arguing for silence? >> you think it's a matter of degree? >> i do. i am not arguing for silence. we are not trappist monks. periodic thracian, and

incredulity as a question asked or answered given. sure, but i think the idea that the prime minister should have to fight to be heard or the really juvenile downmarket, low-grade and soul should be held across the chamber is extraordinary. >> are you the right person to make that judgment? >> yes, because i'm the speaker and i am put in charge of keeping order. and i think if there is a threat to order for the saintliness of our conduct, somebody has got to decide. if you're asking is the speaker blessed with special wisdom? probably not. but somebody has to be the referee and parliament has decided i should be and i do it to the best of my ability. 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 care

about parliament. >> we have come here to the house of lords to look at a bill that's proving hugely controversial. government plans to a radical shakeup of the nhs in england. the proposals made it to the house of commons only after a pause for a rethink and a rewrite, following opposition from health professionals cannot labour and the liberal democrats. even after that, demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the changes. though it aims to increase competition in the nhs and give clinicians control budgets. and the bill of rights said it would mean a fundamental shift in the balance of power, away from politicians to health professionals and patients. >> it would have two advantages. it was there to be politicized, the nhs and it would promote efficiency and quality by making those who take clinical decisions on behalf of their patients responsible for the financial consequences of those decisions. both bp fund holding in the

night to 90s and more recently cracked the space commission showed that empowering clinicians directly can improve the quality of care that patients experience. the potential is truly enormous, allowing doc or is, nurses, hospital specialist in the social services and other professionals the freedom to define care parkways better integrated and to commission them on behalf of their patients will we firmly believe transform the quality of care and treatment of the service delivered. >> he moved on to another area that concerned critics, the accountability of the health secretary. >> the bill abides by the secretary of state should remain accountable to parliament, as he has been since 1948, for promoting a comprehensive health service and for the fun started each the chair by parliament for the health budget. let me be clear. the bill does not undermine the

secretary of state's ultimate accountability for the nhs were the responsibility that he carries for a comprehensive service. >> it will change the nhs from a health system into a competitive market. they will turn patients into consumers. it'll turn patients choice into shopping. and most crucially of all, it will turn our health care into a traded commodity. so what i thought was a fundamental and simple point, people did not expect, did not vote for and do not want these changes. >> here, here. to >> the government was not select it to do this. they do not have the elections mandate. >> some in this house is like comparisons of the commercial world. one of our most successful businesses in the united kingdom, which is very consumer responses is tesco. tesco has half the number of people and have the budget. it remains a huge and complex

organization. the chief executive has been on the board for 19 years and he was the 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 bad hand drops the nose entre noise reverberates. but the point if it is not the bad pan the secretary of state should be concerned with. and of course the accountability of this house. >> micromanagement and interference with the discretion of the nations, gps and for that matter of professions and recidivism numbers then. runs against the need for change with a sensible outcome. but there is no reason ever when micromanagement cannot be ruled out, much as the bill suggested without having to reorganization

trust upon. >> the liberal democrat lady williams will continue their detailed scrutiny of their bill in the new year. the lords at the head of remembrance appears to debate to mark the sacrifice of britain's four-day. >> it is a tragic fact that their 16,000 members of the armed services have lost their lives certain since the end of the second world war. they are commemorated at the national memorial and staff and share it and those who felt in the two world wars on many thousands of where memorials throughout the united kingdom. may i say today to the minister have very strongly i diploma the appalling actions of those who vandalize such monuments because they wish to sell plaques and statues to unscrupulous crop metal dealers to be melted down.

this desecration has to be stopped. i hope the minister will consult urgently with the rather departments and with the british transport police to establish what concerted effort should be taken to prevent these shameful crimes. >> a former senior serviceman said the covenant with the armed forces was failing in three areas. >> i do not believe that the third secretary should be exploited to find men and women who are still serving in the forces. as is the irrefutable responsibility of government. charitable monies desperately needed to support those who have the services in every private 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 comment there is an absolutely compelling case for retention of the chief coroner. we have this much to all families, whether in the services are not. but the ramifications of not retaining such a post for those of us that father, mother or

daughter in some far-off and unimaginable war are extreme. thirdly, there is no way that he made compulsory redundant when you have so recently filed for your country is morally defensible. we're not talking about a situation and demobilization after a major war appeared the circumstances are entirely different. nor are we talking about large numbers. as it is likely the majority of the redundant system and forces will be voluntary, we're probably talking about a few thousand be made compulsory redundant. it's difficult to imagine how these people will feel having volunteered for their country. having survived battles with their enemies, they return home to keen to remain in service and to define an ungrateful government is taking them out. what a way to show that the nation value such people. >> i have to say we do need our

armed forces. we face challenges at the present time. if the politicians come the sad truth is they make mistakes again. and it's against that background who paid the ultimate sacrifice. to ensure survivors and successors are properly equipped to maintain and continually sacred task of our nation's interests. >> the other remarks prompted a surprised reaction. take a look at lady ciampi didn't commit sitting near him on the conservative benches. >> the survivors of world war ii start to the pretty old as well. my anonymous friend, the bareness reminded me to be the only survivor i think in this house of those who gave great service to their nation in the second world war. >> it became an internet

sensation, but probably didn't surprise those in the know. the robust lady ciampi didn't serve at the code breaking bletchley park during the second world war before becoming accounts clerk, then a minister and a conservative peer. duncan smith caught up with her and asked away was important important to hope he remembers a debate. >> as we and they talk about those days should be remembered by people who don't really know what being in a war is like. i think memory is very short unless you actually see it yourself. therefore, i thought is extremely interesting that hardly any of those people there were 28 speakers. for alive then. >> you are one of the peers who work in the second world war. what it actually did you do from 1941 until the end of 1946?

>> due to the work of bletchley, the great enough that there was the marshall montgomery because they enabled -- the chairman enables was eric and and that meant that the hugos could not attack our supplies and our men going to the middle east before alamein. it was all to do with that but we were working. >> during the arms debate, tom king made reference to the advancing age of the veteran of the second world war. how exactly did you react to that? >> to my horror, he said even the people from the last world war are starting to look very, very old. i thought to with that. it was just meant to be between him and me. i did actually raised two

fingers and i tried to breathe time that my hand and slips, but it was going to be quite obvious my hand had left and i meant it. and i hear my friends, i thought he'd gone too far in looking at me and saying how old i loved. >> atkin comments one debate put forward by that which is which huge interest about the death of 96 liverpool football fans at the stadium in sheffield in 1989. several mps with relations to the disaster to be released and after 140,000 people signed a petition, time for debate. one entity said the disaster would live within the rest of his life. >> on that beautiful spring day, 22 years, six months and two days ago, before 1989 from

hillsboro is just the name of one of england's famous football crowns who for the last two decades has evoked memories of britain's worst ever sporting disaster. it was a day when i helplessly watched frantic scenes as people travel to see a football match the children lay injured nine as they were pulled. i was one of the lucky ones that day and all of my close friends and members of my family came home. for one it was touch and go whether she would survive. thankfully she did. this unfortunately was not the case for the men, women and children who were killed and for hundreds of others injured and left permanently traumatized, and the loss of 96 innocent lives.

