come late go be another one along in a few minutes. and not just shipbuilding. airplane, magnesium which was essential for aircraft manufacturing, metal and so on, new experimental metal which kaiser became heavily involved in in the process. steel manufacturing. kaiser applied steel to his liberty ships, out in california. as a part of this sort of process. they become involved in the process. they become part of that group who again do anything, do anything and not only, not only meet deadlines, but bring you under deadline in the process. then also the chemical companies. the big chemical companies in particular, particularly dow and dupont, but also many other

other rivals and other chemical companies to become again involved in a whole variety of production effort in order to make the arsenal, make this wartime production development possible. and in the case of dow, one of the most important contributions they make, as i explain in the book, was again magnesium. it was herbert tao, founder of dow chemical who discovered this magnesium coming off a body part in midland michigan. nice, light metal here, very flammable but also very hard at the same time. and he said to himself, this is before world war i, he said, someday someone will figure out a way to make something out of this. it's going to be the construction material of the future. i don't know what they will be doing or how they will figure it out, but he began stockpiling this stuff. no stockpiles and the formula

becomes the basis for american magnesium industry being able to supply lightweight parts, lightweight parts for american airplanes. in the process. plastic, world war ii was the making of the plastic industry in this country. in fact i found a wonderful article in american machine magazine about 1942 saying to readers and so on, are you finding with regard to a lot of the work that you do with the sheen and all that that you can't get the kind of copper and steel components that you used to need to make guys? for production. and it said try plastics, give it a shot. very inexpensive, easy to get, very lightweight and so on, look at plastic. now comes into war in another surprising way as well, as i discovered. and that is what the problem of shipping all this wartime material that's going across the atlantic and then eventually across the pacific.

this stuff has got to be secured. it's got to be wrapped, sealed though it's not going to corrode in these big leaking liberty ships. and so dow comes up with a substance and/or to do this. i talked to a guy who worked for a shipping company in the midwest with war supplies coming in all over the place into ohio, and then being, then being prepared for shipment overseas. you remember when the dow salesman showed up with sheets of this stuff, which was totally transparent, very strong, clings to everything that you can use to wrap up and make it watertight but you can also see what it is you're wrapping a. they said we call it saran. it was a wonder. you could give -- wrap everything that you could wrap rifles, tanks, an entire tank. a sherman tank, rapid and ceramic. than after the war it goes on to

become one of the staples of the new consumer industries that sprung up out of this wartime production, boom that had taken place. then dupont, we can't leave out dupont as well because when the manhattan project organizers realized that they were going to be involved in taking what i basically laboratory experiments in terms of splitting the atom and have to turn these now from basically, instead of theoretical calculations and experiments into real international production, the one company that they turn to automatically in order to bring this job is dupont. dupont they realize engineers there are used to handling hazardous substances. they are used to construction under very tight schedules. the army had used them to build gunpowder plants, for example. and so dupont takes on the job of creating in a sense and and a daschle process that never

existed before. as they do at enormous oak ridge and tennessee but also an enormous facility out in hanford, washington, where plutonium will be processed for the atomic bomb that will be dropped on nagasaki. >> this is a process that bill knudsen sets in motion. through the, through the top prime contractors down to the subcontractors on through the rest of the american economy and industry that gets underway. by time of pearl harbor it's a wartime which is gone production which is gone from basically a standing start to approaching that of nazi germany. by the end of 9042 when the effort really gets rolling, by the end of 1942 when the effort really gets started with full conversion of the automobile

industry, for example, over the wartime production, the united states is out producing all of the axis powers combined, and by the end of 1943, american economy is producing more war material and germany, ma the soviet union and great britain combined. ford motor company alone produces more than mussolini's economy as a whole. and, in fact, we produce enough steel, aluminum and other raw materials to enable british, we are than of what wartime manufacturer of airplanes. we produce enough raw material to enable the british and also the soviets to be the number two and number three aircraft producers in the process. the numbers are staggering. you've probably seen them in textbooks and so on. 280,000 warplanes.

8800 warships. we were producing five aircraft carriers the month during world war ii. we are talking 86,000 tanks. three and a half million trucks. studebaker, remember studebaker? studebaker alone supplies 200,000 to the red army. studebaker trucks are the backbone of the soviet logistics system during the second world war. that enable stalin to go, his armies to go all the way from stalingrad across eastern europe to the gates of berlin, studebaker trucks. two and half million machine guns in the process, many of them produced by companies that begin had never seen a machine gun before. companies like, for example, remington typewriter. national postage meter, rockola, the jukebox company based out of chicago, which produced in one

carbine under contract using design made, created by winchester. and then over 41 billion rounds of ammunition. outpouring and daschle just as knudsen had promised and just the one in which you could, in fact, depend upon to bring about final victory in a war based on mass production. so if we look at this over all, this amazing adoption, we have to ask yourself how did they do a? isn't the kind of thing that an american economy can do again? i happen to think the answer to the latter question is yes, but i also have to think that if you look at the reasons why this took place and why it happens, it begins to become clear why it is a reproducible affect and why the economic boom that came after the war as those productioproductio n models that have been used for wartime production now shift, shift back

to civilian production, why that kind of boost and why the counterproductive boost could be possible. first of all young to realize again that the orders are, the money that is spent, $300 billion of the world war ii wartime production, today's dollars about $3 billion, that's it extremist check. that's if you think about in terms of stamos. the numbers alone, it seems like just simply a matter of spending a lot of money. remember, that's not just money that is simply poured into the economy or given out in large portions to certain kind of favored corporations. this is money that is being used to buy things that the government need, desperately. and going to again the most productive and innovative sectors of the economy. in the process. and those with the company starting to mobilize and put to work. aviation industry, automobile industry, and the others.

the second thing to keep in mind here as well is this involves the creation of a whole new labour force in order to fill and take care of, fill the jobs that are necessary for doing wartime production. not just of course the women become involved in it, something close to 5 million to go to work in wartime factories, and not just african-americans, something like 1 million who, from the south, up to industrial centers to work at the chrysler tank arsenal, who go to work and all the other wartime industries in the process. also as well workforce which is incredibly mobile. in other words, people were free to go where they needed to go in order to make this kind of work. you chased after the wages. something like 20 million people leave their homes to go find work in wartime factory plants. drawn by the conditions, drawn by the better play, gone by the

opportunity that these kinds of work and this kind of industrial surge was able to create. the ability of labour, key aspect of this, people can go with the jobs are, whether productivity is based in senate. in other words, unlike, for example, the soviet union, even like in britain, no one tells american workers where to go. no one tells them come even to the end of the war although washington was worried about this problem. even to the end of the war they don't do this. the same is true also for business. it is a voluntary system that washington created. nobody told anybody what to make. you are offered a chance to contract but people were drawn to it in order to get a government contract, to shift your plan over to production and to make a contribution to the war effort, make some money while you're doing it. there was a wonderful book that came out of 1942 called your business goes to war. put together by the outfit called the research institute of america.

i reproduce in the index some pages of the book which suggest to you if your business makes these kinds of things, these other kinds of wartime production you could shift to an offer to me. if you make razor blades for example, you could probably shift over to making the little blades that go into the rotary engines on aircraft engines. if you make lawnmowers, if you make lawnmowers you could go over and shift to, for example, manufacturing machining shrapnel to use for high explosive shells. if you make a vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaners? make the transition to making helmet liners. you go to the page, it's really quite fascinating to sort of see what was being put out there as ideas. these were things the industry had done, changes they made, which you can do this too. you can get a government contract by making this kind of shift. so the wartime production miracle turns out to be a

production miracle that springs not out of wartime necessity, that springs not out of washington's decision that a war had to be one, that it would go, it would take on any means necessary in order to achieve it in and the direction, but the real industrial miracle was the american free enterprise system turned loose on a major project, which it could address the challenges and overcome them. and i guess in the and, naturally really the conclusion that i had to draw working this book and hope people will draw as they read. it's "freedom's forge," the real freedoms forged is not the arsenal of democracy that bill knudsen built in the term that he coined and that roosevelt stole, december 1940 fires ichat. the real freedoms forged is the american economy. real freedoms forged is the

american economy that when you turn it loose and take away the restriction and the constraints upon, we can publish anything. we can accommodate any kind of goal set before. and i have to say in working on this book that one of the things i found so fascinating about it was not just the role that people like bill knudsen and has played in setting up the process. but also all the other kind of people were drawn into into it. businessman, kaiser and keller and charlie sorenson who build the willow run plant to build the 24th. but also the people who sat in the factories and worked in factories, who made new lives for themselves. the stories are incredible. you would meet people who work in these factories, who had done this kind of work. didn't realize the degree to which the part of a we called the greatest generation. we always saw the greatest generation with the guys who went out and risk their lives on the battlefield, flew over the

skies of germany and japan. they were part of the greatest generation as well. it's important to realize, and shocking that in 1942, the number of americans killed and injured in war related industries outnumbered the number of americans killed and injured in uniform. we're talking 1942, that's the of guadalcanal and midway, and the battle of the atlantic. number of civilians killed and injured in wartime industries outnumbered the uniform casualties by a factor of 20 to one. dangerous work, working in the shipyards. dangerous work doing the kind of work that was required. and shocking to realize that you know motors, bill knudsen's own company, had 189 senior executives of gm died on the job during world war ii. they paid a price for the war effort that they have made. they paid a price for mobilizing their skills and talents, their

ability for this great effort, the great war effort. and the people that i think you will need in this book, the people that i met as a result of writing it and so on, i've got to chile, i fell in love with them. and help in reading the book you will, too. thank you very much. [applause] >> would you like to conduct your own q&a? >> sure, why not? we are all friends here. >> okay, someone who used to try to teach principles of economics, economists are trained to look at the

inefficiency. during your talk, you could imagine all these different markets with a big increase in demand. -- [inaudible] how much did the attempt to control prices and wages hold down this massive ever? >> that's a really good question, and i like the we put the come because what you're really doing is standing on head. the one policy that washington did try to follow through on by imposing its own will on economic transactions, and that was the issue about raw materials and wage and price controls. and in the end, i think what too many it seemed like a very good idea, they remembered during world war i the sudden on rush of demand for raw materials for war production had sent prices skyrocketing. huge inflation in world war i. they were determined, a lot of them had lived to that

experience and also to allocate material as well. what it didn't occur to them but was actually happening under their noses, if they paid any attention to it, was that what made me mentors available, critical materials, steel, copper, aluminum, magnesium and others, was in the allocation of resources and rationing out of them, but increased production. in fact, that was the way in which you saw the asia about material shortages is produce more. aluminum was a classic example. huge shortfalls even before the war began. by 1942, it's really reaching critical factors and wondering why we have all these great, yeah, restraints on what is being used civilian manufacturing. by the fact was one she got reynolds, when she got our co-op and the other companies, coming online and producing and speeding up the process, as one war production board official

put it, in 1944 we've got aluminum coming out of our ears. likewise, with steel. critical, critical to the war industry. let's ration the supplies that would gut. and, of course, the real solution was a technological breakthrough like electrical furnaces which would send production skyrocketing and be able, not just us but all of the allies. another classic example, how we're going to go to war without robert? unita for tires and all these things. let's scrap rubber drive. harold ickes, roosevelt's sector eventually was placed in charge of that effort. where are we going to build to convert all of our tires and so on. we which is converted. and, of course, the stockpiles were nowhere near what they needed. harold ickes, got to the point where he was sending people around to pick up the rubber mats around the white house to

go into the stockpile for war. what was the solution? synthetic rubber. and the coming together of chemical companies, and also oil companies, including standard, in order to produce the synthetic rubbers that are going to be necessary here for production. they create an entire new industry out of wartime, just by getting companies involved. yeah, i mean, if they had had, sophisticated understanding not just of economics but also of how american business works here, all of those wartime rationing controls were probably completely unnecessary. and yet for most people's lives, that's the thing they remember most. the rationing of sugar, the rationing of coffee, shoes. >> yes, christopher, small

business administration. what kind of changes were there in government policy? you alluded them a little bit at the beginning in terms of the new deal had taken a very antagonistic view towards business for a while. there was the undistributed profit tax which took a very hard toll on business. what kinds of concessions did knudsen and others i suppose rainout of the government to make changes to make production more effective? >> amortization was one, and at least one economic destroyed by now said that the changes, those changes in amortization schedule which seemed like a very minor kind of thing actually did more than anything else to spur wartime production in the prewar period, the crucial 18 months that knudsen had said would be crucial to it. one of the other the changes was that they called off the anti-tax docs. attorney general thurman arnold was an antitrust crusader had over 300 people on his justice

department staff. seems like a drop not, but in those days it was quite a sizable commitment to the justice department resources, investigating antitrust violations. key industry like, for example, oil industry, like the aluminum industry were under investigation. at the very time roosevelt and knudsen are trying to get this process started and up and running. they said you can't do this. you can't have these companies spend all their time and energy do with antitrust suits when we neither energy and cooperation in real wartime production. the dogs will get called off an antitrust. that's another crucial change that takes place. now, there were a lot of things to protect eagles of capital is an. there was an excess profits tax, for example, that was imposed. there was income tax raises across the board. and there was also a negotiation law that congress passed in 1943 that allows the government to

renegotiate, allow the navy and war department to renegotiate contracts where they felt that the charges in terms of costs are exorbitant. and that really did happen in one of the reasons was a contract would pay certain costs of raw materials, for example, by then its production takes off, the costs would go down. and so one way for companies, aircraft companies in particular to get around an excess profit tax and that surcharge was you just voluntarily renegotiate the contract, reduce the numbers of costs and the process. your profit goes down. your profit maker down but it's not going to be taxed at that excess profit kind of a level. and small businesses, there was a big battle over small businesses which you can read about in the book. there was a lot of fear in congress that the contractors are going to control everything. gm and ford and general electric and westinghouse, and the little guy will get nothing. there was even a small business

defense contract committee that was set up. there was a big crusade in washington to do that. knudsen you the truth, and that is that once you engage big corporations as prime contractors, they would be plenty for everybody down to subcontracting network to get, everybody get not only gain employment but also to spot half a million new jobs in the process. and that, of course, is exactly what happens. >> thank you. on carmela, i'm economic historian at gw university. i'm fascinated by your story, especially about the prewar buildup of production. what i'm wondering is, these contracts that the firms were competing for, where did they

come from? worthy building up his stockpile of material in anticipation of wartime contracts? or were contracts being spread out early? and if so, by whom? >> that contracts were, of course produced specific material, but these are like warplanes from for example, aircraft engines. they didn't exist yet. most companies didn't even have to make them. so the initial contract then would come with an -- this is also very different from the way in which defense contracts have been awarded before the war with an advanced to allow you to expand your plan, to retool and take on the kinds of expenses that would go with converting to wartime process. but most of the money was not what's coming from congress. until pearl harbor. they were not at all interested in doing this. they were very suspicious of the process. a lot of it had to be done through loans. loans the reconstruction finance corporation's still left over from the depression years, which

converted into defense plant corporation. and a lot of it was through letters of intent which was another important thing. we intend to give you an order for 1200 fighters here. you took a letter to the bank, the bank didn't even before you have a contract. but very often it is done with a handshake. bill knudsen said this is what i need, can you do it? absolutely. they will shake and. let's start building the plant and getting it set up and go. and the army efforts is are suspicious about this process can begin to sort of realize that what they were setting in motion with something really truly unstoppable. and, in fact, army procurement officials in dealing with the aircraft industries begin to take on what they call the rule of three. the rule of three was that if you place an initial order with somebody, let's say for 1000 engine bombers, let's say at the end of the first year they would

deliver 3000. once the conversion was all done. at the end of the second, that number would grow by a factor of seven. so we are talking about 21,000 bombers at that point and at the end of the third year, at the end of the third year, there was, the only limits to production and expansion of it was raw material and labour. and labour was always a problem. labour was always a drag not just in terms of union resistance to wartime conversion, they might lose their power over the shop floor, but also because everybody is working somewhere else. so this became a constant problem, where do you put factories, where do you expand new places where you're not going to siphon away labour from the vital wartime work that's already underway, but whether you're also going to be able to draw a pool of labour which, you know, i can be trained to be, do the kind of work they can be done.

that's the economic opportunity of the mobility. women, hispanics, people don't talk a lot about the number of hispanics get employed in places like california shipyards. for african-americans, all this is made possible by this, you know, we don't need workers, we don't care what you look like. we will train you can we will train you to do the job you need to do. >> i'm very from george washington university. i'm interested in roosevelt. roosevelt sets this process in motion. and sees it's been very successful. so did it influence his attitude towards the business community? >> that's a really good question. and i have to say that in, this book, roosevelt attitude is rather surprising to me because i thought he would've endorsed the view of a lot of his friends, including his wife

which would you need a war production czar. you have to can -- convert overnight to wartime production. and the sacrifices should all fall on the heads of business. roosevelt didn't do it. he refused to appoint an all powerful war production czar, not even bill knudsen who was trusted with that kind of power, and later on although he people who had unified position, they never really had any kind of real power. by then the system is up and running anyway. they can't control. the real problem, how do you shut this down. a fountainhead of production is taking on a life of its own. and i think in many ways the historians give them all kinds of ignoble reasons for doing that. and one is that he didn't want to have any single one agency or person have power over this wartime production ever. he did want to give up his own powers as commander-in-chief to a person who would become if they really have statutory authority, to close factories or

open factories and telling people what they could make and what you cannot commend it. that basically you would have a second president on your hands. i think maybe he was also, i also think to a degree he was kind of realizing there was nowhere else to go. the new deal had played out. they had run out of ideas of how to direct and control an economy in piece time, let alone during wartime. and is going to try this and see what happen. may be in many ways he also instinctively realized that they were production effort, national effort, any kind that required command come hud from washington, probably wasn't going to be worth much of an effort after all. had to come from the bottom of. data changes attitude? not at all. in his state of union address by 1944 having see the

transformation of free enterprise business, what it could do, the next step for him was now is our chance to now really get the new deal finished and done in the process, and economic bill of rights, expand, turn the wartime production machine into a civilian collective economy in the process. and, of course, truman carried out those aspects as well until a republican congress in 1946 stopped him cold. >> i'm roger from the cato institute. i want to pick up with a couple of the questions, intriguing questions that henry raised at the outset about parallels to the president. in the opening, your opening remarks you mentioned how the depression policies didn't get us out of the depression, but the war production did. then towards the end you said something that caught my attention. you said the government was

buying things that government needed. one could think today about government buying things that government needs. can you, i know it's, you're a historian, not an economist, but are you suggesting that paul krugman might be right? spent you know the story of paul krugerrand column which suggested facetiously but maybe only half facetiously that we need to do a repeat of the world war ii production machine by declaring war on aliens on mars or whatever, then we would suddenly mobilize and an arsenal of democracy would appear out of nowhere. subsidized and paid for by more and more washington deficit spending. now i'm not endorsing that. the point you made, i think we have to sadly correct, and that is that it's not, world war ii

production got this country out of the depression. didn't. in fact, i think you could make some argument in fact in many ways it prolonged the depression. certainly in terms of the deprivation of the consumer economy, which had, you know, fewer shoes, fewer consumer goods, washington machine, tracked, and so on. if you look at the numbers, even from a production standpoint, this is very interesting. look at the production standpoint. the rate of increase we are talking about, the industrial miracles of world war ii that gets under way, if you compare it to the rate of increase industrial production of the '20s, it's about half. isn't that interesting? yeah, it's about have. the '20s was much more productive. over the course of the decade. if you look in terms of numbers, in terms of wealth, real wealth, assets, they change almost

hardly from 1940 to 1945. , however, what a world war ii production didn't end of the depression but it brought business back. it figured it business for making things and engaging in and expanding plant facilities, training a workforce, and reopening warehouses in order to stock inventory, and to create all this sort of machinery which can then be turned loose after the war when private investment comes back. all that pent-up demand, all the business settings that are built up first on the warriors, because there's nothing to spend it on. there's nothing to spend it on. and now people come back, consumer demand. this is exactly what happens with these companies to go from making washing machines to machine guns, frigidaire refrigerators, frigidaire, and they go back to making

refrigerators again. but they do it in a much leaner factory. it was a streamlined production line and they know now how to adjust and retool. it's a tremendous, tremendous boom unleashing the potential for business. then comes the private capitalism. and now you've got, you've got a base from which a real consumer economy can grow from that point on. >> i'm with free think media. files in getting world war ii veterans to see the memorial at no cost to them. my question is coming to highlight the contributions that these factory workers may for the overall war effort. but this happened 70 years ago. as you're writing this book what resources were available to you to identify these workers and captured their stories to? well, i'll tell you, there's a

number of websites. it operates out of richmond, california, at the shipyards war, war memorial but historical and moral to the ships that were built up a lot of it is or history, especially of women. there's been a lot of fascination and interest in the workers. the stories are incredible that come out of all that process. and a lot of it is just material that you can find, because all these countries, they published their story. they can't wait to tell about the workers who came in, what we did and what we accomplish. so the resources are tremendous, and the stories are incredible. as well that you get of people working. my favorite one is a letter i found, i was on the river website, a letter from one who is working in the richmond shipyards, teenager and she was married to a marine who is

serving in the pacific. she tells him and other countries down working at the river down at the liberty ship, she says, i like to think i'm building a ship that will bring you home. one more. >> michael rowan with aei. arthur, you mentioned the recruitment of blacks, and southern blacks moved north. more than the 75 years since. did the fair employment practices commission which was established under pressure from randolph, start the march on washington play anything along

the? what role did mrs. leaders ever to go the auto company guys and steel company make concerted efforts to seek a black workers in the south because that's a very interesting aspect i wrote about it in the book because i thought it was exciting. knudsen was all in favor of bring african-americans in but he thought that their practices was a totally wrong way to go to a digital factory by factors the and convince him these guys can do the worker to show them examples and you do any kind of step-by-step contract by contract process, not by some sort of blanket changes in the rules of who can be hired and who not. line large, role of segregation of workplace ferried from company to company. not even just industry to industry, company to company. the gm plant them for examples talking earlier was completely integrated. it was a shock to african-american workers coming in from the south, sit down at lunch with white workers, white employees. the glenn martin plant was

segregated. kaisers plant completely integrated. kaisers plant by the way, his shipyards at richmond at the end of the war, 70% of the employees on his payroll were women. that's so crucial role they played there. in the south, a lot of work place of her segregated. there were a lot of racial tensions as was the detroit case. but it's very interesting the one segment who were not protected under the fair practices act, who received no federal support whatsoever in terms of the rights to work, et cetera, employment, workplace, but benefited the most were the women. very interesting. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you.

>> today, the new 113th congress gavels in for the first time and we will have live coverage on c-span network. the house meets at noon eastern for roll call of its members and election and house speaker. you can watch it on c-span. the senate also begins its new session at noon with a possible debate on the filibusterable. that's live here on c-span2. >> spend roger williams, while he was a member of the clergy, was also incredibly trained and learned in civil law and actually worked for circle in the british parliament. we see a lot of his ideas of civil law and separation of church and state. the articulated in text like this. >> it is the famous --.net this

is where we see roger williams talk about the idea of liberty of conscious and the freedom of religion. he is very much showing at this point why he is different and why his thinking is different and why rhode island will be different from massachusetts, and the other colonies of the north. he was creating a land where people could come, could worship as they chose, and would always be accepted by the civil law. and this did not of course sit well with england or with massachusetts. by an act of british parliament, all of the copies of this book were set to be burned but luckily not all of them were. this copy was not an we're able to show that to people today spend more from rhode island from rhode island state capitol as booktv, american history tv, and c-span's local content vehicles look behind the scenes of history and literary life of providence, saturday at noon

eastern on c-span2's booktv, and sunday at five on american history tv on c-span3. >> bbc parliament westminster review looks back at the major events in the british parliament of the past three months. the one hour program includes coverage of the leveson report, a british practices and. the british parliament is in recess. members return january 7. ♪ ♪ >> hello there and welcome to the westminster review. our look back at the big events of parliament over the last three months. coming up in this program, the chancellor delivers the latest economic news in his many budget. david cameron backbenchers urge

him to stand up to europe. spent we are all opposed to this increase in the budget. do i support, absolutely. >> the child abuse hits headlines with some dramatic consequences. justice leveson delivers his long-awaited report on press standards but the prime minister backs away from implementing the recommendations in full. >> we should i believe be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press. >> and as part of her year, -- jubilee year, the queen sits in at number 10. but let's begin with a subject which has dominated politics and our pockets for many months, the state of the economy. at the start of december the chancellor came to the common to deliver his statement, or many budget. it's about the latest figures on the debt and deficit, taxes. the scrapping of a plan drive and fuel tax, more cuts to government department a 1% rise

in working age benefit, and an increase in the threshold at which people can begin to pay tax. he was to mrs. own target of reducing the national debt and would have to expand austerity measures until 2018. >> mr. secretary is coming down, coming down this year and every year of this parliament. yes, the deficit is still far too high for comfort. we cannot relax our efforts to make our economy safe. but britain is heading in the right direction. >> further cuts to government departments that money would be spent on infrastructure projects like road and rail. based on benefits. >> those have seen their basic pay further will now see a rise by an average of 1%. ..

>> i disagree. i suggest we cancel it altogether. [cheers and applause] >> and finally, he moved to changes to the amount people earned before paying tax. >> people will be able to earn 9,440 pounds before paying any income tax at all. this is a direct boost to the incomes of people working hard to provide or for their families. it's 47 pounds extra in cash next year, in total 267-pound cash increase next year. people working full time on the minimum wage will have seen their income tax bill cut in half. and what we learned today is that growth is being downgraded this year, next year, the year after, the year after and the

year after that, too, mr. speaker. the longest double-dip recession since the second world war now followed by the slowest recovery in the last hundred years. when now the latest figures show business confidence falling, when the world economy is slowing, when the eurozone is in such chronic difficulty while current plans, the chancellor's fiscal straitjacket tightens further next year, it is simply reckless and deeply irresponsible of this chancellor to plow on with a fiscal plan we all know is failing on the terms he says. growth down, borrowing revised up, the fiscal rules broken on every target they set themselves failing, failing, failing. cutting the nhs and not the deficit. over 212 billion pounds more borrowing than hay promised two year -- than they promised two years ago cutting taxes for the

rich while struggling families and pensioners pay the price. unfair, incompetent and completely out of touch. >> david on and ed bowles slugging it out over the state of the economy. you might have heard him talk about how pad this recession is, but are these really the bleakest economic times in recent history? and if so things are so bad, why haven't the british -- like, say, the people of greece or spain -- taken to the streets? well, to discuss this, i'm joined by professorial research fellow at the london school of economics. so, professor, we hear talk of this being the worst recession since the second world war. is it? >> well, it's a long recession, and it's been very slow to see any sign of recovery. but it's also worth remembering that although statistically possibly one of the worst of the last century, we're actually, today, as well off as we were in