the tragic nature was exacerbated by what happened next. instead of those that had taken responsibility for their actions, a coordinated campaign began to shift the blade and leave the scapegoats. to this day, nobody has been held to account for hillsboro. >> the foreign secretary made a firm commitment. >> let me say here now and in this house on the record as home secretary will do everything in my power to ensure that the families on the public at the truth. as a government, we fully support the hillsboro independent panel and the process the panelists 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 hillsboro independent panel began work in february 20

time. >> the reason for the debate and promotions there's a 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 say very clearly that the government's position has absolutely nothing to do with attempting to suppress the release of these papers were somehow hide the truth. and i am sorry that the way the government responded to the soi request caused anxiety among the families and their on those five and beyond. >> here, here. >> mr. deputy speaker, we are here because 139,815 people have asked this house to revisit the events 22 years old. they are right because i believe the concern one of the biggest injustice is that 20th century. for 22 years come the hillsboro family's taste in clothes, had obstacles placed in their way at

every step as they pursued the dignified campaign for truth and justice. >> the government said the papers would be released first to the family some manner to that of the. >> after days of uncertainty, but if the former libyan manner colonel gadhafi and his ministers were buried in secret in the libyan desert. witnesses said the bodies had been moved late on monday from a storage house for they been on display. after months of conflict, how dangerous is libya for its citizens adjusting to life after gadhafi? >> mr. speaker, there were disturbing reports of a fuel tank left more than 50 people dead in the libyan city is served. of course there needs to be investigated, but it does surely remain that libya is still awash with weapons, including heavy weapons from the gadhafi theater. what are they taking us for the libyan authorities to secure those weapons so they neither threaten the libyan people are

international security? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the rightful gentleman is right to focus on this and indeed we have. there is a team of people from united kingdom assisting both in dealing with the collection of weapons of small arms and also looking after the issue in relation to the missiles that also have gone missing in the area. we've also got people involved in the mining and decommissioning. the united kingdom takes this issue seriously. it's essential they come under an sea control and the proper direction announced the return of the policy of libya can now get on and work. >> does the government show my revulsion at report that supporters of gadhafi have been subject to revenge executions besides 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 not to align any descent into brutality? >> here, here. >> misters weaker, unequivocally, yes. but we have to do is pay tribute to the national transition process had a clear set of principles on which they would seek to remove the regime and also by which to govern, which indeed chairman julio has made it clear on a variety of occasions, and the reprisals coming to revenge and for human rights. the circumstances of conflict, that can be difficult to deliver, but there is no doubt the new government has made it clear what its aims and objectives and principles are. it wishes to be different and we are indeed right to stand by it in its determination to make those that matter the circumstances. >> the defense secretary liam fox designed from the government over his working relationship with former flatmate and best man at unworthy. and flaccid distinctions have become blurred between his

professional responsibilities and his personal loyalty to mr. worthy. mr. worthy had described himself as an adviser to mr. fox and attending meetings including some overseas. following his resignation, dr. fox made a personal statement to the house. >> the ministerial code isn't found to be preached in for this i am sorry. except it is not only the substance, but perception that matters and that is why choose to resign. i accept the consequences for me without bitterness or rancor. >> we have come here to the committee corridor next to the houses of parliament, houses of parliament, or 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 sped north. millions of times in many shopkeepers and homeowners are still waiting for conference

patient. home affairs committee heard from inspector of constabulary who was asked to please revert to deal with such situations. >> what we've seen, i think, and you've seen over the last year or so is the ability of people to use social media and other mechanisms to organize themselves and outmaneuver. that points me towards the launch command in order to make an immediate assessment and then have done enough in advance so that you have more than one game to play as the word in order to protect the public. now, our analysis suggests a police training of the minute is insufficient for that. people do not get an opportunity to look at a number of scenarios when people actually don't retreat from the junction can happily go away from you when they scatter and reappear somewhere else. to vote commanders of a forward, but you need to prep for that in

the way we haven't before. >> he was asked about police numbers. >> we will never have enough police officers. lest we use the ones we have fairly well and it's been a clear view of the priorities that this would attach to those in our civic life. let's be absolutely honest. public order, because we've gone through relatively quiet period and setting aside the protest issue has not been to before. >> i mean what you're saying you put in eloquent terms. but they failed to mobilize early enough. they have to have mobilized earlier and it has been the westerly wasn't a question of numbers. it was a question of how you use people. and they didn't use a people effectively or bring people out on the streets earlier. whereas in liverpool when the chief constable saw this happening abroad as most of us were brought in august, he got his force out as did the chief of nottingham. the differences with the

differences in police response, the lack of confidence is in some way or it just wasn't happening. >> i think it's a matter of public record to acknowledge that they didn't do his as well as should to say the least. i think what mr. murphy had with the advantages seen on television and he would know from his memory, this is where memory is important that a copycat racing is entirely possible. so you had that advantage. >> the committee heard from a panel to investigate the cause of the riots. >> if you were to ask me personally what shocked me the most, it would be the conversations i had with some young people, including some who rioted and absent and their failings that actually is a real letter opportunity in terms of jobs and access and education enough for me was 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. they basically said that they were pretty slow dealing with these rights if they'd done quicker we would've had less disorder. is that right? >> chairman, if i can expand upon that. we've been very clear from the outset that we are not expert and operational method to public disorder. we went to where the community took a in every engagement and in every location and 17 right affected areas with members have been effective if it comes and they read these about policing. >> is very much the perception of what people will seen on their screens that we were trying to reflect to the report, which i think is a challenge for policing in the future and the perceptions of certain images

were ones that were very much read across over the social media platform and clearly social media enabled people -- enabled the contagion of the lack of the disorder to spread in the way that it did. >> there was another huge news story that is still making headlines. the fallout from the phone hacking scandal. >> an inquiry under board love the sin but into the act of press. so far from celebrities and former employees of the now defunct "news of the world." main outcome of the committee has heard from the head of news international, james murdoch and also former employees as part of its inquiry into the affair. meanwhile, a joint committee of mps and peers is holding an inquiry into whether or not remains to be a change in the law to protect people's private lives. the committee asked the actor hugh grant where he got involved

in anti-phone hacking campaign. he said he had been crushed after having his mobile access in paled into insignificance compared with the average he felt the thousands of friends and family were hacked. >> seen children of girlfriends being chased on the streets by paparazzi in tears or by seen paparazzi run over their 61-year-old grandmother of my child all in the name of profit for tabloid newspapers. it is an anchor that has doubled when you realize that quite a number of years the police have pretty much turned a blind date to many of these practices. and politicians have betrayed their duty and doing something about it is that fear and intimidation. >> what about a policy for newspapers? been they've been unfairly treated. if you are on the front page,

you should tonight you expect a front page apology. >> is more of a deterrent than a fine because of the certain loss of focus. it would make you think twice about whether they had faith in the story they were about to live in. >> a fourth witness thought that would work for defamation, but privacy was another matter. >> breach of privacy no matter how big to report on their front page, this is actually a private. it wouldn't really have helped me very much. >> the committee asked of the witnesses had ever used a press watchdog or the complete commission. hugh grant said he used them in the 1990s after his medical records have been published by national newspaper. >> the pcc dragged their feet for a year before i got a tiny little mention in the back of the daily mirror, saying that my complaint with the pcc had been

upheld but didn't save for web. i found that so, useless but i never use them again personally. >> it doesn't tell me with much confidence. >> matt mosley, was involved in tabloid stories had a chance to act before been published. and for the pcc which everybody there needed to have a different structure divided between making rules and enforcing them. >> so what is needed is a body also free of charge at the pcc and changed whether it was no charge, which has the power to find what is necessary to prevent the story being published to order a correction or an apology of equal prominence or whatever prominence reported to decide. and various other powers of our government with that crime, which again, free of charge is what is so important to which it

can go and do it did very, very quickly and start by people which are fair-minded and have some knowledge of journalism, but also of the law. do nothing to do with the newspaper, nothing to do with the government. >> the committee members later put those criticisms to the director of the press complaints commission. >> there aspects of the current works at the pcc, which in my view should be continued. i think we do have the service is set to parliament are talking about in november. it's free and all members of the public primarily cover other people. it gets them results that they want to see. so i was totally disagree with the panel and expect very things and most of the people them in the comments hadn't used pcc specifically in complaints in the prepublication area to recently if at all.

>> so another very busy few months of westminster. we have become a speaker, john bercow 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 statements to the house. i hope the debate about the nature from amber and i the house business committee will get underway and they hope it is a year and which parliament asserts itself and we try to get across to the public that 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 got our 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 balance

is. and the crucial check and balance on executive power is a strong parliament, in effect give, robust, inquisitive, demanding, curious legislature. so here is in 2012 to an effective robust demanding, inquisitive and curious legislature. >> that's it for now. a member to join us in primary turns on january the 10th. catch up at the best of the day of westminster in the record at 11:00 at night. for now, from me, goodbye. >> on the eve of new hampshire's first presidential primary library to the white house coverage on c-span.

>> one thing will be tracking closely as we always do cybersecurity. this has become increasingly something that's come to the forefront like some of these issues that took a while. we contacted the cybersecurity for 10 or 20 years, but now as result of data breaches and high-profile event than just the increasing length of our society and the internet to run critical sectors of our economy and infrastructure committee's awareness this thread is very real.