2006. so we've only gone back by a few steps. >> okay. so is it simply a case that it feels like the worst recession that anyone can remember? >> well, it's the fact that it hasn't gone into a recovery phase that's really upset the normal procedures. we're used, in a recession, to a deep downturn followed quite rapidly by recovery. because it's a financial crisis, it takes far longer to redress the balance sheets of banks, redress individual positions in their own debt, and that means that it lasts much longer than everybody expects because everybody is trying to save. if everybody tries to save, nobody's spending. >> so if things are very bleak across europe, why is it in some countries, like in greece and in spain, we've seen street protests and in other countries like britain and ireland we haven't? >> well, i'll put greece out on its own because the magnitude of the downturn in greece has been phenomenal. it's had six successive years of

recession, and the loss of income of individuals is of the order of 20-30% on average. we've had nothing like that in this country. we're more or less level pegging. we're almost due to be back next year to where we were in 2007. so it's not as if we've had massive loss of income as the greeks have. there are also cultural differences. in some countries there is more of a tradition of having riots. if, for instance, you contrast ireland and spain, very similar pathologies, a problem in the construction sector leading to the downturn. but in ireland there were muted protests, in the spain they've been quite persistent and the invention of the indignants who have been on the streets of madrid since 2010. these are the sorts of differences that are the result of different cultural attitudes to what's going on. >> and it is purely and simply a different cultural tradition,

what people have done in the past in. >> well, you would add to that what people in spain got used to never ending prosperity. in the decade prior to 2007, spain had been the booming economy of europe at one stage during the previous decade. nearly half the jobs created in europe were in spain alone. that brought in a huge amount of immigration, and now we're seeing the other side of that which is the immigrants have lost their jobs, the construction sector workers have lost their jobs, and in spain also there was of a difference between those with permanent contracts, with strong employment protection and the great bulk of people who are being employed on what's called temporary contracts. they were immediately chopped out. we haven't seen that in the u.k. where the great puzzle has been that unemployment really hasn't risen to anything like the extent you would expect as a result of such a deep downturn. >> and is that what you think is the key factor? i mean, given that we have in our own history had mass strikes, and we have had unrest in the past in many bad economic

times, do you think this time it's purely the employment figures that have made the difference? >> well, employment figures have clearly made a big difference because it's shared the burden compared to in the past where whole industries would be wiped out, like the coal and steel industries in the 1980s. there there was a focus for dissent, a focus for protest. now it's much more widely spread. it's maybe a small closure of a factory, but nothing like the massive closures we witnessed in the 1980s. >> and if things don't get better or get better very slowly, does that start to put a strain on democracy? is that why, for example, we're seeing the rise of some of these extremist parties in parts of europe? >> i think you have to be rather careful about saying there's extremist parties and associating them directly with recession. the french national front was as prosperous under jacques chirac,

you may recall the father of the leader of the current -- [inaudible] he was second in the french election, contested with chirac in the his second round. so the socialists were out of the picture then even though it was a period of prosperity. what you have seen, and i think this is exceptional, is in greece the rise of what's called the neofascist party where elsewhere these small movements, it's not mass political success. so i think you can see it as protests, minor protests rather than a serious movement towards right-wing of the sort we saw in the 1930s. >> okay. professor ian beck, thank you very much, indeed, for coming in to see us. well, let's stay with europe because it was a subject on which the government suffered an embarrassing defeat in the house of commons. the row was over the size of the european union budget. it was due to be discussed at a summit in november, and david cameron has said he wanted it frozen. but many of his own back

benchers believed that didn't go far enough, and instead of the increase that was being proposed, they wanted a real-terms cut. they started with some robust exchanges of prime minister's questions as the labour leader challenged mr. on over -- cameron over his stance. >> at a time when he's cutting the education budget by 11%, the transport budget by 15% and the police budget by 20%, how can we even be giving up on a cut in the e.u. budget before the negotiations have begun? >> we have to make cuts in budgets, because we're dealing with a record debt and deficit. but if he wants to talk about consistency, perhaps he can explain why his own members of the european parliament voted against the budget freeze that we achieved last year? perhaps he can explain why the socialist group in the european parliament that he's such a proud member of are calling not for an increase in the budget, not for a freeze in the budget,

but for a 200 billion euro increase in the budget? and while they're at it, they want to get rid of the rest of the british rebate. is that his policy? >> the reality is this: he can't convince anyone on europe. last year he announced out of the december negotiations with a veto and the agreement went ahead anyway. you've thrown in the towel even before these negotiations have begun. he can't convince european leaders, he can't even convince his own back benchers. he is weak abroad, he is weak at home. it's john major all over again. >> ed miliband and david cameron. and a few hours later the commons debate on the e.u. budget began in earnest. >> now, let me take this multiannual framework -- or e.u. budget, to use a simple word -- to ask for the european union to ask for a 10% real increase above inflation is insulting to our constituents, it's

ensubtling, it is insulting to the people of spain and italy ask and portugal and ireland who are being told to pull in tear belts. -- in their belts. >> isn't the truth of the matter that literally the only way that you can insure that you end up with a less than inflation increase is by not announcing that you're going to use the veto -- [laughter] and by making sure that you negotiate all the way through to the end? it's a child on the first day of the negotiations that are going to use the veto because then, of course, the commission gets its way. >> i had police officers who came to my surgery, and can they understand that their pay is frozen. they're less happy about changes to terms and conditions. they're less happy about not getting their increments. but what they don't understand is why other elements of the budget, and in particular the european union, should be guaranteed inflationary increases, let alone inflationary increases all the way through to 2020? >> [inaudible] >> i'm happy to do so. >> i'm very grateful to the honorable member for whom i personally have the utmost

respect. does he have the utmost respect for honorable members opposite who voted time and time again to give away our powers and our money to the european union and now propose to wrap themselves in the skeptic flag and walk through the lobbies this afternoon? >> when they send our bill, we say, no, we are not going to send you an increase. >> i'm quite convinced that if we were not in coalition with the liberal democrats, we -- the prime minister would be voting for the amendment tonight. the problem is that d of -- of course. >> i'm grateful for the member giving way. i believe it has nothing to do, mr. speaker, with whether this is a coalition amendment or a conservative amendment. it's a realism versus unreality debate. >> would he accept, though, that in the past the conservative party was devised on europe? but, frankly, the conservative party is united on europe. we are all opposed to this

increase in the budget, and we would like to strengthen -- [inaudible] do i support? absolutely. >> here, here. >> if the prime minister achieves a freeze in the european union budget, he will have done something that no other prime minister has managed to achieve. and all -- no, i'm not going to go away. all that's happening on these benches is whenever the prime minister says he's going to achieve something, there are those that are somewhat self-endull gent seeking to -- indull gent seeking to set an even higher hurdle, no, no, seeking to set an even higher hurdle for him to jump over. it is unreasonable, and it is unfair. and if this party hopes to be in government after the next general election, it has just got to get a grip and start supporting the prime minister. >> but despite that impassioned plea when it came to the vote, the government was defeated by 13. david cameron, meanwhile, is to

make a speech in the middle of january. well, i'm pleased to say that professor ian beck is still with me. just how close did we come to a deal on that e.u. budget in november? >> from what i hear, the germans blocked it in the end because they were so upset with the president of the european council and not with the brits for once that they said, okay, we'll postpone it 1k3-6789 the likelihood now is that the deal that will be done probably in march next year is going to be consistent with what david cameron wants. >> but that's not going to be enough to keep his pack benchers happy, is it? today really want a genuine cut. >> well, i think if if the back benchers were to be made happy, you'd have to have a massive cut which is just inconceivable. >> thank you very much, indeed. at the start of october, we broadcast a program alleging child abuse against jimmy saw vel. he had been a household name in the '70s and '80s and as a celebrity and charity fund

raiser and had access to young children, hospital patients and those in secure units for the mentally ill. the revelations had significant ramifications for the bbc, but it also led to fresh abuse claims in other unconnected cases. in november the home secretary came to the commons to give details of a new inquiry into the way police handle complaints of child abuse at children's homes in north wales in the 1970s and '80s. >> last friday a victim of sexual abuse at one of the homes named in the report alleged that the inquiry did not look at abuse outside the care homes, and he renewed allegations against the police and several individuals. the government is treating these allegations with the utmost seriousness. child abuse is a hateful, abhorrent and disgusting crime, and we must not allow these allegations to go unanswered. i believe the whole house will also be united in sending this message to victims of child

abuse: if you've suffered and you go to the police about what you have been through, those of us in positions of authority and responsibility will not shirk our duty to support you. >> here, here. >> we must do everything in our power to do everything we can to help you and everything we can to get to the bottom of these terrible allegations. >> there are, as i understand it, three bbc inquiries into what happened with jimmy savelle, department of health inquiry as well as several separate hospital inquiries, a new north wales inquiry and an hmic inquiry into other forces who may have received allegations about jimmy savehle. she will know that we have already raised concerns that the investigations should be brought under a single inquiry, and we remain concerned that these multiple inquiries have no way to draw together the common themes, the problems, the lessons that need to be learned. and, of course, we need to get

to the bottom of what is happening in each case, but at the moment the framework that the government has set out risks being very confused. >> 28 people were named in the original waterhouse inquiry, but the names were not publicly reported because the judge reasonably assumed it would prejudice any future trial, a trial that never happened. does the home secretary agree that it must get to the bottom of why there was no follow-up police investigation after waterhouse concluded? >> i was counselor representing -- [inaudible] at the time of the children's inquiries, and i was at the panel that looked at the report that was never published, and let me tell the house it was horrendous. can the secretary state no stone will be left unturned to make sure that these people can have closure and that those responsible for these dreadful crimes will be punished? >> as a former social worker working in child protection in wales, i have to say that i welcome this morning's statements. but if this is to be a

successful examination, we have to look at the reasons why it was able to happen and what the lessons are for today. we are failing generations of children by still placing them far away from their families because of the cost and because there are literally no longer local authorities, children homes in which places can be found for vulnerable children. >> madeleine moon. well, the bbc was already under scrutiny be over what it knew about the savelle investigations and why an investigation by its journalists had been dropped. but there was a bigger storm to come. in the wake of those claims of abuse in north wales, the bbc broadcast an edition of news night which wrongly implicated a conservative politician. it quickly became clear that the program had contained basic journalistic errors, and the director general of the bbc, george entwistle, who'd been in post for less than two months, resigned. his payoff, the equivalent to one year's salary, caused

controversy when the chairman of the bbc trust appeared before mps. >> one of my constituents said to me, mr. farrelly, you're on the media committee. having heard about the bells and whistles attached to george entwistle's package, he said to me if that's honorable, i'm a baa than that. i -- banana. i mean, do you think, do you think the word "honorable" was the appropriate term that you should have used? >> you know the easiest, um, thing -- i made this point yesterday -- is to join in the general trashing of a decent man. and i'm not going to do that. he worked with considerable professionalism and ability for the bbc for a number of years. one of the extraordinary paradoxes about what's happened

is that he was an extremely distinguished editor of news night and, indeed, was the editor of news night who stood up against huge political and corporate pressure not to name his sources in the case of david kelley. he's a decent man, and he doesn't deserve to be bullied or to have his character demolish demolished. i think what's happened is a small tragedy which has been made rather larger by that -- [inaudible] >> but lord patten came into conflict with the committee over his own position. >> you're a seasoned politician, been around a long time, done fantastic work over your career. is there any time during this whole process that you've thowbt about your own position in terms of are you the right person to

be chosen? >> yes. but i also, you know, i, i must be one of the few people who was asked to resign even before i'd been appointed, but that's what mr. davis managed to do. [laughter] and i think my -- >> mine was better than yours. [laughter] >> i'm not sure about that. >> oh, i think he was. >> since you don't, since you don't think the bbc should exist -- [laughter] >> no, she should exist -- >> oh, no, but you've written -- [inaudible conversations] >> i think, mr. davis, unless somebody has been forging letters, you've written saying that the bbc isn't a fit organization to own a broadcasting license. >> i said to consider it, yeah. >> i must say, that seems to me like a way of saying the bbc shouldn't exist. myway, back to the -- anyway, back to the question. i think my job is to work with

tim and tony hall and others to try to rebuild the reputation of the bbc as the greatest broadcaster in the world. >> can we have a copy of your itinerary on a regular basis about the work you do, how many hours you spend, where you're doing your work? because -- >> certainly not. [laughter] >> why not? >> because i think it's a thoroughly impertinent question. >> so you don't think license fee holders are entitled to know how much time you're spending on their behalf? >> i think you're entitled to know how much time i'm spending, you're entitled to put down freedom of information requests. do you think i'm going to do a diary for you in order to, in order to satisfy some populist pursuit of somebody you didn't want to run an organization which you don't want to exist? you're, you're kidding yourself.

[laughter] >> well, i mean, what is the role, what is the role -- do you want to know my toilet habits? [laughter] >> horde patten and phillip davis. now back to october and the two governments in westminster and edinborough agreed to the terms on scottish independence. david cameron signed the deal which will see a question put to the scottish people in 2014 on whether or not scotland should become an independent nation. well, when mps held a debate on scotland's future, an smp member set out his party's position. >> what we want to do is to recalibrate the political relationships within the u.k. we want the powers to grow our economy, to complete the -- [inaudible] of the parliament, to take responsibility for our own affairs. we have no issues with our british past heritage and culture, but how we go forward as a scottish people. >> so the debate has begun on what a yes vote in that

referendum might mean for scotland. and there was an unwelcome intervention for the smp when the president of the european commission, jose manuel bros. sew, said that a newly-independent scotland would have to reapply for membership of the european union. in a letter, he argued that if part of an e.u. member state broke away, it would cease to be part of the e.u.. but when he appeared before a lord's committee, scotland's finance minister, john sweeney, dismissed the reasoning behind the letter. >> when president barrasso makes the remark he makes about a part of a country ceasing to be part of that territory, no tricky reference to that remark. and i think that's really very significant because on my reading of the tricky position -- and i was struck just in preparing for the committee on rereading some advice that was produced by the house of commons library about 12 months ago -- they make the

point in that document that there is no provision within the treaty on european union that provides for the scenario that president barrasso has cited in that particular paragraph of his letter. >> this really does seem rather bizarre. on the one hand, we have a considered letter from the president of the european community -- commission who, after all, this person is going to side with his, with the attendant legal structure whether scotland, after independency came about, was a member. on the other hand, you have the view of viewers in the ministry and the government which now admits they didn't take legal advice on whether it would remain a member of the union and is only belatedly doing so. and yet you're saying to us, no, no, we will still be able to go on being members. is that really a position that can be sustained for a single second? >> yes. because i think the point which the committee should be very interested in is the fact that

there is no foundation in the treaty for the comment that president barrasso has made in that letter. you know, i can't see where that comes from. >> in a later session, the committee heard from the secretary of state for scotland who strongly disagreed. >> i think he is fundamentally wrong. i my we have seen over the course of the last nine months a shift from a position where the first minister could say in effect that there wasn't a problem, scotland's membership would be automatic, and the terms and conditions would fly on as before. i think we have seen in the aftermath of the agreement and in the weeks since firstly a recognition that they haven't actually taking very serious soundings on that in terms of advice, and further than that, they have had to concede, and i believe john sweeney did with

you, that the terms of membership would have to be negotiated. and that is the fundamentally issue -- fundamental issue. one can argue about whether or not the membership is automatic in transfers. that's important, and it will be timely, a time-consuming process even with the best will in the world and a strong wind. but as the terms of that membership that will be fundamental in terms of the -- [inaudible] that the u.k. has and just in the interest of scotland's economy, i'm glad we've got that acknowledgment from the scottish government now. perhaps we'll sea that into some of the other argument as well. >> you're watching the westminster review with me, alicia mccarthy. still to come, a commons committee gets its teeth into a well known coffee company. there's anger not to allow the decision not to allow women bishops and more trouble for david cameron on his proposal to allow same-sex marriage. >> i believe these are a constitutional outrage and a

disgrace. there is no electoral mandate for these policies. >> but first, at the end of november after a lengthy inquiry and weeks of waiting, lord justice leveson finally produced his report on media ethics. his inquiry was set up in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal. it was claimed that journalists at the now-defunct "news of the world" and other papers had hacked the phones of celebrities and ordinary people whose lives had hit the headlines n. his report lord leveson said parts of the media had wreaked havoc on the lives of innocent people. he called for a new, independent regulatory body to be established backed by legislation. following that news conference, david cameron came to the commons to make a statement to mps. >> lord justice leveson sets out proposals for independent self-regulation organized by the media. he details the key requirements that an independent self-regulatory body should meet including independence of appointments and funding, a standards code, an arbitration

service and a speedy complaint-handling mechanism. crucially, it must have the power to demand up front, prominent apologies and impose up to million-pound fines. >> he accepted those ideas but had misgivings about one key element of leveson's report. >> he goes on to propose legislation that would help deliver those incentives but also that would, crucially, provide, and i quote: an independent process to recognize the new self-regulatory body. this would, he says, reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met and would continue to be met. now, i have some serious concerns and misgivings on this recommendation. they break down into issues of principle, practicality and necessity. the issue of principle is that for the first time we would have crossed the rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land. we should, i believe, be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press.

>> let us be clear, mr. speaker, about lord justice leveson's proposals and why they are different from the present system and why i believe they should be accepted in their entirety. he proposes what he calls a genuinely-independent regulator wefective powers to protect and provide redress for the victims of abuse. but he also gives the responsibility for establishing that system to the press. as now. that's why statute is important. because he provides a crucial new guarantee which we've never had before. he recommends that the media regulator or ofcom insures that a system that is established passes the test that we would all want applied, that it is truly independent and provides effective protection for people like the mccanns and the dowlers. and to make this guarantee real, he recommends that both ofcom's role and these criteria will be set out in statute, a law of this parliament.

that's why we can get to a truly independent regulation of the press guaranteed by law. >> well, when that part of the debate was over, for the first time since the coalition was formed the deputy prime minister, nick clegg, stood up and made a separate statement of his own. >> on the basic model of a new sell leg rah story -- self-regulatory body, in principle, i believe, this can be done in a proportionate and workable way. i understand, of course, the entirely legitimate reasons why some members of this house are wary of using legislation. i myself have thought long and hard about this. i'm a liberal. i don't make laws for the sake of it and certainly not when it comes to the press. the absolute worst outcome in all of this would be for nothing to happen at all. >> here, here. >> so, mr. speaker, we mustn't now prevaricate. i, like many people, am impatient for reform.

and bluntly, nothing i have seen so far in this debate suggests to me we will find a better solution than the one which has been proposed. >> nick clegg. so with the prime minister shying away from one of lord justice leveson's central relations, where does all that leave the report? well, our political correspondent, ross hawkins, covered the inquiry in depth and joins me now. david cameron said he would accept leveson unless its conclusions were bonkers, so why isn't he accepting it in full? >> well, his view, and we heard a little bit of him there, was it would cross the rubicon, to use his language, if all of a sudden states started drawing up laws to govern what the press should do. and through months and months of the inquiry, this really was the question at the heart of all of this, how could you make sure that everybody was involved including publishers that might be reluctant to do so without a piece of legislation that compelled the press to be there, that would amount enemies of the

system suggested to licensing? now, those campaigners who said the law had to change talks about a dab of statute, something very slight. labour used similar language that would simply recognize an independent regulator in law. what we heard from the newspapers as this debate went on for months and months and months before we got to the report's publication was if they were forced to join in, it would be something much more onerous. and that really was what david cameron was reflecting in some of his concerns. >> so where does that leave him, and where does that leave him in relation to the opposition and, indeed, to the liberal democrats? >> we heard from the two men, the prime minister and the deputy prime minister at the dispatch box. formally they were separate statements, something very unusual, something very new designed to show the separation between the two of them. and what it boiled down to is one of those two men thinks a new law is essential, and the other one does not. it is, if you like, this question of necessity.

in the background at the moment, what you've got going on and what will continue, is cross-party talks between the party. but simultaneously you've also got the newspaper industry trying to move very quickly to set up a new, independent regulator. now, that new regulator could be brought in under this new law if there were to be one, it could be recognized under a new law, or it may just be the newspapers were able to turn around after everything that's happened and go, look at it, there it is. we have a regulator, it works. why do we need anything new? and that, some in the press, will think possibly that is their most powerful argument of trying to stave off. >> so if you're a gambling man then what do you think is most likely? are we likely to end up with some new form of self-regulation but not backed by law? >> we will end up with a new receive regulator. the pcc is dead. and it would be substantially different. we are talking here about a body that would be able to investigate newspapers, that would be able to look at

evidence, that would be able to fine up to a million pounds. the newspapers want that underpinned by statute, but they don't want that underpinned by statute, they want it underbid by a -- underpinned by a contract with themselves. the question is whether you see nick clegg presiding or the prime minister. and what we don't have as in many great debates is any clear deadline. the leveson inquiry was meant to answer the difficult questions and take them away from the hands of politicians who could be seen to be biased or subject to influence or trying to bully newspapers. the way it worked out is we have the report, we have the conclusions, and then it went right back to those politicians who still have to deal with a lot of the difficult questions they would have had to deal with had there been no leveson report at all. >> all right. well, as we have you here, let's take a look at the wider political world. david cameron is going to have to deal with leveson in the new year, but what other clouds are there on the coalition's horizon coming up? >> well, there's plenty coming

up. there's talk of some audit at how far the coalition has gotten in its aims, and that will raise, i think, some of the things in which there's been very little or no progress at all. remember the idea of the capacity to recall mps for constituencies if they think their mp's been playing fast and loose to try to get rid of them. there is a the crucial issue of the e.u. budget. it led to the first substantial defeat for david cameron. that still has to be negotiated out there in brussels. and also i think the issue of welfare. there was very deliberately by george osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, a welfare-rating bill that would see most benefits rise by 1% for three years. that will see a huge debate between the government and labour on welfare, an unusual debate because it matters to how much money the treasury has, it matters in terms of how much money some poor and vulnerable people have, and the public really care about it. if they see it as maybe a bad

government taking money away from the vulnerable or if they take the absolute opposite view, it is an almost unique political debate for its sensitivity, and it's going to explode in the coming months. it will be a huge issue. >> ross wilkens, thank you very much, indeed. now to the committee corridor where there was a grilling for the child sport secretary over what's been labeled the main line franchise fiasco. sir richard branson's virgin trains originally lost out. virgin challenged the decision, and the outcome was scrapped when serious flaws in the bidding process were discovered. at the transport committee, the minister said the two train companies had been given different information. >> we've got the interim laidlaw report which can only be described as a damning indictment of the department. and the report found that the department knew the process was

flawed and lacked transparency, that it's changed the rules at the last minute without telling the bidders and acted unfairly and was aware it was open to legal challenge. and in view of all of that, secretary, do you wish that you had asked more questions within the department before you came to the conclusion that you were content with the way things were being dealt with? >> i did ask questions, and i was assured when i came here in the little time that i had -- i mean, it was fairly shortly after my appointment, within a week, that i was here, and for various reasons i wasn't available the whole week. but i was assured that the award of the franchise was safe, was a, was -- technically safe. do i regret asking more questions? i think i would have been assured that although there was some small issues that had come

to light, i was assured that that would have no change on the overall awarding of the franchise. >> it's easy with hindsight to say, yes, i could have asked more questions of my officials. is it not the case that those officials should have been telling you the facts rather than waiting for you to ask questions? >> well, you're saying with hindsight. with hindsight i could say a lot of things, but that is on the background of the information we have given. what, i think, becomes obvious in reading what the so far the interim report of laidlaw is that decisions were taken and probably not referenced far enough up the seniority of the service, and discussions were taken, information was given to different bidders in different ways. which meant that they would have put in different figures because of the information they actually received.

so i think what we're seeing is, i'm afraid, a very big breakdown in the way in which the process was conducted. >> the transport secretary. well, there were more feisty exchanges on the committee corridor when three international corporations -- starbucks, amazon and google -- were accused of trying to avoid paying a fair amount of tax in the u.k. mens of the committee questioned senior executives for nearly three hours. all the companies insisted they weren't doing anything wrong. the committee chair started with starbucks which has filed losses in the u.k. almost every year. >> if you've made losses in the u.k., which is what you're filing, over 15 years what on earth are you doing doing business here? >> we know that we must be in the u.k. to be a successful global company -- >> but you're losing money here. >> it's a critical market. >> why don't you go over to the u.s., focus on the u.s. where

you say you're making money if it's true? >> because we've had tremendous optimism and encouragement -- >> 15 years. you've given the u.k. business 15 years, you're still making, you're still making losses, and yet you're carrying on, if it's true. >> yes. i assure you, it is true. it's very unfortunate. we're not at all pleased about our financial performance here. it is fundamentally true, everything we're saying and have said historically. >> my heart's begun to bleed for you. i'm going to have to rush out and have a double caramel mack yacht toe because you're in such a bad way. for 14 years, 14 years of trading in this country, and you've paid, what, 1.6 million in corporation tax. i mean, you're either running the business very badly, or there's some fiddle going on. >> would you consider making a commitment to the british marketplace about the degree to which you will have a fair approach to taxation here? >> very much so, i can assure

you. we have every intention to be a fair taxpayer everywhere we are. we are never aggressive in avoiding taxes by any means. as i said earlier, we do not have tax havens in place. that's just not how we do business. we look forward to deepening our investment in this marketplace. we have every intention to do that. >> the committee also questioned the online retailer amazon. >> your entire economic activity is here in the u.k. i even pay in pounds, never comes off my bank account in euros. your entire activity is here, yet you pay no tax here, and that really riles us. it riles us. >> can i clarify? what we do pay corporation tax our accounts for amazon -- >> tiny bit in relation to, i mean, you won't tell us your sales. tiny bit. >> i recognize -- the other thing i would also highlight is we've paid in excess of 100 million in payroll taxes in the last five years.

we've paid tens of millions in business rates. >> and i love the service you provide. you write to me and say having bought this biography of john major, you may be interested also in 50 shades of grey. [laughter] but i'd like the chair, i'm interested in why you pay so little tax, corporation tax particularly, in this country so that we can pay some kind of benefit to all the booksellers you've put out of business. >> we do pay corporation tax in the u.k. and, obviously, we also pay corporation tax on any profit we make for amazon -- [inaudible] >> but it was a turn of google. >> now, i find google the most difficult. i've had to draw -- i've had to create drawings for myself to understand how the google intracompany system works. as i understand it, 92% of all

sales outside the usa are billed in ireland, is that right? >> i'm not sure if it's 92%, but the vast majority of sales outside the u.s. will be billed in google and ireland. >> were you to adopt a robust business model where you're actually, god forbid, making a profit -- >> we are making a profit, and we're paying tax. >> well, a real profit rather than just a part of a tax avoidance scheme which this clearly is. >> i have to say we are paying the tax and we're not avoiding tax -- >> you are avoiding tax. >> i think you are avoiding tax. my question is would you leave, and if you left, if you had to pay a higher-weighted tax on a decent profit -- which this isn't -- where would you go? >> i think the issue you're understanding here is about if google was a british business, if google had been founded in cambridge, i think we'd be in a very different place here because, you know, the profitability rightly would sit

where all the technology and innovation happened. google is a u.s. business. the activity that happens in the u.k., even if you're to describe it as sales activity which is not exactly what we do, we could still go and get that activity from the open market of the kind of costs we're paying to business. >> well, the fallout led to starbucks saying it would pay 20 million pounds in tax in the future. it also contributed to the chair of that committee being given the parliamentarian of the year award by the political studies association. now, off to the house of lords where the government suffered a series of defeats in the plans for limited use of secret court hearings in civil cases. the government wanted judges and security-cleared lawyers to hear the evidence in what are called closed-material proceedings or cmps which exclude the public, the media and even the person who brought the case. cmps would be used in situations where national security was thought to be at risk or where the intelligence services could be compromised.