>> sunday marked the anniversary of the shooting and arizona, including u.s. representative gabrielle giffords. a candlelight vigil was held to commemorate the incident at the university of arizona. the congresswoman and her husband retired astronaut mark kelley were among the speakers at the one-hour ceremony. this broadcast is courtesy of arizona public media. >> my name is ron barber and i will be here and see tonight. [cheers and applause] i want to welcome all of you to this very special event as we gather once again as a strong and compassionate community, to remember the tragedy at

january 8th and honor the six could people who died, those who were wounded and are recovering, this is in euros who came her aid, the first responders, the medical personnel of umc and to acknowledge the unity, compassion, love and support that defines who we are. the sacher bute still surround all of us as we heal and rebuild their lives. we live in this beautiful place that is not only the beauty of the desert and the mountains that sustains us. it is the kindness of the people who live here and who care about each other so much. this event is a gift of thanks and appreciation to all of you.

the program tonight is the result of hard work to many people and organizations and they are listed on the screens. without them, and this event could not have happened. i want to especially thank the tucson symphony orchestra and choir and the tucson symphony orchestra executive director tom anderberg and smith and director george hanson. [applause] joy burns and john, tina with calexico are very special and most giving local musicians. [applause] the university of arizona and the tucson police department community foundation under the leadership of fred may be coming university of arizona, university medical center and one person in particular who guided the planning of this event with patients, sensitivity

and genuine concern for those who were directly affected by the tragedy. she is kristof has not, relations manager for the university of for the university of arizona medical center. [applause] before we begin our program, i think everyone is doing this anyway. just a gentle reminder, please do not activate your glow sticks until we ask you to do so later in the program. would you all please rise for the presentation of the colors of added david monson air force base honor guard?

>> colors. present. [silence] ♪ what so proudly we hail, at the twilight's last gleaming.

♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight. ♪ or the ramparts we watch were so gallantly streaming. ♪ and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there. ♪ say does that star-spangled banner yet waves. ♪ or the land of the free and the home of the brave.

♪ [cheers and applause] >> i'd like to invite congresswoman giffords to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. welcome home, congresswoman. [cheers and applause] >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[cheers and applause] [silence] [silence]

>> colors, watch. [silence] >> thank you to david monson air force honor guard for presentation of the colors. [applause] please be seated. it's a pleasure next to introduce to you, dr. eugene sander, president of the

university of arizona. dr. sander. [applause] >> thank you, ron. tonight it's my privilege to welcome all of you to this candlelight vigil to remember that the dems and honor the survivors of the horrific events of january 8, 2011. it is a time that none of us will ever forget. i would imagine each and every one of us in this audience can remember exactly where we worry when we heard that news. what happened was a tragedy obviously for the families and loved ones. it's a burden they will carry for their entire life. it also is a tragedy for tucson. even so, these events have not defined as. what has defined this, however, is the way our community has come together and as many of you i'm proud to call tucson my home, to even prouder now as i look at the thousands of tucson ends and how they responded in the extraordinary ways to help

the city seal. people of all ages in all walks of life have come together to improve our community can i make this a kinder, more compassionate place to live. while we can't undo the past, but together we can make and are creating a better future. again on behalf of your university of arizona, students, faculty and staff, i want to wish congressman gabrielle giffords continued progress in a recovery so she can return home to the mountains and the desert, which she loved so deeply. we stand alongside and extend our deepest as to the family and friends of those who were lost a short year ago. and to my fellow tucson ends, let's remember this day as a symbol of our strength, when we can work together for the greater good. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome arizona secretary of state, the honorable ken bennett. [applause] >> good evening. it's a pleasure to represent the state of arizona and bring the regressive governor or who could not be a personally. i was very pleased earlier in the week when i got a call saying that in the governor's absence, that i would have the opportunity to share a few words. but i have to admit that i was a bit unsure throughout the week what to say. and then thursday, my wife and i got a call that our second grandchild had been torn. and so, we flew to salt lake city since he was in the intensive care unit. and for the last couple of days, we have been hovering as close as we could to the neonatal intensive care unit.

and on a few choice opportunities over the last couple of days, we've had the opportunity to go and and be with him. as i watched the wires and tubes, i never once thought to even think, nor ask what political party, or religion or persuasion or anything of the nurses and docs are so attending him. i just was amazed at the care that was shown -- [applause] we were just amazed at the care that was shown. and on those opportunities, as they came along every four hours or so, they were arranged to coincide with the feeding times

so that we didn't weekend during the interim. on one occasion i got to hold him. and on other occasions, just to watch and caressing. he's doing well. [applause] thank you. we had a flight to come back to phoenix in plenty of time to get in the car and drive down here, but the flight was delayed because of mechanical reasons for a couple of hours and finally i had to call a different airline had another ticket in order to be here tonight. and as i rushed home and changed clothes, i went to grab a pair of scissors and removed the little wristband that we've worn , i guess to kind of show that we are special enough to be invited into the new? and be with him.

and when i saw an icu rented next to my grandson's name, it occurred to me this was maybe the message it is supposed to bring. and that is the middle two letters, of course intensive care. i think the message i'd like to share is that no matter what we are doing, no matter whether we are arguing over politics for city planning for the direction of the state, or especially and their families and friends and communities working on a variety of different issues and learning how to love each other, i think we need to show a little more intensive care to each other. and that lesson i hope we have learned as we've watched for the last year and have remembered those that were lost on this date a year ago, those that we got to keep and are recovering,

does that assisted them, and the medical personnel and the fire and police in the hospitals and others who befriended complete strangers and came to their aid that day. and so may we all use a little more intensive care with each other from now on. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, our next speaker is 2 cents new mayor, jonathan rothschild. mr. mayor? [applause] ..

much as we did and in much the same way we did a year ago tonight in the early evening vigils of january 8, 2011. and thank you not just for coming to remember the tragic events of one year ago, but for what you have done every day and every hour since the shooting. the zimmerman family has created an image of a lightbulb with a heart in the middle and inside the heart the word hope. and below that, they have

inscribed an expression, helping people is a good idea. plug-in. this community has demonstrated that spirit every day since january 8, 2011. tucson has shown who we really are. we are the child who sold his toys so he could send money to help the victims of a senseless attack. we are the soldier who had his purple heart to a congressional staff person because her boss now and needs it more than he does. tucson is all of us who lit candles and sent letters of comfort and hope. we are the spontaneous memorials and tucson is all of us who worked for a year to create a more civil future and a stronger

city. we are the love of the community that gave zimmerman lived for. we are the kindness of phyllis schnapp. we are the work ethic and sense of fairness of judge john roll. we are the commitment dorsey and george morris and mophie and dorwin stoddard showed to each other and most of all, we are the hope that is embodied in the spirit of christina taylor green. this weekend, has been one of sadness and reflection. we have mourned a new all we lost in 16 short seconds. but at the same time, one year later, we find inspiration. i will tell you that the way our

community has come together over the last year has not just inspire our neighbors but people throughout the country and the world. this morning at 10:11 bells rang out in tucson and across the country in remembrance of our laws. it was a moment of unity and reflection. so let us continue to know and let the condor -- country continue to know who we are as a people in tucson, united, compassionate, 1 million strong. and let us continue to be inspired each day by the lives we lost and our communities strength and sense of togetherness. [applause] >> in just a a few moments we will ask you to activate your --

i haven't seen any of it yet but you will have your chance very soon. and this will take place after the last candle is lit here on stage. as the tucson symphony orchestra plays, a candle will be lit for each person who died on january january 8, and each person who was wounded. just want to make sure our candle lighters are here. please wait until the 19 candle has been lit and then we ask all of you to activate and light your glow sticks following the music in the glow stick lighting our next speaker will come up. please come and light the candles. thank you. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> you look wonderful. if you could only see it from up here. you look magnificent. keep those close digs going. you are very good. i don't think i saw any lit before the time. [laughter] except maybe a couple of children who are escaping over here. our next speaker is a man who is no nationwide and worldwide for his leadership on january 8. win the university medical center received most of the wounded, with great skill, he and his team cared for the wounded and saved lives that day. please welcome dr. peter rhee, medical director for trauma and critical care at the university medical center.