at the moment the government finds itself unable to defend some compensation claims for fear of blowing the cover of secret agents or intelligence sources. but in the lords there were reservations. >> we have up against very sinister, ruthless techniques and people. of course we are. what i am worried about is that we're giving them the victory and actually legislating to underpin that victory. >> it's deeply distressing to me and to my former colleagues to be accused of really wicked iniquities in the case of torture and maltreatment. we have not been able to defend ourselves, and one of the things that this closed-material procedure does is it gives the opportunity for in this material, which may or may not reflect badly on the security and intelligence services -- i naturally think it would not

reflect badly, but others may judge differently -- that that should be looked at. >> and one of the things that must not happen tonight with the way you vote for this bill, you must not reduce the abilities of the public prosecution services and lawyers and, more importantly, the police who to my personal knowledge are extremely afraid today certainly in northern ireland and certainly other areas that i know of that they cannot get convictions when they know that the people are guilty. they cannot get the evidence because, because they are protecting our secret services, our police, our undercover agents. >> cases are settled without admission of liability, people assume that the united kingdom's only settling because somewhere there's been some wrongdoing. and that, i think, as the noble lady said, does huge

reputational damage. it can be used to legitimate extremism or terrorism against the united kingdom. and, again, in the committee stage the noble lady said public confidence in security and intelligence community is not helped by the fact that in many cases we've been unable to defend ourselves. she believes, as i do, that inviting the court to look at all the relevant secret material -- and it will died what, if any, weight will be put on it -- is an advance today. >> the families of the hillsborough disaster reached another victory in october. 96 fans died in april of 1989. the inquest soon afterwards returned verdicts of accidental death, but in the intervening years, that inquest has been heavily criticized. in the autumn the hillsborough independent possible published -- panel published more than 450,000 pages of documents and found that 41 victims could have been saved if emergency services had acted more quickly. >> my consideration of the

evidence in this matter is far from complete, but as i do not wish to cause the families affected by this disaster any greater anxiety, i've decided to take an exceptional step and announce that on the basis of what i've already seen, i am persuaded there's an application to the court for fresh inquests which must be made. >> here, here. >> 96 died as result of what occurred at hillsborough that day in, and 96 ip quests were held. i believe that as all those deaths arose from a common chain of event, it would be better for me to apply to all 96 to be considered again. >> it was open season on the church of england in november as mps vented their anger at the si nod's vote not to allow women to become bishops. well, the bishops and the clergy supported the change, there was not the necessary two-of thirds in favor among the laity. mps condemned the outcome, complaining that the church looked outdates, irrelevant and ec sent trick.

>> it is a frustration that i share, and i think the following need to be understood. firstly, this is not an issue which can in any way be parked for the next couple of years or so awaiting another round of senate elections. there has to be an understanding that this is an issue that has to to be resolved as soon as possible. >> can we all send our support and love and concern to all women ordained in the church and who hoped to be ordained your chaplain, sir, but all others? because they must feel even more frustrated than we do, and we're not going to let hem -- them down. >> since i was ordained 25 years ago, women have become deans, rural deans, vectors, even arch deacons, so it's ludicrous that they cannot now become bishops, and the member is absolutely right to say that we will have no track with more concessions to the hardliners who want to make women second-rate bishops.

but can i just say to him, we need to speed this up. wouldn't it make sense to have a moratorium on the appointment of any more male bishops until there could also be women bishops? >> here, here. >> no nomination without feminization. >> i would make the important point, and i hope the honorable member will accept this point, that it's not for this house to say how the established church is run. >> here, here. >> we may well have our own opinion, but it's a very dangerous thing for the house of commons to tell the established church how to run itself. >> the bishops sit on the house of lords on the basis of a moral authority, and they vote on a range of issues including equalities legislation. it is now clear that the views of the established church do not reflect the views of the british people. is it not time that the bishops left the house of lords? >> as a church of england believer, i've never understood how you can have the head of the church be a woman, and yet somehow women can't be bishops? can i urge that we do consider

bringing in a short bill ordering that women should be able to be bishops of the church of england? >> well, can i just reassure my honorable friend that as i sat through some of the debate on general synod where there were those who were arguing that it was impossible for women to have headship, i just couldn't understand how they sought to reconcile that with the fact that this parliament has made the queen defender of the faith, and the queen we're very fortunate having not only as head of state, but also as head of the church. >> and there was equality issue up for debate in the commons a few weeks later as the government set out plans to allow same-sex marriage. currently, gay couples can have a civil partnership service. rhea miller sought to reassure those who opposed the idea by telling the church of england and the church in wales will be excluded from the legislation. other churches would be allowed to opt in they chose. >> churches have a right to

fight for and articulate their beliefs and to be under no compulsion to conduct same-sex marriages as the prime minister has said, we're 100% clear. if there's any church, synagogue or mosque that doesn't want to conduct a gay marriage, it will not be, absolutely must not be forced to hold it. that is why as part of our response we'll have a quadruple lock putting into english law clear and unambiguous protections. >> i think it is important that she does not become too defensive about this. freedom of religion also means that those faiths such as the quaker, the unitarians and others who want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriage should be able to do so. >> will she consider not putting such an ultimate lock on the church of england so that there is genuine freedom for the church of england? that one day, just as the church of england all voted to keep slavery and kept slavery for another 30 years, eventually

they changed their mind. >> mr. speaker, as a member of the party which supports equal marriage, may i nonetheless say to the secretary of state that she does have to take into account that this was in no election manifesto, it wasn't in the coalition agreement, and many members of my constituency and my church and our party feel that there needs to be much more work done to see if it's possible to redefine civil marriage separately from traditional definitions of religious marriage? >> does the secretary of state feel that she is competent to act as god, to change and challenge the definition of marriage between one man and one woman? >> and while some conservative mps packed the proposal, there was vigorous opposition from others. >> i congratulate my right honorable friend on delivering results representative of a lie

bean presidential election. [laughter] i believe these proposals are a constitutional outrage and a disgrace. there is no electoral mandate for these policies. >> and there was opposition, too, when the statement was repeated in the house of lords. >> civil partnerships welcomed carrying virtually the same legal benefits are not the same as marriage. marriage is not the property of the government, nor is it the property of the church. and while the forms and legalities around marriage have evolved over time, as the noble lady, the minister, has pointed out, one fundamental feature has remained the same throughout; that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, a social institution that predates both church and state and has been the glue that has bound countless successive societies together. >> finally, there was a special visitor to downing street at the end of the year, her majesty, the queen. the queen meets the prime minister every week for a regular briefing, but this was the first time in recent history that a monarch had gone to downing street and sat round the

cabinet table. the queen was joining ministers as part of the events marking her 60 years on the throne. the first item on the agenda was the proposed change to allow a girl to become head of state even if she has a younger brother. and that wraps up our lookback at 2012. to see what 2013 brings, do join us on bbc parliament at 11:00 on monday, january the 7th, when parliament returns. until then from me, alicia mccarthy, good-bye. ♪ ♪ >> you don't always find many newspaper editors at any era embracing investigative reporting. the point we've seen over the years it's not just economics, it's the discomfort that investigative reporting often causes in a newsroom. because it's troublesome. it's that more than the

economics. i mean, if you're going to ruffle the feathers of somebody powerful, that getses those people running in to complain to the publisher, and the stories are legion over the years about those kinds of things happening. don and i were fortunate through really almost all of our career to work for people who were really strong and upright in that area and just let the chips fall where they may, where the work led you. >> the investigative team of donald bar let's and james steele will take your calls, e-mails and tweets this weekend on "in depth." the pair, who began their work in the '70s, are the co-authors of eight books. watch live sunday at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. >> today new hampshire becomes the first state in u.s. history to be represented in congress entirely by women. new hampshire also just elected the second woman governor in its history. the women holding those top political offices gathered for a

discussion at saint anselm college in manchester, new hampshire. this is just over an hour. >> now on to the program. [laughter] so, um, just a little bit about the way these questions were developed for today's event. this is a little bit atypical of a typical chamber event. our questions were developed with the input from the chamber's board of directorses and from the new hampshire's women initiative. they are centered not around issues, but around this moment in history. the mission of this event is to sell rate and to celebrate the first inform the inform the-nation status that new hampshire has by holding this event today. robin will facilitate a conversation about what this moment in time means to these five women. this hour will go so fast. [laughter] and i'm sure, and i hope that this conversation leaves you hungry for more. please, share today with your

friends, your children, your coworkers. we will have dvds available. please share this event and this moment in history with everyone you know. how this all came together -- [laughter] the two most common questions i have received over the last week and a half are, number one, do you really have all five of them? [laughter] and, number two, how did you pull this together so quickly? well, the answer to the first question is, yes, they are all here. they are backstage. i shook all of their hands, and they will be out here momentarily. how it came together, this event sold out in 12 hours. that's never happened for us. [laughter] but it all started about two days before election day, and i sort of had this realization that this was a possibility, that this could actually happen.

and i stood in the door to robin's office, and i said what if all of these major offices were held by women? this is a possibility. this would be historic. and we should do an event if it happens. [laughter] so as my friends know and my family, i am a self-proclaimed news and political junkie. so on election night i had the tv, my laptop and my iphone, and i was watching as the results came in. and it was happening. and it happened. and so, yes, there were phone calls, there were e-mails, there was logistics, there were food selections, there was printing, there was tables, chairs, all the logistics. but really how this event came together is a question, what if? what if we could get them? and i'm so happy that we have. and i think all of them will agree that that type of vision

is what put all of these five women where they are today, is that question, what if. today's event is bigger, it's bigger than political parties, it's bigger than politics, it's bigger than the chamber of commerce. today is history in the making. it is not just a raised glass to these five women who are about to take the stage. this, today, is a deep tribute to all five of them, all who have gone before them and all who will follow in their footsteps. so with that said -- [applause] let's get this program going! let's get started. [applause] it is now my great pleasure and honor to introduce our moderator for this morning, the president and ceo of the greater manchester chamber of commerce, an incredible woman in her own

right, ms. robin comstock. [applause] >> thank you, everyone. >> and now, the only woman in u.s. history to be elected as both a governor and a united states senator, please welcome new hampshire's senior senator, senator gene shaheen. -- jeanne shaheen. [applause] >> thank you. >> and next, another woman who has a record for making history. they was the first woman to serve as the state's attorney general. please welcome u.s. senator

kelly ayotte. [applause] >> next, she was the first new hampshire woman elected to congress in 2006. of please join me in welcoming representative-elect carol shea-porter. [applause] >> and our newly-elected official representing new hampshire's 2nd district, representative-elect anne mclane custer. [applause]

>> and finally this morning, the new governor for the state of new hampshire. please join me in welcoming governor-elect maggie hassan. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome, please join me. welcome, welcome, welcome. so exciting. thank you all so much for coming out. excuse my back. good morning, gayle, it's great to see you. [laughter] so great to see all of you this morning. and, joe, thank you so much. i really appreciate it. good morning. we have a lot to talk about this morning, and in my world never

enough time, i'm sure yours as well. so i think i'm just going to jump right in. i hope we can a great, well-rounded conversation to take us to around 9:15, 9:20 or so. the first question i actually want to ask you is something we talked about in the staff. on the day after the election, people all over the united states just seemed so profoundly excited, celebrating this historic moment, viewing it as a historic moment. i just have to ask you, what does it mean to you, and i'm really wondering is it as significant to you as it looks to us from the outside of this? >> and jeanne, i'd love to start with you. >> i think it is significant. >> you do? >> i think it's important, and how exciting that new hampshire's leading the way, huh? [applause] and i think it really speaks to all of the women who went before

us. um, annie's mother, susan mclane, who when we were in opposite parties, and yet when i got elected to the state senate, she helped mentor me. and people like liz hagar who i think is here someplace -- [applause] who ran for governor. and arnie aroundson who also ran for governor. all of these women who really led the way. and the fact that we've had a legislature that has had so many women in it has really provided a training ground for women. and it is significant. and, you know, hopefully we'll get to a point where it's no longer significant. >> yeah, that's actually a great point. >> where nobody takes note of the fact that we have so many women. >> that's a very good point. >> carol, what about you? does it feel significant to you? you're in a unique position. you went away and you're back. how do you view this? >> well, it is significant, just like the senator said. this has been quite a thrill for me, and it's very encouraging, i

think, for the younger women to know these opportunities are there now. and i had a mother tell me that her little girl looked at the screen and said, mom, all girls. [laughter] >> oh, my gosh, that's amazing. >> annie, you have three sons, don't you? does it feel significant to you, what's happening at your kitchen table? >> yeah. they've taken note of this, definitely. [laughter] i appreciate senator shaheen mentioning my mom, because she did work very hard to get more women into elective office. and what i think is great, i know kelly and i both grew up with moms who were very active in the statehouse, and i think more and more people are going to see that opportunity for their daughters and the sons will take note. >> yeah, absolutely. [laughter] >> and, maggie, you're kind of the new kid on the block too. i mean -- >> well, on the one hand, it feels significant. i think it is significant. i had the pleasure of being the majority leader for the first female majority legislative body, another new hampshire

first, in 2008-2010. so i've had an opportunity to think about the role of women in new hampshire politics in particular, and it does speak to what i think is our important characteristic as a state which is we're an all hands on deck kind of place. >> that's a good point. >> if you're willing to pitch in and contribute, you can do your work. on the one hand, it feels very significant. on the other hand, i've been doing this for a while, so this is what we do. >> true. >> i'd also just like to give a shout out to my mom who is actually here. [laughter] there she is, right over there. [applause] and i grew up in a -- my first political memory is helping my mom colate league of women voters materials on the dining room table. and mom was very active in our community, so it speaks to the importance of women leading the way and showing their daughters and sons that it can be done. >> what a great point. kelly, i how are you feeling