[applause] [applause] >> thank you. on behalf of the university medical center and all the personnel, thank you for the wreck mission and thank you for the respect. drama service is a public service and it is a privilege to have a job where they treat everyone, no questions asked. [applause] but one sad aspect of my job is that i do see some senseless violence. one day as i answered my 11-year-old daughter's question i said yes, in the big picture of life, all violence is senseless whether in a war or in

a backyard. [applause] like any large city, in the world and the united states, we have our share of senseless violence. however, what happened last year was a tragedy, a tragedy in tucson. 19 people were shot, six people were killed, some more critically injured. people died senselessly that day and many, many lives were forever changed. the world watched as closely last year but tucson should not and will not be defined by what happened with that shooting. [applause] it is obvious that we will be defined by the response from the community. and that response was

overwhelming. it showed the world how much we care for each other. it made me very proud, immensely proud, to be from tucson. gabby, the world, including houston, love you. [applause] but nowhere near as much as tucson. [cheers and applause] you made us so proud and happy when just months after you are injured you are back in congress casting your vote, doing what you love best, which is to represent tucson. we are so looking forward to having you back. [cheers and applause]

mark kelly, i met you a year ago today. i learned a lot of things about you, learned that you are a good father. you are selfless, devoted husband and you are a great, giant man. [applause] my wife and i think you are pretty cool because you were in the navy as well. but you are an example of how trauma affects everyone. it's not just the injured that are affected but it's the family, friends and the entire community. today let's not forget those who died, but let's also not forget to get past our sorrow and move forward with our lives. those of us in medicine get our fuel from seeing people get that in the saddle again.

so as we gather here today to celebrate life, including those who were cut short and those that are being rebuilt, let's be thankful, thankful for being in tucson, but most of all that -- thankful for living in the united states of america. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> before i introduce our next speaker, i just want to acknowledge some people in our front row. we have, from the state of

colorado, the son of mo udall, senator mark udall. [applause] and a member of our own arizona delegation, who was one of the first people to come to the hospital that fateful day, congressman jeff lightman. and most importantly, the people who gave us congressman giffords, gloria and spencer giffords. [cheers and applause] this next group i will introduce, you have heard a lot about them. they have been faithfully caring on the mission since january 8 without applause.

but congresswoman's staff from washington d.c. office, the tucson office would you please stand? [applause] [applause] [applause] thank you all. what an honor it is to serve a congresswoman with you. now it is my distinct pleasure and honor to introduce a person who by now needs no introduction. congresswoman giffords husband begged is a constant support and encouragement. marked kelly has not only tended to the congresswoman but also to all of those who have loved ones or are wounded on january 8. he is a man of incredible

strength and resolve. please welcome, captain mark kelly. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. it's a little chilly out here tonight. i thought this was the desert. good evening everybody. as often happens here in tucson, the sun was seen rising up over the -- early this morning. but unlike this morning, on the morning of january 8, one year ago today, we all suffered a terrible loss. those of us who survived were forever changed by that moment. for the past year, we have had

new realities to live with. the reality and pain of letting go of the past. the reality of letting go of dear friends and family members. there is also the pain of knowing that with adequate mental health intervention and treatment, that we may not be here tonight. [applause] there is the reality that for many of us, that there are dreams for our family's future that will just have to let go. there is the reality that life is unpredictable and even in the best of times our cherished friends, the good, the caring, the innocent among us, the closest and dearest people we know, can be taken from us in an

instant. and that is a reality we can do nothing about. and get, even with those painful realities, there is this. the sun still rises over the mountains each and every morning. [applause] tuscon remains a great city, a special place, and all places in the desert where our bonds of community were strengthened under the stress and sadness of a horrible moment. we have all seen the healing that is possible. we have seen it in ron barber when he returned to work and then bill badger, when he and his wife sally, took a trip back to pennsylvania and we had even seen it here tonight as my incredible wife, gabby, lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

[applause] we were reminded of the strength that ordinary people could show under terrible pressure. daniel hernandez, pat misch, bill badger, roger, joe zamudio, peter rhee and randy friese and freeze and so many other people who showed us that alongside human frailty, there is also strength. so with these lessons in mind, we remember those we have lost. christina taylor green, dorothy morris, judge john roll, phyllis schneck, dorwin stoddard and gabe zimmerman. we remember their spirits and

the joy that each of them brought to us. thank you very much. [applause] >> welcome to the stage jelly burns, and the tucson symphony orchestra playing for us tonight. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ sing with me. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

we love you, gabby. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ come on tucson, let's hear it. ♪ we love you, tucson. ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> we love you, gabby. [applause] >> alright, then.

[laughter] those guys rock. you know that song is a very special song for congresswoman and mark. it was a song congresswoman that you set up a believed not the last mission but the previous mission, right? to wake up mark and his crew. do you think he woke them up? [laughter] joey and john thank you very much and all of you for joining in. we ask you one little bit of housekeeping. you have all got glow sticks, and some of them are still lit but some are not. if you wouldn't mind just to save all the folks who have to clean up after us and find a bin somewhere and if you would dispose of it and if not certainly can take it home. our closing prayer tonight will be delivered by rabbi stephanie aaron and as you probably know

rabbi aaron is congresswoman giffords rabbi. she has given great comfort to all of us who worked with the congresswoman. please welcome rabbi stephanie aaron. [applause] >> source of all life, god we share. we draw closer together as the sun has set on this day of remembrance. we remember this day last year, our town shattered, stunned, grieving. our town, courageous, holding one another up, drawing together. our town, praying, encouraging,

being with one another. we reflect on this day today, our town, healing, courageous, holding one another up. our town is strong, moving ahead together with kindness on our minds, intensive, caring, on our hearts, civility and respect. in our hands, our hearts and our souls. many years ago, my teacher, rabbi schechter gave us the teaching upon hearing sirens. he asked us to think about the times when we hear the sirens of an ambulance, a fire truck or a police vehicle. to honestly recall our reactions when we drive to work and how we were interrupted by a rescue vehicle moving quickly down the road or at our sleeve or a party

was by this piercing sirens of assistance. he asked us if we were annoyed or impatient by the sounds of rescue. he suggested that whenever we hear sirens, we pause, and we make a prayer to god, asking that the ambulance arrived on time, that the fire engine can help the people in danger and the fire workers, the fighters can put out the fire in their home or workplace is. that no firefighter is injured during the rescue and that we implore god that the police are able to respond in time to this emergency. from that time on, when i hear sirens, i make this prayer. please god, please be with those who rescue and those who are

rescued, and may each one cross over to safety. if i am with my daughter, naomi, sometimes she makes the prayer and i give an arm into her prayer. i would like to suggest that this is a practice that we now add to our prayers of healing for our town. when i make that prayer, what i do is feel that i am connected with the bonds of empathy to everyone in the town. it's a way of encouraging people. just imagine if you were, god forbid, in an accident. your home is on fire. you are shot. just imagine, if you know that everyone in the town is sending out prayers from our entire town for your recovery, for the strength and presence of mind for the men and women carrying out their jobs of rescuing and

protecting. may we each say our prayers up ron hearing sirens, to our prayers for the continued healing of our city. we pray that you, god, send your blessing and healing, compassion and comfort, support and strength to gabby and mark and her entire family, to all the victims of the january 8 shootings, to their families. may they continue to heal, may they have what we call a complete healing, a healing of spirit, a healing of body. and god, we pray that the people who live in our town are concerned that everyone has food and shelter and plenty of hooks to read, that everyone who is

ill or injured in our town receives the health care, mental and physical, that he or she needs to return to wellness. and we pray that on a visit to our town, the music of calexico continues to co-mingle with beethoven and bach. that cowboy poetry share a shelf with wittman and dickinson, that the wild west means we protect what is wild, what is shared here, the land, the saquaros, the birds, the animals and the wildflowers, that every voice is heard in our town from our babies to our elders. amen.

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> thank you to the orchestra, the orchestra choir, calexico. thank you once again for a wonderful night of music. please, thanked them once again. [applause] thank you to the choir. [applause] thanks to our speakers and

especially congresswoman giffords. it's so good to have you home. [applause] [chanting] gabby, gabby, gabby. [applause] >> i think this town loves you, gabby. in fact, i know it does. thank you all for coming tonight. under an almost full moon weekend put our -- in our program. drive safely. thank you all for coming. [applause]

♪ on the eve of new hampshire's first in the nation presidential primary live or to the white house coverage on c-span. at 7:00 p.m. eastern john huntsman holds a campaign rally in exeter. you can watch it live again on our companion network, c-span. one thing will be tracking closely as cybersecurity. this has become increasingly something that is come to the forefront like some of these other issues that took a while.

we have been talking about cybersecurity for 10 or 20 years but now it something as a result of some of these data breaches come as a result of some these high-profile events and just the increasing reliance for society on the internet to run critical sectors of our economy and infrastructure. there's an awareness that this threat is very real. >> iowa can to a bike shop and paul terrell, the then owner of the bike shop said would you like to take 50 of these computers? and i saw dollar signs in front of my eyes. >> steve jobs biography is number one in "the new york times" bestsellers list. author walter isaacson on business advice the apple co-founder early in his career. >> one is to focus really, keep your focus. the other is empathy.

not the perfect word for it, but basically make an emotional connection with for the people who are going to buy your product and then the third is also not a great word, the words impute, but it means kasten aura around whatever you do, so that the minute you, you know, steve even throughout his career had his own personal name honda patents for the boxes, the packaging, of the apple products and when you opened it up and there was that ipod, cretul, if it impede it there was something really cool, just the way it was and that is with apple to does, it impedes that it's a really cool machine. >> if we begin now to match our policies with their ideas, then 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 brave and good land that you and i want it to be and that together we have made it. that is my hope, that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we looked back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web site, c-span.org/the contenders, to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively 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 university, will have difficulty finding a job. we have got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good

shape, pass on the american giunta than. >> go to our web site c-span.org/the contenders. >> there are about 30 to 45 radio missions here, national talk show radio hosts like reverend al sharpton, tom hartman. it is an action-packed, two rooms here with all the different radio shows. political commentators, philar mere -- familiar face to "morning joe" but expecting the day andghout tomorrow. we talked earlier with the new hampshire radio talkshow host. we have now with us george hook, who is with irish television, radio and television actually. a talkshow host for news talk radio in ireland. your showne is called the rightd stuff but you are also considered the john maddon of irish tv. >> i call international rugby games on the weekend and i supposeca like maddon, the only

difference between john maddon and me as i'm prepared to go on an airplane. my primary thing is -- and by enemies here is remember, theea irish meat meet read more newspapers than any other country, so irish people, to go into an irish pub and you say who is running for the republican nomination, some guy is going to be able to tell you every detail about romney's attitude. said that is why i am here. four years ago we covered the not duration of obama. we covered the democratic race and this year is the republican race. we coverea it. we go to tampa for the convention and then we go to d.c. for the election and of course for the inoculation. europe is interesting. europe is probably more interested now than the marshall

plan after world war ii, because it's the american economy doesn't picks up, then europe doesn't pick up and the great phrase that if america sneezes the rest of the world catches ar coldes is more true now than ato any time may be in europe'sre history. so we need a president that understands economics that understands economics, i think. europe does. the other thing about europe is, we are all democrats. there are no republicans in europe. >> even in ireland? >> ireland, if the presidential elections would -- were to iris voters, obama would win 99%, where essentially what you call a tax-and-spend liberals -- we believe in free health care, free education, all the kinds of things the republicans think is

just deadly dangerous economics. >> your show is called "right hook." conservative, liberal? >> i would the -- if rush limbaugh and i were in the ring, it would not go 15 rounds, going down after one to a right hook. the interesting thing, talk radio in america is primarily -- primarily right wing republican and talk radio in ireland is liberal and left. wttk ballston comes to my program on a thursday and people think that he has dropped out of the sky in a spaceship, such is his political views. >> what do your listeners want you to ask? what questions they ask of you about the primary process and the campaign -- 2012 campaign? >> of course, our presidential election has just ended -- what

mitt romney spend in iowa, would have paid for the presidential campaign of all seven candidates. we do not spend as much money, and not take as long. but what the irish are interested in, we cannot understand america's reluctance to embrace a global warming. we cannot understand america's reluctance, as they did half a century ago, to think they can live in a bubble outside of europe. europe and america are inextricably linked. what irish people at home are worried about is so many of these republican candidates, in ireland, indeed in europe, would be seen as cranks. people like michele bachmann and rick santorum, and newt gingrich -- we find it extraordinary that newt gingrich trying to impeach clinton for adultery and he is a serial adulterant. -- inadulterer.

we are astonished he is still in the race. i think we are concerned that the republicans might put up a strange candidate. if you were to ask me today, does ireland -- who does ireland one, mitt romney. they want a centrist. that in the unlikely event that he beats obama, you've got a centrist. we would be terrified, we would be quaking in our beds, in fact, we would be more worried about newt gingrich than we were worried about saddam hussein. >> what about the other candidates in the field? jon huntsman is coming back in the polls here in new hampshire. >> actually, the real preferred candidate in ireland interestingly is ron paul, who will not make it. but he talks the language that irish people actually like. for us, jon huntsman is a centrist, but we just cannot think it will make it so therefore it is not terribly

important. the candidate and the center is clearly going to mitt romney and i think he will win here. most of the people around here on radio roll think romney will win. >> one last quick question. who would you like to interview and what we do like to ask them? >> interviewing newt gingrich and i would just like to say, here in new hampshire, what some of the most on seasonable january and over 100 years, how can you not believe in global warming ..

>> this is five minutes. >> hello, everybody. i hope you all had a good weekend. last week, my chief of staff, bill daley, informed me after spending time reflecking with his family over the holidays, he decided it was time to leave washington and return to our beloved hometown of chicago.

obviously, this was not easy news to hear, and i didn't accept bill's decision right away. in fact, i asked him to take a couple days to ensure he was sure about this, but in the end, the pull of the hometown we both love, a city's that's synonymous with the daley family for generations, was too great. bill said he wanted to spend more time with his family, especially his grandchildren, and he felt it was the right decision. one of the things that made it easier was the extraordinary work he's done for me during what's been an extraordinary year. bill has been an outstanding chief of staff during one of the busiest and most consequential years of my administration. we thought about a year ago this weekend before he was even named for the job, bill was in the situation room getting updates on the shooting in tucson. on his very first day, bill took part in a meeting where we discussed bin laden's compound,

and this was before he even had time to unpack his office. over the last year, he's been involved in every decision surrounding the end of the war in iraq and our support of the people of libya as they fought for their freedom. he was instrumental in developing the american jobs agent and making sure taxes didn't go up on middle class family, helped us reduce the deficit by over $2 trillion and played a central role in passing historic trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama given his past record of service as secretary of commerce, he was invaluable in all of these negotiations. no one in my administration has had to make more important decisions more quickly than bill, and that's why i think this decision was difficult for me. naturally, when bill told me of the plans to go back to chicago,

i asked who he thought could fill his shoes. hi said there was one clear choice, and i believe he's right. i'm pleased to announce that jack lew agreed to serve as my next chief of staff. let me begin, first of all, by thanking bill for allowing jack to serve in one of the most difficult jobs in washington, but jack's had one of the other most difficult jobs in washington. for more than a year, jack served as the director at the office of management and budget. anyone who follows the news lately can tell you it's not an easy job. under the first tour under clinton, jack fg the only budget -- jack was the only budget director to preside over a surplus for three years, and he's streamlined the government in a time we have to do everything we can to keep the recovery going. his economic advise has been invaluable, and he has my

complete trust, both because of his mastery of the numbers and because of the values behind those numbers. ever since he began a career in public service as a top aid to speaker tip o'neill, he fought for an america where hard work and responsibility pays off, a place where everybody has a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same rules. that belief is reflected in every decision jack makes. he has my confidence outside the borders. before serving at omb for me, he spent two years running the extremely challenged and complex budget process for secretary clinton at the state department where his portfolio including managing the civilian operations in iraq and afghanistan, and over the last year, he's weighed in on in of the major foreign policy decisions we've made. there's no question i'll deeply missed having bill by my side

here at the white house, but as you will soon find out, chicago is just a phone call away, an i'll use that quite a bit. i plan to continue to seek bill's advice and council on a range of issues for the months and years to come, and here in washington, i have every confidence that jack will make sure we don't miss a beat and do everything we can to strengthen the economy and the middle class and keep the american people safe, so i want to thank, once again, bill, for his extraordinary service, but also his extraordinary friendship and loyalty to me. it's meant a lot, and i want to congratulate jack on his new role as he'll do an outstanding job, so thank you. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. good luck. >> thank you, everybody.