about all of this? does it seem significant -- your children are so young, 5 and 8 you were saying. >> i do. absolutely, this is very important, and i think that it's exciting. the good thing about having firsts is that it won't be the last. >> yes. >> i mean, i really see that as, you know, the young women coming up know that anything's possible and that anything that they set their mind to they can do. and that's always the exciting thing. and i felt that when i first became attorney general, that once that doesn't become an issue, i mean, we all want to just be judged on what we bring and our qualifications. and i think that's what's exciting about all of this. and my daughter kind of growing up at 8 years old in a very different setting, my parents are still so involved. in fact, my mom's there with our kids this morning, thankfully. [laughter] one thing that happened with her that really struck me when i got into office, she came home one day and said, mom, i don't want you to run for president. and i said, kate, that's not

going to happen. [laughter] there's like no chance that's happening. but why are you asking me this? she said, you know what, mom? because i want to be the first woman president. [laughter] >> that is so great. >> i thought, hey! [applause] so i think just anything is possible, and that's what's so terrific about this. >> that's terrific. well, you all agree it's a senate moment. i wondered if you would because, again, from the outside it's just so profound, and this event, i think, is a testimony to that. i wonder if it's as significant as we all think it is, what kind of weight do you feel on your shoulders? do you feel a larger weight because of this literal and symbolic moment in history? do you feel a responsibility to be a role model for new hampshire's citizens young and old? how does it feel in terms of your personal role and the weight on your shoulders? carol, why don't you start? this. >> it doesn't feel like a weight at all. >> no? >> i grew up in a large family,

lots of guys, lots of girls in the family, so it seems very normal to me to have a situation like this. so, no, it doesn't. i just know that each one of us, and we've talked together, want the same thing, want to do the best we can for new hampshire and for the country. and that's what men want to do too, you know, when they take office. so i don't really feel that it's any different in terms of what we want to accomplish. >> annie, how about you? >> no. the only difference, and i've said pink is the new power color in new hampshire to wear. but, seriously, we're also all mothers, and if you can find peace with teenagers or toddlers, i think you can find common ground -- [laughter] >> have you been able to do that? [applause] >> and what i think is really terrific is the bipartisan spirit. carol and i are going down to washington at a time with the hyperpartisanship people are really divided, and i think what we want to do is bring common sense, bring those granite state

values. you know, you look out at this audience, women have always worked in new hampshire since the mills. i mean, if you look at new hampshire history, women have worked for generations. and if you want something done, ask a busy woman, you know? look at the folks around this room. but what i feel is we're not unique in this ability, but we do know how to bring people together to get things done. finish and that's the most important quality that any of us can bring and, certainly, what, you know, governor-elect hassan is going to face in the state. we all need to come together, everyone in the room, men and women need to come together. we face serious challenges, and our country needs our help. >> that's a great point. maggie, you have big shoes to fill. you're the second woman governor in the state. do you feel a weight on your shoulders as a role model or perm commitments? >> i think all leaders want to do a really good job. i certainly feel an enormous responsibility to serve the people of new hampshire as well

as i can and leave the state a better place even as good as it is when i'm done. but i don't -- i think men and women share that interest when they decide to serve, and i think we all just want to do what's best for the people of new hampshire. >> yeah. kelly, how about you? what are you thinking about that? >> i would agree. i think the weight that i feel is just the challenges that our country faces -- >> versus -- >> you know, we've got over $16 trillion in debt, and it's a very difficult time in the course of our country. and that's the weight that i feel. because it's a tremendous responsibility that the people of new hampshire have placed in all of us, and we just want to make sure that we do the best job for new hampshire and the country during a very difficult time in the our country's history. >> jeanne, anything you could add? >> well, i think what's important is that as women we have different experiences than men, and we bring those

experiences to these jobs. and it's important to have women's voices at the table. women make up over 50% of the country right now, and it's very important to bring our experiences to the jobs that we have. >> that's a great point. did all of you always aspire to politics? were you your daughter, kelly? when you were 8, did you know you were going to run for president? >> not even close. [laughter] >> what was your path, how did you get here, and i'm curious as a professional myself, what did you give up to get to where you are today? and how is that balance at this point in time? annie, do you want to start with that? >> yeah. for me my story is more about sequencing. you know, i had tremendous opportunities that my own sisters didn't even have. i -- but the first woman lawyer i knew, susan leahy, didn't come to the state until i was if high school. >> interesting. >> so i had no role models for, i mean, to be very honest i

didn't even think about working when i was in college. and i was very fortunate somebody said the congressman that i had worked for, um, on his campaign when he ran for president here said do you want to come work in washington, and i said, oh, that would be a great idea, you know? [laughter] how thoughtful of you. [laughter] and i went down and had this incredible experience for three years. and, i mean, the young people on capitol hill and the jobs that they have, i traveled everywhere, and i just thought that's what work would be, so much fun. [laughter] and then he ran for the u.s. senate, and he told me to go off to law school. he said you've been on enough losing campaigns in your life after my mother had run for congress. [laughter] so then i went to law school and came back to new hampshire, but i had had a big opening. i went to a college that was all male for 200 years, and i was in the third class of women. >> oh, my gosh, the third. >> so i feel as though we've

been forging our way, but fortunately for me, i had governor shaheen, i had my mother who mentored her and then i've been mentored by those colleagues. so i think the opportunities are coming in abundance now. doors are open, law schools, we were talking about, are more than 50% women. our class going into the congress is the most diverse class ever in history to enter -- yes, in all aspects. it's fascinating. so anyone younger than me, there are wide open opportunities. ..

>> she said, the man in the gas station said, why aren't you home taking care of your kids? she said, well, my daughter's with me. she's taking care of me. [laughter] >> the man said, well, then, you should be home taking care of your babies. she said, that's my baby, and she's taking care of me. [laughter] my son was my driver so it was really nice. >> gone through the generations. now, your mom must have been a powerful role model to you. >> she was, and she is. i grew up in a family, my moment, taught high school history, and my dad alternated between teaching college and serving in public roles, public

service. he would have loved the institute on politics because he was a political scientist so, certainly, politics was something we discussed and followed, and one of the things that i think we don't talk much about, my dad actually hired a lot of women to be on his staff so i grew up seeing women very active professionally. when i went to law school, i went to the north eastern school of law, and 60% of the class was female, which back in 1985, was a huge deal. that helps, but you still do, you know, i think we all struggle with work-family balance. i think we all still think about the impact that our service has on our families, not just as mothers, but as you go into public life and it's more visible, what that's like for your kids, but i'm happy to say that my 19-year-old daughter, not only worked on my campaign this summer, but she has interned for senator shaheen and

worked in other political roles too so she clearly sees a way to be involved too. >> yeah, very good. someone lose their -- >> fell on the floor. >> yeah, it's fine. >> kelly, how about you? did you aspire -- laughedded in the back, i don't think you did -- >> no, i didn't. >> when? >> you know, what i think for me it's finding that thing that you're passionate about, you care about, and when i became a prosecutor, that sort of brought me into public service, and then i realized that public service is what gets me up every day of wanting to make a difference, and, so that led to, eventually, wanting to run for the senate. i can't say when i was younger this was the path that i thought that i would take at all, and i think it also changes you that as you go through life that there are things that come up, and you find something you really care about.

you go on that path, and then you end up doing something that matters to you, whatever that is, and i have to say my mother's a great role model for me too. she still is, you know, my best friend other than my husband, and just a huge support, and she always worked, you know, for a period of -- my parents got divorced when i was six, and she's been remarried for a long time, but we spent time when it was just she and i too, and she's phenomenal. i feel fortunate to have that strength in my life. >> you all talk about -- >> i have to add my experience is similar to kelly's, slightly different route. i had a family that cared for politics, but i never thought i would run for office. my son, ben, is here in the audience. he has severe physical disabilities, and i was pointed to the first public role to advocate for public school

students on an advocation commission, and that's what led to my first run for office. >> carol, were you born to aspire into politics? >> not at all. i grew up in a large irish-catholic family. >> how many brothers and sisters? >> seven of us, but everyone who needed room, cousins, three generations in the house. anyone who knew the family. i was pressed into political service at 6 years old because my parents were active republicans so i would -- >> both -- >> carried the signs and whatever, so i thought every family fought over religion and politicians over dinner every night. isn't that what you do? [laughter] what brought to here was what others talked about, an advocate, started at a non-profit social services industry. it was katrina that sent me on

the path. i went down for a month as a volunteer, came back, and i said, we can do better than this, and that's what started it. >> compelling. >> a passion for change and to be an advocate, and i think all of us at the table share that. >> i hear you talking about service. >> that story reminds me when i was a girl, and my mother was politically active, and went into the legislature when i was 12. when we were kids, she piled everybody in the station wagon and took us to a neighborhood and dropped the kids off, and we would run down the -- going door-to-door with leaf lets, and she picked us up at the other end and went on to the next neighborhood, but at the end of the day, we got ice cream so it was worth it. [laughter] >> i'm hearing we all have strong mothers. my mother was my hero too. that's important for the modeling for all of us to understand we have roles to play.

>> i loved your story. >> yeah. >> and that was true. my fare was involved in hiring the first women lawyers who came to the state, training them, and i think what i have found, my male mentors through life tend to have had daughters, and then they become, you know, very passionate about women having opportunity. >> very good point. the mower -- the power of parents, truthfully. >> i have a father and stepfather who played a tremendous role in my life. i agree with that. it's really that mentoring and role modeling that's so important. >> influencing the paths created. how do you see the increasing role of women in the electorat shaping the future of the state, the nation? maggie, starting with you. you have a lot on your plate as you are seated early january. do you see changes? >> well, i think what we see over the course offed moo --

modern political history is a change of talking about women as a constituency to be dealt with and women as full and equal citizens who participate fully as democracy calls on all of us to do. one of the things that this campaign is about, national and state level, that is in order to grow an economy, in order to change the way we need to, to keep up with the global economy, we need to make sure that we're honoring the values that our founders understood so well which is that the individual liberties and freedoms of each and every citizen, bringing people in from the mar gyps to the heart and soul of community is what america and the state is all about, and when we do that, that's the only way we can get as strong as we need to be to succeed in all areas that we can succeed and have the potential to succeed in. that's where i see a real change

in the discussion, and i think it's incredibly healthy, and i think we're going to do great things as we include more and more people. >> inspiring, maggie. >> i agree. i find myself going back to the forefathers about liberty and justice for all. they were not thinking of us at the time -- [laughter] the reality is -- remember the reality, is the rat is the words are as current today is there was a tremendous gender gap in my generation, i think the words were very current. >> what do you mean? >> in terms of voter, and partly that with the advertising used against me was not respectful of women, and women voters responded to that, but what i find is no matter what your opinions are on issues, there are no longer women's issues per

se. i didn't run as a woman's candidate at all. the issues were people's issues, and in some families, women do the books and keep track, and so they are very focused on pocketbook issues, very focused on wages, a great example in new hampshire, equal wages, that's a community issue. 50,000 women are single head of households. there's no other money coming into the household. ten thousand ever those families live in poverty. pay each woman for a dollar's work instead of 73 cents, we can bring all those kids up, and i think that's -- [applause] >> well said. >> so they were -- for me, for me, they were, and for the voters with me, they were very much community issues. it was not male or female. men would come up to me and say,

thank you for defending my spouse's right to equal wages. who in this economiments to take home 73 cents from the dollar? >> that's one of the important things to remember about this election is that even though we've elected a number of women in new hampshire to lead this state, the fact is the opportunity -- the doors are not open for all women, and part of what we got to do is have the doors open for all women, for everybody, so that people have the same access to opportunity in new hampshire and in this country because we're a stronger country because of that. [applause] >> kelly, go ahead, how did you see the electorat? >> can i also say i think an important point that anny made is all issues are women's issues. that when you're elected as a woman, you have to deal with the most important fiscal issues,

whether it's national security, and any issue that you think about that impacts the country or the state as governor, that that's really where we all bring different backgrounds and perspectives to it, but when we're elected, i think it's really important to keep in mind that we are, you know, that's where women are concerned about every issue that men are concerned about. they may look at it from a different perspective as we all do from the perspective that we bring, but women have a lot to offer on other areas where you -- i think, traditionally, we have not always been thought of, whether it's national security. many women handles finances of the home as anny said, just thinking about the fiscal challenges that the country faces and how we deal with those challenges, and i think that -- that's one thing that i hope everyone takes from this that it's actually somewhat diminishing to say that only certain issues are women's issues because everything is.

>> i think of kelly all the time when i think about military and jr. leadership role, but your spouse was deployed, and, you know, when you had young kids; right? >> or was it before -- >> it was before we had children, had just got married, but senator shaheen and i both served on the armed services committee together, and there's been many -- [applause] and there's many issues that we're working on together in terms of our men and women in uniform, and national security issues so i just -- i think that that's what is exciting about all of this too is that it's moving to understanding that we all represent all the broader issue, every issue is a women's issue. >> there is a special role, i think, i was also on the armed services committee, and i hope to be again, and i also was a military spouse, and the important role is there, my husband was in the service, i was a military wife because

that's all there was, you know? so now serving on the subcommittees for military families is so important because we bring a perspective there that's a little larger than the normal role there because you know what it feels like because when somebody's in the military, as you know, you are all in, you are all serving. >> you are. >> it's not just your husband or wife, but everybody in the family is giving, and so i think we add another dimension to it 6789 also, on the armed services committee, we had a hearing one time, talking about having an african command, and the men were asking the right questions about, you know, the nuts and bolts of it, but the women also asked the right questions. do they want us there? so i think collectively together, you know, we make for a much richer story and a better outcome. >> well, i think that also appointment -- that also points out why it's good to have a broad population of all different backgrounds.