[background sounds] >> on this morning's "washington journal," a discussed the ads of presidential candidates. >> host: joined with bill who serves as the editor, and those of you who don't know, what's the role of politifacts. >> guest: part of the times, and we have nine other states where we have reporterrers from various organizations who do fact checking with the purpose to take claims that american politicians and people in the media make and fact check them, research them and have an independent conclusion whether they are true, half true, false, or pants on fire. >> host: when you look at say what happened over the last two days with two debates going on in new hampshire, what's your general assessment about what's

being said and what's truthful? >> well, a lot of falsehoodses yesterday. we were really struck in the debate yesterday and also the one saturday night that what we're getting at this point are a lot of talking points we heard before, and in many cases, they are talking points we have researched in tremendous depth and rated in false, and i think this is the nature of campaigning these days that campaigning is a matter of finding your talking points, you repeat them, and in some cases, though, they don't stand up to research. >> when you see these things, how do you and your group analyze the claims? >> guest: well, we go to independent sources. the goal, as much as we can, when a candidate makes a claim is to do thorough research and have a source that's independent and reputable and the census bureau, and so we really make an

effort to find original data. we try to go beyond just the surface and dig deeper. we talk to sources on both sides of the claim if it's a partisan claim and then try to find someone who's independent if there is, and then come to an independent judgment. what i think is particularly rigorous about the effort is to come up with a truth ruling that requires three editors who after the reporter has written the article, three editors meet and decide whether the truth should be true, half true, or whatever. >> host: we'll look at the bits from the campaign over the last two days, and if you have questions about what's said in the campaign, here's how you ask questions. 202 #-737-0001 for dams, and 202-737-0002 for republican, and there's a line for you in new hampshire, 202-628-0184.

twitter.com reaches us, and if you want to post an facebook as well, we can try to weave in some of those as we can. take a look at the first thing that when you look at your website, you said that you rate for truthfulness or something called pants on fire. you have a section here stemming from the debates looking at rick perry and what he said about president obama wha. did he said, and how did you rate it? >> he was asked yesterday in the debate in new hampshire if reagreed with senator john mccain who believes president obama was a patriot. this was in respondent four years ago to chargers that president obama's tax plan was socialism, and so perry was asked if he agreed with that, and perry said he was proud to say president obama was a socialist, and it's a pretty remarkable statement by the governor of texas, a presidential candidate, and we

decided to fact check and look at president obama's policies. is there anything objectively in what the president has done that you can call socialism, and we said, okay, you know the president's economic policies. do you consider them socialism? their conclusion and ours was no. it was a ridiculous claim. >> host: before you go further, let's show the folks at home what he said. >> i make a very proud statement and a fact that we have a president that's a socialist. i don't think the founding fathers wanted america to be a socialist country, so i disagree with that premise that somehow or another that president obama reflects our founding fathers. he doesn't. he talks about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government. i'm a 10th amendment believing governor. i truly believe that we need a

president that respects the 10th amendment, that pushes back to the states whether it's how to deliver education, how to deliver health care, how to do our environmental regulations. the states will considerably do a better job than a one sizes fits all washington, d.c. led by this president. >> host: a pants on fire, but go ahead. >> guest: we did give it a pants on fire. in talking to conservative economists, they said, you know, look, there's policies they disagree with and policies that expand the reach of government, but it is just ridiculously false to call it socialism. this is the nature of the american political discourse these days and why it's so important for news organizations like politifact to make sense of these things. it's a claim that's been repeated over and over and over again, and people hear it and they get numb to it.

it's important for politifact as an independent news organization to assess these things. >> host: we'll have more video as we go, but the first call is from fort lauderdale, florida, melvin is on the line. go ahead. >> caller: yes, it's a question that i think you may have looked to before, but can you tell me what percentage of jobs in the country, the job market, the government actually creates? for instance, all the jobs in the roadses, railways, military, and so on, i know for a fact there's over 100 million contracts put up, but what percentage of the job market does the government create jobs for us. the government don't create jobs, and a lot of the jobs that run on military bases that are

private jobs that the government also creates if they left, there's a lot of jobs on military bases that left. >> host: work on job creation. >> guest: you bet. i don't know the overall figure. one thing i recall over the past year as the economic stimulus money ran out, the mix of government jobs created versus private sector jobs changed, and, of course, there were some months where there were hardly any private sector jobs created and most, if not nearly all the jobs were government funded jobs in one way or another, and now, of course, that's changed, and in the last few months, the private sector is really creating a lot of jobs, so i don't know the overall numbers. >> san diego, california, dori, republican line. >> caller: good morning. i find it interesting that you're doing this segment on the republicans. i don't know if you've done a segment on democrats and

especially the obama administration with politifact. have you done that before? >> guest: oh, you bet. i've been here a dozen times talking about president obama. we have a feature on politifact called the obamameter tracking the campaign promises from the 2008 campaign and rate them promise kept, promise broken, and we do the same research we do. go to our web page, and you can find plenty of fact checks we've done on democrats. most recently, we checked a couple of claim, and i think we'll tock -- talk about is later on an ad president obama put up for the caucuses in iowa last week. we checked on president obama more than anyone else being more than 330 times. we check democrats and republicans. right now, naturally, it's the conversation about republicans. the debates over the weekend are republican.

seven republican candidates or seven major candidates we're following, so that's why the emphasis has been lately, but we've also put a lot of energy in checking democrats. >> host: one of the mostly true comments was newt gingrich talking the epa. expand on that. >> guest: that was an interesting one. we have a great partnership in nemplesz -- new hampshire with two newspapers there, and newt gingrich claimed that when asked about a land file in nashua that the epa was confused, didn't know what it was doing, and we checked that, and the reporter looked into it, talked to one of her colleagues who had researched this and written an article about it recently, and we determined that newt gingrich was pretty much had it accurately that there was some confusion about this, particularly on the part of the city of gnashua, -- nashua, they were not

familiar -- they were not familiar with the fact that this landfill was listed on an epa list of sites. epa was confused about it, and so we gave newt gingrich a mostly true. >> host: maureen from connecticut on the independent line. >> caller: yes. i used to trust politifact until the lie of the year, which was the lie that democrats said paul ryan was going to end medicare as we know it. if paul ryan wanted to give people vouchers to buy medicare, ask anybody out of work trying to buy insurance on the open market, they'll tell you it's a scary process that ends medicare as we know it. >> guest: yeah, we have heard that complaint from many readers. we got a lot of criticism about our lie of the year, and i should explain to viewers what we're talking about here. for the last three years, we deliver a lie of the year selecting the most significant

falsehood of the previous year. first two made by republicans, the claim that the democratic health care law had death panels, and the second year it was the claim made by republicans that the health care law was a government takeover of health care, and we got a lot of criticisms from republicans on the health care claims, and this past month, we got criticism from democrats because we chose the claim from democrats as the caller noted that the wrien plan would end medicare. the facts are the ryan plan does not end medicare. in fact, if you look at what it says, it protecting medicare for those 55 and older, but it does, though, and we noted it in the article, it does drastically

change medicare. it goes to basically a privatized system like vouchers, and it drastically changes it, but it's not accurate to say it ends medicare. talking to experts, it's a scare tactic aimed at seniors, something that democrats used repeatedly over the years, and quite successfully. this has been a very successful communication strategy for the democrats, and so i'm afraid i have to respectfully disagree with you that it's -- it was not a significant falsehood last year, and we chose that as the lie of the year. >> host: it was topics in the debate, and rick santorum brought it up. >> i just talked about medical and health savings accounts is an anti-socialist idea to build a bottom up consumer based economy in health care. the same with medicare advantage, and we also

structured the medicare part d benefit to be a premium support model as a way of trying to transition medicare. there were a lot of good things in that bill. there was one really bad thing. we didn't pay for it, should have issue and that was a mistake. >> host: also in the course of the discussion, mr. santorum said it gives seniors the same benefits congress members receive. you rated that mostly false. >> guest: correct. it's a popular republican talking point we heard from a lot of g.o.p. leaders, and what they tried to say is, hey, we're not going to be special anymore in congress. the same kind of health care approach we use will be available to all seniors under the ryan plan, and it's just not -- it's gist not a perfect complairgs. it's -- comparison. there are some similarities, but

there's some significant differences. particularly, you know, on the cost side, the -- by the best stiments done about the ryan -- estimates done about the ryan plan, it doesn't keep pace with rises costs in health care, and the premium supports would not be as generous as they are for members of congress and other federal employees. we rated that mostly false. >> host: long island, democrats' line. >> caller: yes, before the i talk about the debates, the republicans don't empathize with average americans. the moderator asked jon huntsman and ron paul if they support heating oil subsidies especially in new hampshire for people who can't afford to pay for oil this winter. ron paul, as usual, went on and on about state rights, and huntsman never addressed the immediate needs of the people this winter. he talked about drilling for oil and being energy independent. this is typical.

the republicans don't address people freezing this winter and help them, but they make political points. it's still about big business and not average americans. >> guest: i watched that debate, the first time we had heard the low income heating assistance program discussed in the primaries, and, in fact, we remarked it might be the last time for awhile given that the next primary itself, south carolina and then florida, but it was interesting. we have not done any fact checks on that, so i don't have anything to add. >> host: trends happening as far as candidates' truthfulness from this cycle to four years ago? >> guest: it's interesting. we have an iphone, ipad act with a feature in it not on the welcomes called the truth index. it aggregates the average of all the truth meter ratings from all of our states, and national site, and it went way up in the

last week and it was above zero meaning that on balance, the average was more true than false, and i think that's a function of what happens in the final days of a campaign that campaigns particular in their tv ads tend to go positive, and they make bigraphical ads, and we checked those, and we found most are true or mostly true. that's a microtrend. another fascinating to watch and what kept us busy are the super packs and what they have done in the big advertising buys taking place at the last minute in iowa by super packs aligned with one candidate or another, and they really are enabling supporters of a candidate to basically work around the fec standards that have put limitations on contributions to candidate campaigns, and having even those

ads found mostly true claims. >> host: on the eve of the super pack aligned with newt gingrich or at least supporting newt gingrich coming out with a 27-minute film on mitt romney on bain capital. >> guest: we'll look to fact check that. looks interesting. there's a claim in there that is -- we've had requests about that about -- that romney stated repeatedly about how many jobs bain capital created and the number of net new jobs, and i expect the pro-newt gingrich commercial will be critical of that. we are looking at that. one thing we do that's important is define political speech broadly. we just don't fact check claims the candidates make on the stump or campaign ads or long things like that. we checked chain e-mails, check web page statements by

candidates, web videos, basically any place where there's a political message, we fact check it. >> host: barbara jean from georgia, republican line, go ahead, please. >> caller: yes, he said obama is not a socialist in the first campaign, the thing that i noticed most is when he talks to joe the plumber, and he said, yes, we should distribute the wealth, and i mean, he just meant period to distribute the wealth. take it from some and give to others. we already pay taxes, so i think he is a socialist. your facts are wrong. >> guest: well, i appreciate your opinion. let me put the joe the plumber conversation in perspective. so you're correct that that conversation was about -- that in that conversation then senator obama talked about redistributing the wealth, and,

indeed, joe the plumber then said what obama would do is practice socialism leading to sarah palin's comment about it, but if you look at what they were talking about, a really fundamental concept of the american tax system that goes back to abraham lincoln, and that is a progressive tax system by its very nature; a progressive tax system that redistributes the wealth. you charge higher rates on wealthier taxpayers and to the extempt that the government takes that money and uses it for other program, it's fair to say you are redistricting the wealth. now, is that socialism? i don't think any of the economists we talked to yesterday, conservative economists, people who want to see president obama defeated, would call that socialism. it's a progressive tax system, and two very different things, and so to have somebody say they want to redistribute the wealth does not mean they want the government to take over the

government to take over the economy, which, of course, is what you have under socialism, to take over the means of production. >> host: jon huntsman not only said it in the debate, but the house party he went to yesterday about simpson-bowles. it went from president obama's desk to the garbage can. you rated that false. >> guest: again, it's one we heard before that the simpson-bahamas commission was a -- simpson-bowles commission was a bipartisan act, and if you talk to members of the commission like we did, they said we wish president obama had done more, we wish that congress had done more. of course, congress was tied in knots about it, but in the case of president obama, there are a fair number of examples of things that the simpson-bowles commission recommended that ended up in the budget, and even the members of the commission acknowledge that. we rated that false on the truth

meter. >> host: new jersey, sarah on the line, go ahead. >> caller: two questions. have you looked into governor romney's tax returns to see what he's holding, and also with president obama, nobody really vetted his records. there's something there, too, and more importantly, do you believe that obama suspended the constitution on new year's eve with the defense act that effectively puts us under marshall law, and ron paul is the only one concerned about this. i think he could be impeached with this. >> guest: a lot to unpack. let's see. the first part had to do with the -- first part -- >> host: college records of the president. >> guest: starting with mitt rome nil's tax returns. what do you think mitt romney is hiding by not revealing the tax returns? i think he's hiding his tax

returns. he has not released them. we did a fact check a month ago that our partners at the nsahua telegraph did about this, ands question was -- and the question was was is customary for candidates to release their tax returns, and we looked at the major ones going back 20 years, and, indeed, most released their tax returns, so you're correct that he's hiding them, and i think at some point, perhaps. mitt romney campaign will release them. often, that comes later in the campaign. as for obama's college records, i'm not sure that's going to yield an awful lot of useful data for anybody. you can look at my college records. i'm not sure what it shows other than i probably should have done better in american history 1945 to the present. i think we really need to focus on the policies of this president, and that's what we do in the case of politifact. >> host: one of the things you

did in the iowa caucuses was look at the ad put a by the president looking at promises he made and then promises kept. here's a little bit from that ad, and we'll get you to go through it and what you rated it. >> i'll be a president who ends the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle class tax into the pockets of working americans who deserve it. ♪ i'll be a president who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and sciences and entrepreneurs that freed this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> host: and when you take a look at the politifact website, when looking at it for the statements of the fuel efficiency standards and cars and trucks to lower the cost at the pump, it's rated a half truth and the 2008 promise

closing corporate tax loops sending profits overseas is a half truth. >> guest: yeah. they are classic half true ratings. we drien a half true as something that is partially accurate, but leaves out important information. in this case relating to the fuel efficiency, his claim was classily three parts. historic fuel efficiency standards, yes, that's true. the fuel efficiency standards now in place are higher than ever. would they lower cost at the pump? yeah, conceivably they will, but the issue is that they will force the manufacturers to make cars that cost more money, so that's an important caveat people pay more on the front end to buy the car, but the fuel would be less expensive, and the time part, reduce dependence on foreign oil, unproven, of course, depends on consumption and really the greater market forces, how many domestic sources of oil there are versus

their costs versus the foreignment all in all, a classic half true for us. >> host: new jersey, dee, on the democrats' line. thank you for waiting, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i just have a couple statements to make. one is this idea about distribution is not just about wealthy to poor. it's also when publicly traded companies and private companies profit from war in afghanistan or iraq, that is a redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers to stockholders and owners of the businesses. we claimed rick perry called the obama administration the socialist administration and that's unfair because he sucked up stimulus money to close the budget deficit this his own state. mitt romney claims that he created more jobs in his state than the obama administration created. that's ridiculous begin they were ranked 47th in job

creation, and so if your guest could address these issues, i'd really appreciate it. >> guest: i'll address a couple of those, sure. as it relates to really any job claim that is made -- >> leaving this taped portion of "washington journal" for live coverage of arizona's republican governor january brewer delivering her state address expected to talk about her accomplishments in office before a crowd of several hon people in the house chamber in phoenix telling the arizona republic last year that job great, education funding, and the economy remained her priorities. this is live coverage on c-span. [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> good afternoon. speaker, honorable, representatives of the legislation, chief justice, supreme court, constitutional officers, tribal leaders, and honored guests, and my fellow arizonaians. i probably don't have to tell you, but i love arizona. [cheers and applause] it is my goal and our goal to have this be an an extraordinary place. after a long hard day -- [inaudible] plan for the challenges.