>> yeah. >> so jean and kelly, especially, you work well together, that reputation proceeds boapt of you working in a bipartisan way for the state of new hampshire. how do you mentor other men and women in the senate to do the same? [laughter] >> look, i think it's -- people are frustrated throughout the country at the partisanship in washington. i think we need to change that. it's interesting because the senate of an institution is set up in a way that makes it hard to get past the partisanship, but if you look at the senate, watching c-span, the senate is divided, and all of the dwms are on one said and republicans on the other, and that's the way it's supposed to be. in the committee, same thing, democrats on one side, republicans on the other. there's an institutional bias

that is partisan, and i think it's really important for us to work together to reach across the aisle because the challenges that we face are too great were one party to deal with them alone, and kelly and i, i think, have made a real effort to try to work together in the best interest of new hampshire. she was talking about us both serving on the foreign -- the armed services committee, and we're the only state that has both members on the armed services committee, and when we get the generals in front of us, we can really double team them. [laughter] when there's an issue affecting new hampshire, you know? [applause] >> kelly, -- >> and we do. [laughter] >> we are. >> you know, it's been certainly, you know, certainly a pleasure and an honor to work with senator shaheen on a multitude of issues, really, thinking about putting new hampshire first, even though we come from different parties, and there's certainly plenty of

things we disagree on, but there's plenty of things we can agree on for new hampshire, and i think that one thing that i take is that's a new hampshire tradition. >> yes. >> did you look at our state, the history there, there's always generally been both parties working together, and i think that is very much a new hampshire tradition, and, you know, when i think about senator greg, what, you know, he was someone i know that worked with senator shaheen on many issues, unfortunately, we just had, you know, the loss of warren ruddman, and he was someone who had very much a bipartisan tradition in the senate. when we were both at, of course, a remembrance of him in washington, and it struck me how many members, how many democrats came up and spoke about their relationship with warren and how important he was to them.

i think it is not only bringing that to washington, but bringing that new hampshire attitude to washington, how we do things. >> carol, anni, and gag my, -- maggie, what can be done to increase collaboration to solve problems, reduce partisanship, exactly what you two said about the issues of representing a state than perhaps your political party although you may disagree on issues. do you have additional thoughts to add? >> i would echo what kelly said. unlike the united states senate, the new hampshire state senate, people sit by district, not political party so i had the great pleasure of sitting next to a friend of both political parties during my six years in the state senate. you know, when you sit through days of debate and contention and some agreement, you get to know the people you are sitting

with well. you write notes about i wonder how long so and so is going to speak. [laughter] i was usually one of the worst offenders, i will just say that. you get to know each other, and, you know, kelly, as attorney general, when i was on senate finance, we worked on the attorney generals budget together, and so we have that relationship already something that i think we can build on now as she served our state, and i servedded as governor, and it is, again, it goes back to in new hampshire if you're willing to pitch in, we can all get things done together, and i still remember -- and i tell this story because i want citizens to understand that relationships and good will are real. in 2005, our son, ben, had significant surgery over the summer, and later, i guess, in the term he had more, and it was a member of the other political party, a man who i disagreed

with on an awful lot of things who called me every day, on my cell phone, to see how ben was doing. >> that's great. >> parents first, and he understood what my family was going through, and you can always build on that. you can always find commonground, and he actually ended up voting on environmental legislation with me having told me he was not a tree hugger, and he'd never do it. [laughter] you know, it does work. it's important, you just focus on what you have in common and what the people of new hampshire have in common. >> thank you, maggie. anything the two of you could add to that? >> growing up in a republican family, and then you're in a different party you realize there's wonderful people across the spectrum, and while i was in the congress before, we worked closely with the republicans, and, certainly, the women senators from maine and the staffs worked well together, and then kelly had the great grace to call me after i won, and we talked about the yard and our

commitment to the military and veterans, and so we share a lot. we share a lot. we need to remember that. >> back to the table of seven kids, that's absolutely true. >> i'm born bipartisan. my mother was republican, and i can get along with republicans or democrats or the 43% of new hampshire voters that are tired of either party or willing to swing back and forth based upon the person, the individual, but i want to acknowledge kelly was the first phone call i received and followed shortly after by senator shaheen, and i just feel that we can break ground on that. i was surprised, by the way, when i got the tour of the house of representatives that they said you can sit anywhere. there's no assigned seating. >> oh, wow. >> and although the tradition is to sit by party, our new member class, almost 50 members, so we

are going to spread out and had a great time meeting the republican women with the picture taken on the steps of the capitol, and so i think we'll make strong end roads and build relations. >> there's much more that unites people than divides people, and there's more heat and light on what divides people. we have to work towards finding commonground. >> well said. >> one of the things that the senate women do, and now there's 20 of us, is we meet about four times a year. we have dinner together, and it's bipartisan, and we go by barbara mcmccull ski's rule of what's said at dinner stays at the dinner. [laughter] if we are running with things, we can deal with a lot of the problems probably more successfully because we have that relationship. [laughter] >> right, the relationship's everything. a segue to the next question.

do you feel female legislators have different responsibilities than male legislators because of the uniqueness or difference or anything at all? >> no. >> you don't. you all look at me as if you don't. i see that on your faces. >> the only thing i could imagine, and i think you had more experience with this, but the role modeling for girls, you you talked about that as governor and attorney general. on election day, when i was standing at the polls, going around, and families would come right up to me and introduce me to the daughters, and, you know, we department have both role models when we were young, and that's the only part that's different, but in terms of responsibilities, they are very much the same. >> right. >> that -- those series of questions on washington, d.c., and this question, to me, is just more bloabl than that, and the question is what does gender equality mean to you? how do you see it translating to

the tangible opportunities for women and men everywhere? you hinted on that, but any other thoughts you can add? >> more comfortable shoes. [laughter] [applause] >> you could get a lot of support for that, ann any. >> it's a good product to think about. >> we're joking, but the reality is that we still have way too many women not just in the united states, but around the world, who don't have access to opportunities if we look at women throughout the world, the number of people in poverty, it's overwhelmingly women and children, and access to property ownership, we've got to do a better job addressing the issues, and one of the -- one of the pieces of legislation that

we had on the floor of the senate this week that kelly and i both supported from the disabilities rights treaty that would have presented the united states example with the ada to the rest of the world as something that we should all be looking to aspire to, and sadly, that didn't pass, but i think it's that kind of example that we can set in the united states and there are unfortunately, still an awful lot of legal areas where those doors of opportunity are not open to all women, and we need to do a better job of that. >> and women's safety, i know, senator sha hen was a leader on this -- >> the violence against women act. >> tremendous, tremendous toll on women and chirp and families, and, frankly, for the whole society. it's an issue that people prefer not to talk about or not to know about. i remember as a very young

lawyer, a secretary coming in wearing sunglasses, and got huge bouquets of flowers, and i mentioned the flowers, and she says, yeah, he sends me those after he beats me up and puts them on my credit card. that was a shocking lesson for me to understand what people are living with in their day-to-day lives and trying to go about and get up and get to work because they are the most reliable income in the household so i think in the services, doing leadership there, in our everyday life, you've got to address women's safety. >> i think we also need to talk about medicare and sports illustrated and why women so desperately need that. when i was working in high school and college, if you looked for a job, there was the mens job column and the women's job coal gum, and the mens jobs

paid more money, and it was important to me because i was pitting myself through college, and i know there was a terrible economic impact on me, and if you look at the poverty rate for women and how many women rely just on citizen and how they need the medicare, they don't have a lot of company benefits or whatever, you recognize that we have not had equality, and that these women who worked, some inside the home and inside the community as volunteers were contributing so much, but they are not protected in old age because they did not go get the big job and education. doors were closed, and so i feel a responsibility, and i'm sure everybody here feels that responsibility to, a, take care of those women, and, of course, the men, but take care of the women, and, also, to make sure that it doesn't happen again. that the younger women arrive at that age, and they are okay,

financially, economically. >> maggie, go ahead. >> and to build on that there are areas where i still think that we don't share fully with men in certain areas of responsibility. when you think of the number of women who are care givers at some stage of their life, whether it's children or aging parents, and the lack of a really good community based system or work force to help with care giving, and what the responsibilities of care giving do economically to a woman's ability to earn and save over her lifetime, those are issues that we don't really address well yet and as a society because we should. it has a huge economic impact and a huge impact on women's ability to be independent and set up that nest egg for herself. what we joke about in new

hampshire as women serving in the legislature from time to time is clearly whether we would have the same kind of representation of women in the new hampshire legislature if it didn't pay $100 a year. [laughter] >> that's right. we talked about that. >> yeah, yeah. >> yeah. you know, there's an ongoing joke about that. on the one hand, it's great opportunity, but it is essentially volunteer work. >> that's right. >> in other states, one the reasons you don't see a strong pipeline of women at the state legislative level is because the position carries with it a lot of salary and power that is different in our very democratic small day new hampshire legislative system. >> glad you pointed that out. we talk about that. those comments a great segue to the next question. i'll jump in. men are rarely asked about fatherhood, what is each of your experiences combining motherhood with politics, and how do you feel about the affordable child

care act? you talked about given it's a barrier to wipe who -- to women who want to stay in the work force and compete for the same positions men compete for. anyone want to jump into that? >> first of all, we all agree we couldn't do this without the support of our family, and i know kelly's dealing with issues of balancing family and her children at a very young age when i was elected governor, my youngest was 10, and she'll tell you how it impacted her if you talk to her today. [laughter] she is not -- but, stephanie, who is here, who is also one of my daughters, and stephanie actually took the semester off from college and gave up a full bright to come and work on my campaign and, my husband quit his judgeship so he could help me when i ran for governor, and, so, that family support is absolutely critical. we couldn't -- i p couldn't do it, and i'm sure everybody would agree doing it without that family support would be impossible. >> but, you know, i had my first

child in 1974, and i was struggling with child care issues until 2004 when my last child went off to college, and i'm watching my two daughters who have seven children between them struggle with those same child care issues, and we got to do a better job of supporting families. we don't do a good enough job. [applause] you know, we've got to think about flex time. we got to think about how to better support child care givers, early childhood education, and those things that allow families to continue to be together and support their children. >> does it affect your political perspective as well? your personal experience? >> well, i think, absolutely. my kids are eight years old and

five years old, and, obviously, they were even much younger when i ran for the u.s. senate, and i had the experience of when i was appointed attorney general, i was almost seven months pregnant. >> i remember that. >> with our daughter, and so i had the whole host of questions, you know, every single question you could imagine about, you know, what's going to happen how will the kids be taken care of? this is -- and both children were born while i was attorney general, and very public, and, so, yes, you get a lot of questions, and one thing that did surprise me, because i had been through it as ag and people were sort of used to seeing me in all states of pregnancy -- [laughter] i thought when i ran for senate, you know, i didn't expect it to be that -- that people would ask that much, and i got a lot of questions, you know, what's going to happen to your chirp,

and i think that, you know, so those questions are there. i actually think those questions are there much more for women than men. that's just the reality, and i've been so blessed, phi of all, without my husband, i've got just a fantastic husband who's been so supportive of my throughout everything that i've done, but, also, a great family as well. you know, my sister-in-law helps us with the kids when i'm in washington, and, also, parents, aunts, uncles, support structure, but, you know, all of us as parents are struggling with this issue of good child care while we work, and so many families now are two families, you know, two-parent families working, and many of them out of necessity. this is a challenge for all of us in terms of affordable care and reliable child care. that's an issue for all of us in making sure who we leave kids

with we feel good. >> it's more important. >> carol, you looked like you wanted to say something. >> well, when i got into politics, my children were teenagers, and that presents a different kind of challenge. [laughter] >> yes, it does. >> and when i told my daughter, she said, just don't embarrass us, so there you have it; right? [laughter] sounds like a teenager. you'll see. [laughter] you know, hopefully i have not, and your kids do start working with you and for you, and it's a wonderful thing, and i was in manchester in the past campaign, and i saw somebody, and they would say, your son came to my door and asked to put your sign up. how could i say no? [laughter] once the children fully engage, it's wonderful, but you cannot do it without your spouses, you just can't, or whoever the support is in your life. they have to give up a lot. it's a family issue. the final part of it, though, is if you are older, and your teenagers are old #er, --

older, you probably also have older parents. >> true, good point. >> that's another issue. you want to be with your parents as they age, if they need you. you are torn. i said to me mother who was ill last year, something about, you know, not being with her, and she just looked at me, and she said, you better run. that's the keep of support that you get from people in your family, and that lifts you up, every rung of the ladder, and we've heard that all the way through this. so many people throughout our lives who helped us. >> well said. what do each of you hope to accomplish in the next two years? you had a lot on your plate. just go around the table. [laughter] maggie, what do you hope to accomplish? >> big picture, you know, we all want to serve terms where the state we serve is better off at the end of the time than when we started. we certainly face enormous challenges. my particular focus is,

obviously, balancing the budget because it all starts with that for our economy, for the state of our state government, for our families, and then making sure that we are agreeing and, in my view, that means making sure that we're attracting innovative businesses here, helping innovative businesses grow here, addressing the skill gap that we have in the state by making sure we have the right kind of k-12 community college university system, and begin -- giving the right assistance to the small businesses in areas like trade, and so that's what i want to focus on, and, also, just, again, making sure that all new hampshire citizens feel that they have an opportunity to participate, contribute what they have to offer. there's so much that all of the states and citizens have, and a lot of people of talent and

energy, and we need everybody to participate. if that's how we can proceed, i think we'll be better off two years from now. >> very good. annie, what do you see? >> i echo that. equal opportunity for all, part of that is gender related, and back to the work question briefly, in this audience, a shoutout to private employers who can do better. i was fortunate to work part-time, most people did not know that, but i was four days a week. i was the first part-time law partner, i think, in the state, and they were willing to take a chance. i took phone calls fridays at home, and i had to lock myself in a closet with the kids out playing, and the client asked me, are there children there, and i said, oh, yeah, our office is next to a -- [laughter] next to a christian school, which was true. i was not in the office at the time -- [laughter] you know, now i think we're more

open about it. we all need to take responsibility, and, frankly, even as i negotiate with the staff now, you can get really great talent if you give them a little bit of flexibility. >> true. >> just let them pick up at 5:15, they also they ask for. it's not a lot. they are willing to come in earlier probably. work force development is my big issue. i want to partner with governor and senator shaheen, senator ayote and my colleague in the house. i think new hampshire has tremendous opportunity here. we have hard working folks with great innovation, and i was so excited that the businesses i visited all through the campaign, i -- and what they talkedded to me about is education, partnering with our wonderful community college systems for training, and infrastructure. when i used to hear a lot about

over burdensome regulation, which is there, and we have to help with that, but now i was hearing more, just give us better highways to get back and forth to work, give us broadband communication in the north country and the western part of the state, and so those are the things i wanted to do. better opportunity for everyone here in new hampshire. >> thank you. carol, what do you see for the next years? >> pretty much what we heard, working on job creation, making it easier for small businesses working on main street, and i'm concerned about education, and education is the key to prosperity, and it's also what businesses need to be competitive, and so that's important to me, and having it accessible and affordable for families is important, and then the other thing is that we need to really address a lot of the environmental issues that this country is facing, and so i've been calling for a program for a long time because i think we can get there using more renewables than anything else is we really, really work on it.

the time thing is protecting medicare and social security, you know, finding the solution, protecting those benefits. we know we need to reduce the debt. we realize that's a burden, and i -- actually, i was talking about in in 2006 in the campaign so it's not a new issue for any of us. we know we need to address this. i also believe medicare and social security benefits are just critical, so i hope to be a part of that solution. >> very good. [applause] kelly, what's on your agenda? what's your priorities? >> the biggest issue for me is that we are $16 trillion in debt. i'm just really worried about the state of the country. we've, you know, run for years over trillion dollar deficits, and it's time for us to do a big fiscal deal in washington that really drives down the trajectory of the debt. we have to do it. in the senate, we got to get back to regular budgeting. i serve on the senate budget committee.

it's really been -- since i've been there, before that three years since we've dope the budget in the senate, listen, we have a lot of tough choices to make, no doubt. when you're trillions of dollars in debt, you have to prioritize, but until we do the regular budgeting process like you do in this state -- >> new hampshire's a great model. >> absolutely. this, to me, is the number one overriding priority, and i want to be part of making sure we finally start getting on the right fiscal track, and it's not easy. there's no easy answer to all of this. programs like social security and medicare, we have to start talking about how we reform them because, for example, medicare goes bankrupt 2024. that's not far off for many in this room that would rely on it or your grandparents or social security in 2033, independent trustees so we need to have those hard discussions now to strengthen america because none of us wants to see us go with

what we see happen in europe and greece, and it doesn't have to happen here, and in conjunction with that, this has to be the best place in the world to do business because economic growth will, if we grow our economy, that helpsous debt, and then, of course, more opportunity for everyone so i hope to work with everyone at the table on these issues, and it seems to me that america's safe. we have many challenges around the world. >> thank you, kelly. [applause] jean, thank you. [applause] >> what my number one priority echoes what kelly said. i think we got to deal with the country's debt and deficit. we need to come up where -- up with a deal that keeps us from having automatic spending cuts that go into effect in january, and we have to deal with the stainer -- a saner tax system, and in order to get the deficit and debt deal

done, follow a framework recommended by the simpson-bowles commission recommended on deficit reduction allowing us to protect benefits, but will also make some of the tough choices that kelly was talking about, and i think we've got to put everything on the table for that deal. look at revenues, the domestic side of the budget, the defense side, and we got to look at the mandatory programs, and i think we do have to make tough choices, but i also believe that getting that done will provide tremendous certainty for businesses in the country, for families, so they know what we're expecting, and that that will really give our economy a shot in the arm, gets money off the sidelines, and allows business to invest in creating jobs. that's for the future. the other priority i worked on, made some progress, and we'll continue on is the country's energy policy. my focus is on energy

efficiency. energy is the first fuel, you know. every gallon we don't spend of oil not only saves us money, but it also saves us on a emissions and helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that's good for our national security so i think we need a comprehensive energy policy in this country in order to protect our national security in order to insure that we begin to clean up our environment better and in order to make sure that we're not sending men and women overseas in harm's way for foreign oil. [applause] >> thank you, jeanne. what a rich conversation this morning. not a surprise, so much to talk about, running a little bit long. if you could indulge me, just two last questions that i think are terrific questions that i'd really like to ask you. so the first being -- the truth is we are one of the few

democracies in the world who has not had a female president. why and when will we -- [laughter] could she, and could she be sitting among us today? kelly? kelly, would you like to start? [laughter] >> i think i'm going to be campaigning for kate daly, my daughter, for president. [laughter] absolutely, we'll have a woman president, no question, and i certainly -- >> when? >> i hope during -- i think it will be in my lifetime, if not soon. >> maybe 2016 when hillary runs. >> maybe. [applause] >> do you have a thought on that? >> yes, i certainly do. [laughter] >> are you running? >> no, run, hillary, run. >> i think it happens soon. >> you do? >> no doubt. the electorat's ready, and i think the 2012 election is a

real water shed moment in that it feels this way all across our society. i was young with title 9, you know, the first sports teams for women, the first schools were opening up to women, businesses were opening up to women, and, now, we've reachedded that critical tipping point why hold back 50% of the brain power? >> maggie, you are smiling ear to ear. >> well, one of my mentors in the first law firm i practiced in started his own law firm a little while later, and he hired a lot of women who left big law practices to allow them to work part time, and i said to him, how do you see this working? you were ahead of your time on this, and he said, you know, never under estimate the power of a woman with a minivan and a

cell phone. i loved that comment. in more seriousness, he believed a variety that people really want their lawyers and pay lawyers for the exercise of their judgment, and bob thought that the more different experiences, the better the team's judgment would be. there's studies now saying corporate boards with men and women perform better than just men. i think we're catching on to that. i think we'll see a woman president easily in our lifetime if it's not your daughter, it might be mine or one of the many girls who says i want to be president so it's there and the possibility is there, and we're grateful to serve the people of new hampshire. >> you know, one of the things that's really important, and i say this to all women in the audience, we're going to get

women elected to office when women run for office. >> that's right. >> we need more women running meaning at all levels. you know, we have thousands of positions for city council, school boards, for municipal government that are unfilled every year because people don't run for them, and you can start anywhere, so i say to the women in the audience, to all of your children, to all of your girls, tell them to run. that's how we get a great president. >> great point. >> i had 24 hours to make the decision to run the first time for state senate, and i called my husband, and i said they asked, it's nice, there's the kids, law prak, -- practice, and your job. my husband was the one to say, hey, you'll be good at this, we'll make it work. it's important for people to know. >> my boys, when they were

little, mom, you're always on the phone, yes, but mom is paid by the word. [laughter] >> certainly, maggie said about the -- i wouldn't have run for senate if not for my husband, and because i quit my role as attorney general, two incomes to one income which was a big deal in our family. >> us too. >> but basically, he said did all the numbers, i'll make it work, and, you know, i think i want your voice there so it does take someone in your life to say, yes, you can do that. you can be that for someone thinking about running. >> another shoutout to the firm for being supportive, and, certainly, my husband, brad, because i ran for four years. it takes a lot out of you in terms of what's possible. our two sons are in college,

and, trust me, those payments are breathtaking. >> i'm sure. the last question of the morning, thank you so much for your party and allowing me to run a little long, but i just would love to hear from you as you reflect on the future, we also are thinking about the past so what do you hope your legacy will be? maggie, let's start with you. just go around the table. >> well, certainly, making sure that new hampshire stays new hampshire. we are such an extraordinary place. we are safe. we are, you know, a wonderful place of beautiful nature, beautiful resources, and we have this all hands-on deck spirit where anybody who is willing to work can have the opportunity to succeed and move forward, and i, more than anything, just want to make sure that i leave this state belter than i found it, and that we're a place where we innovate at all levels, showing

that when people of good will and great talent come together and brainstorm together and want to solve problems, we make progress, and we'll leave the country economically and in terms of quality of life. >> a wonderful hope. >> i can't focus on the legacy, but -- [laughter] certainly, the goal, the goal is to work with everyone here and to work across the aisle and to bring common sense new hampshire values to washington. it includes listening. it includes hearing about people's lives, and then, ultimately, at the end of the day, equal opportunity for everyone, and justice, equality, and justice for all. those are the founding fathers and founding mothers here will lead us in that direction. >> thank you. carol? what do you think about of legacy? >> although i was certainly blessed to, you know, be part of the history here, and, also, being the first woman to ever go there, that's not legacy.

i hope that the legacy will be is that when people look back on the congresses and look back on the conquered and the governorship and say that it really made a difference. it made a difference we showed up, we worked, and that we left this state and this country in bet ore thandz than we found it. that's something to pass on to the next generation. >> wonderful, thank you, carol. kelly? >> it just seems too soon to talk legacy, but i really just hope that i'm able to be part of leaving the country in a stronger position, fiscalically and -- fiscalically -- fiscally and making sure our nation a safer and stronger. that's the goal. >> thank you, kelly. jeanne. >> i echo everything that's been said, but i'll continue to try to work across the aisle in a bipartisan way because that's how we solve the problems in this country, and, also, to try

and make a difference for people. i think that's why i was sent to washington and the hundreds of people who call our office every month who need help with the federal government, with their pensions, with their va benefits, whatever it is that we can continue to help make a difference for them. >> thank you so much. i need to tell all of you, it has been -- i need to tell all of you -- it has been -- i sincerely, sincerely mean it, you know me so well, it's been a profound honor and privilege to sit at a table with you this morning imjust cannot personally thank you enough for the opportunity, and professionally, an extraordinary moment in time as well. just thank you, thank you, thank you. [applause] thank you, all. [applause] >> as we head to the u.s. capitol this morning on the 112th congress and the enof the session begins and the 113th

session gets underway, the new house session starts at noon eastern. the senate session begins also at noon, and you can see the house on c-span. the senate begins live here on c-span2. as the session gets underway, early yerl today, we spoke with a reporter to look at the role changes the new senate may encounter. >> the senior congressional reporter for ""politico" and opening day for the 113th congress, and they intend to keep the first legislative day going throughout most of the month. what's the goal here? >> he wants to preserve the right to change the filibuster rules by 51 votes. the reason why he's doing that is because the first day of a legislative session is when you deal with the rules package, and you have the option in order to push through changes by 51 vote majority. typically, that requires 57 votes to do it. it's a high threshold, requires a lot of bipartisan support in

order to change any senate rules, but there's been a very strong push, a growing push, by a band of junior lawmakers who are fed up with the gridlock in the senate blaming it on the filibuster saying let us use the 51-vote option and change the rules under this procedure. now, by extending the legislative day, what they are doing is not adjourning, but recessing the senate to come back later this month and it's still technically the first day. in between, he's going to talk to mitch mcconnell, see whether or not there's some sort of a bipartisan compromise to avert what contributics call the nuclear option because it's never been done on the first day of the session like this. if he can't, prepare to move forward and make changes to filibuster rules, and republicans warn this could, what they say, set up a bomb in the senate and really, really hurt the institution.

>> how many filibuster proposals are likely to be considered? >> reid is concerned about republicans filibustering the efforts to bring forward bills for legislation. on that aspect as well as when bills are passed and when the senate wants to con convenience house senate conference committees, reid is concerned about republicans blocking that effort. republicans, in exchange, are willing to deal on that, but they want to do is get a right and offer a certain amount of amendments that legislate. they complain reid has been completely unfair in checking off the ability to offer amendments on the floor. what others want is more efforts to pair back the power of the filibuster, one in which is a popular measure sought by a lot of democrats, what they call the so-called talking filibuster in which it requires folks to actually go to the floor and carry out a filibuster like the famous movie classic plft smith go to washington. that would really change things

up if that were to be proposed and considered. reid is not saying which way he'll go yet on the talking filibuster and how far he'll go, but that is certainly one of the options out there heading sphwoo that defining week -- into that defining week. >> why are rules changes important for viewers to know about? what effect does it have on legislation and how the senate does the work? >> the proponents say it eases the gridlock of legislation, make things move faster, the senate could consider legislation, not as much obstruction tactics, but, really, in essence, they are talking about nibbling around the edges in terms of the filibuster because you can filibuster virtually any senate action, and getting rid it it, and if they do the filibuster, that changes institutions, but could be more theatrical

displays making it harder to pass legislation in some ways so, you know, i think what we're going to see, the real concern is the long term impact is if they go forward with the option, change the rules, future majorities come in, and do greater changes to the filibuster, and the concern is whether or not that would turn the senate into the house where the majority can really rule with an iron fist. that is really the long term concern, and short term is will it change the legislative process? yes, it's quicker, but others skeptical. >> quickly, and finally, as the senate starts the session, what are you most curious bout today? >> you know, it will be interesting. democrats are 55 -- 45 majority, and the senate will be closer to a 60 vote majority. you know, i'm looking guard to the first fight, i mean, february, go right into the debt

ceiling fight as well as the spending cuts known as the sequester expire at the end of february. how do they deal with that and the senate democrats deal with that with the white house because there's republicans who want to make this all about spending cuts, and democrats got a revenue win in the fiscal cliff deal, and they got increase in tax rates for the top income earners, and they are probably not going to get that -- they are not getting that now in the next fight over the debt ceiling so what do democrats want as part of that package to raise the debt ceiling and ward off effort by roms who didn't get what they wanted in the deal and will push hard to get what they want in the debt ceiling deal. february will be a defining month for the congress. >> manu, the senior congressional reporter for "politico," thank you for taking time out of this busy day. >> absolutely, thank you. >> senate begins at noon eastern in a couple