yes, preparing for this state address, but it's -- [inaudible] recall that terrible day a year ago, a day that is now part of our history. the day evil came on a sunny morning in tucson. we knew saturday, january 8th, 2011 would be a mark on our memory forever. we knew that time could not wash that away, so we remember, and in that reflection today, the tears belonged to arizona. i know countless prayers have been offered this past year and continue to be offered for those that we lost. judge john roll, scott morris,

stoddard, gabe zimmerman, and kiss -- kris tee that taylor greene. though the completeness of life is broken by their absence, we continue with their memory close to our hearts, and we celebrate the continuing and inspirational recovery of those who were wounded in that attack incoming congresswoman gabrielle gifford and our friend and colleague. [applause] we e cernlged from tragedy and crisis because we are arizona, western strong. we enter our centennial year proud of the land that our founding pioneers both tamed and

developed while they were tempted by time and circumstances. the great names, udall, hayden, mcfarland, pile, rhodes, and goldwater. they are all giant bookmarks in the pages of arizona's history. [applause] and, yes, there were women, too, who have rightly taken their place in those pages. women like lockwood elected to the arizona supreme court in 1960 and received as vice chief justice and chief justice. she became the first woman chief justice in arizona and in u.s. history. [applause]

we're proud to be their children, proud of what they gave us. arizona, native born and coming from all parts of the nation and the world, found their opportunity to succeed or fail in the last great frontier of the continental united states and built this state. let us here today make this place for arizona's second century. we will not betray their confidence or squander our state inheritance. arizona will remain the last frontier of opportunity. [applause] i've always felt a special place in my heart for arizona's pioneers. i've always been inspired by

their straights, their sense of family and heritage, their reverence for tradition. many of the images you'll see on the screen today were taken by scott baxter, part of a centennial legacy project called 100 years, 100 ranchers. memorializing arizona's ranching families who have been on the land for more than 100 years. as you can see, scott's work, beautifully captures the strength and the dignity of the arizona rancher. we are grateful for his work allowing all of us to see deeply into our roots, and we're very proud today to have scott here with us. scott, would you please stand and allow this chamber to thank you for your great work and outstanding work? [applause]

these titans of the century we're leaving behind understood, and it's important for us to remember that the federal government played a key role in the development of arizona. it's an example of how federal and state cooperation can and should work. now, as you might have heard, i take a backseat to no one when it comes to challenging washington, d.c.. [cheers and applause] i'm standing up for arizona, but there was a time when we could forge the right partnership with washington. unfortunately, in far too many instances, that's just not true anymore.

today, arizona and americans are saying to washington, we don't like an ever-expanding government threatening our personal liberties. we don't like government living beyond its means and trying to be everything to everyone. we don't like unconstitutional and unfunded health care mandates. by the way, we don't like open borders, either. [applause] we have so many monuments in arizona that remind us of how things are supposed to work in partnership with washington. last march, i was privileged to help mark the 100th anniversary of the thoedore roosevelt dam, a

great monument built by the early pioneers called the crossing. the crossing and the salt river is where native americans, farmer, ranchers would forge the river in the narrow gorge just below the con fliewns of the salt river and the poncho creek. president roosevelt's agent of 1902 supplied the funding mechanism for the dam and other projects tigerring the development -- triggering the development of the salt river valley and the greatest phoenix area by providing an assured water supply. another monument through federal and state cooperation started in 1973. twenty years later, 336 miles and $4 billion of the central arizona prompt was completed -- project was completed bringing

life sustaining water to cities and farms and native american communities. in october of last year, i had the honor of helping dedicate the o'callahan memorial bridge, an extraordinary structure, the product of the late arizona congressman's bob stump's relentless pushing and prodding. the bridge was freedom to move commercial traffic across hoover dam. with the completion of the bridge, now is the time to add another monument to the federal-state cooperation. the future interstate highway linking phoenix and las vegas,. i-11. [applause] it will continue two of the fastest growing metropolitan

areas in the country, and by the way, these are the two largest cities in the nation, not connected by the interstate highway system. this project will promote commerce, tourism, and trade across the western united states. we must not wait. [applause] these are the markers to celebrate and to revere. still, we all remember arizona's dark times as we headed into 2009. i took the helm of a ship i cherished, but it was a ship that was sinking way down by over spending and expanding bureaucracy, and quite simply, poor navigation. frankly, those dark times are

worth remembering so that we can truly appreciate how far we've come together. i know the struggles in this chamber were not fun, and i know sometimes tempers were frayed, patience abandoned, and decorum tested, but i also know this. arizona has been saved. [applause] and you were part of that great mission. we all know it was not by accident. we had a plan, and it was the right plan. how do i know? because i stand here this front of you and proudly say, ladies and gentlemen, arizona now has a

balanced budget. [applause] [cheers and applause] thank you. [applause] and arizona now has a positive cash balance on top of it. [applause] but, there's more. our state government is smaller. our state government is more first time. our state government is focused on the future. now, an integral part of our recovery plan was the passage of proposition 100. the one cent sales tax approved overwhelmingly by the voters for three years.

the voters were promised it would be temporary. many doubted that. well, i gave my word to the voters, and a promise is a promise, so i'm here to say this tax will end on my watch. [applause] the tax will end after three years in 2013. we're blessedded to live in a growing state where arizona families will and should turn to public schools with confidence to educate their children. our state is a leader in allowing parents to choose a school that best meets their children's needs. we must find a way to fund the results we want and reward those educators who guide us into the

next century. [applause] that's my commitment to children for the next century. quality teachers, a safe environment, a setting of parents choosing, data driven decisions, and the highest of standards. that's the foundation for job creation. something we're doing as a part of the great arizona come back. we're creating jobs, 46,000 of them in the last year alone. [applause] in fact, arizona's job growth ranked 7th best in the nation. not bad, my friends, not bad at all.

and, we're just getting started. [applause] there's more good news. our state credit outlook stabilized, company, again, are locating in arizona attracted by our lean regulation, competitive tax policies, and a ready work force. although this is all great news, it's not enough. too many arizonaians remained unemployed or under employed. this economic downturn has been tough for them and their families. i have not forgotten about them. together, with all of you here, i intend to do everything in my power to help arizona prepare for the ever-changing economy. together, just like last year,

let's continue to lower taxes and cut regulation until all employers -- [applause] until all employers see arizona means business. arizona is open for business. [applause] we need to make arizona the free market, beacon to the nation, and the world where you have the opportunity to prosper. how are we going to create the conditions for success? well, today, i'm releasing a detailed, written policy agenda. now, you will be glad to hear i won't be going through it line by line this afternoon, so just relax, but rather today is a day

for reflection on an extraordinary milestone of arizona's first century. it's a time to look forward to our second century. i asked for this job because i wanted to permanently reform state government. i'm here to make a difference. we're all here to make a difference. here's what arizona, the nation, and the road -- world will see when we succeed. they're going to see the personal incomes of arizona increase. they're going to see us recapture our position as a top job creator by getting back to the fundamentals that built arizona in the first place. they're going to see excellence and accountability in our education system. they're going to see a refashioned government equipped for our next 100 years of

prosperity. [applause] it will be limited, first time, nimble government incoming personnel reform that improves the management of the work force, restructures the greefn -- grievance and appeal system and remodifies resources, and they'll see our passion for border security and public safety makes arizona a special place for families and businesses to thrive. arizona deserves no less. [applause] this past summer, arizona faced a frightening enemy, an enemy that threatened lives,

livelihoods, and the natural beauty of our state. more than 1% of the total land mass in arizona burned. those fires proved, once again, that the federal land management policies left our public lands overgrown and vulnerable to the kinds of massive blazes we saw last year. we need a return to the responsible setting and active management of federal lands. here's my question to the federal government. how long will arizona and other western states have to burn before you do something? we can't afford another disaster. [applause] arizona is trying to lead the way with this forest restoration initiative. it's been delayeded almost a year now. we need a contractor to be

chosen so that we can start thinning our forests. it was a truly collaborative process, and it needs to be implemented now. [applause] we've done our part. we need the federal government to do its part. along with the physical devastation, personal tragedy struck when veteran firefighter was killed in the line of duty while responding to the diamond fire on the apache indian reservation near white river. he was a crew veteran, one of only seven all native american inner agency hot shot crews in the country. that hero itch is not un-- heroism is not uncommon in our

state, but tragically either is grievance loss who gave everything to their community and country. they are now forever a part of arizona, part of its history, of courage and sacrifice. they are arizonaians who loved their country and their state with affection only heros can know. here are those in uniform arizona lost in the past years including county sheriff's deputy killed just yesterday.

[background sounds] [background sounds] >> let our service in this building honor their sacrifice. please, rise and join me in saluting them.

[applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you. on february 14th, 1912, president william howard taft proclaimed arizona the 48th and last of the continuous states to enter the union of the united states of america. ten decades later, we celebrate arizona's 100 anniversary of

statehood, and i know the arizona centennial commission has been hard at work traveling the state and encouraging all of arizona to get involved. nearby this chamber is the building that was created as part of an effort to demonstrate that the arizona territory was ready for statehood. its design, by james gordon, called for the capitol to be much larger with a more prominent rue tun daley with large wings on each side of the current building, but a shortage of funds meant the prompt had to be scaled down to what it is today. i think that building is a perfect symbol for this new year. we're scaling down this government. we're making it fit what we can afford. in -- [applause]