very large, in some cases, campaign staff moving into that. this the first time, both teams focused on that, how they integrate them, which positions they have and staff up the white house to bill's point in that period of time of transition. >> sure. >> one more question, quick as possible. >> the number of departments and agencies, epa, education, energy. do you foresee a situation where certain positions go unfilled because he doesn't agree with them if he were to be elected? >> there are a lot of positions that are unfilled now even though the president may agree with the mission of those agencies. underscoring just how difficult it is to get people through a vetting process whether they're senate confirmed or not. and how much attention, as bill said, who is your head and mobilize and get them filled. and this is not the first time we've heard a candidate say they wanted to take down the

department of education. the the reality is, that is really, really hard to do. how much emphasis that agency or its mission may have, how much attention it may get by the president, that's a whole other question. this is not a new problem that we have, filling positions in departments and agencies to execute their mission. >> let me just add to that that most cabinet departments are established by congress through statute, so these -- they are not simply creatures of the president. they're established by law. there are laws that they are charged with administering. so an ongoing -- there's a lot of ongoing business that will and must proceed regardless of the stance that the incoming president takes with that work or department or agency. so i wouldn't pay too much attention. ronald reagan was, i think people listening to him in 1980

were sure that the department of education was a goner. instead, it got stronger under his presidency. he appointed a couple of really good secretaries of education. go figure. >> both teams recognize they have to engage the career work force. they'll execute their priorities, whatever their priorities are. that's the mission of the career work force. both teams recognize it and they have done it before. and that's how they view it. they view it as an enabler and we should see much better early conversations with the career workforce than we've seen. >> with that we need to draw this to a close. the press contact or contact information for all three expert speakers are on the handout. the bio packet. they all would welcome contact from you and follow up questions. so thank you very much. thank you for the time. [ applause ] and we're going to make a very quick transition to the

reporters panel. so we're going to add one chair and switch over very quickly. i'm the transition team. >> you're the transition team. tonight, world war ii programs from our reel america series showing films on public affairs. at 8:00 eastern, a 1934 film on the battle of russia foltd by a film called know your ally, britain. some films from 1944. the negro soldier and the hidden war. american history tv prime time all this week on c-span3 while congress is on break. a two-day conference gets underway tomorrow exploring the legacy of british prime minister winston churchill on. friday morning, c-span2 will be live at 9:00 eastern with a discussion on mr. churchill's relationships with u.s. presidents.

also with british royalty and churchill's financial team. c-span brings you more debates from key u.s. house, senate and governors' races. tonight live on c-span. kelly ayotte and maggie hassan debate for the new senate seat. then at 9:00, the iowa senate debate between chuck grassley and democrat patty judge. and at 10:00, a debate for new york's 24th district seat. friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. the georgia senate debate between republican senator johnny isaacson, democratic challenger jim barksdale and libertarian allen buckley. then just before 9:00, rick nolan and republican stewart mills debate for minnesota's eighth district seat. at 9:30, a debate for colorado's sixth congressional district between republican representative mike kaufman and

democrat morgan carroll. and saturday night at 10:00, the pennsylvania senate debate between pat toomey and katie mcginty. then at 11:00, a date in the new hampshire governor's race. and at midnight on c-span, the north carolina governor's debate between republican governor pat mccrory, democrat roy cooper, and libertarian cecil. watch key debates between house, senate and government races. listen on the c-span radio app. c-span where history unfolds daily. open secrets.org is a public online database which tracks money and politics and its impact on elections and public policy. the national press foundation hosted this 35-minute discussion on how that website imfacts presidential transition process.

>> get going with third and final panel. if you don't already use it, you should, it's the go to place for all sorts of campaign finance data, which i think most people do use but all sorts of other information that they are the repository for including disclosure information, lobbyist disclosure information, candidate and office holders financial information. they are going to talk about the revolving door which they also monitor and what happens, people in the administration now, where are they going to end up and what are the restrictions when they do so. first go with viveca novack and the revolving door experts over

there. they are going to talk between the 2011 them about twentyish minutes and then time for q&a and this session will go until noon. so viveca. >> as you've gathered from other panelists if you were able to be a fly on the wall or drone on the wall of congressional offices, even today in this moment you would see an awful lot of people putting out feelers and receiving feelers from the outside about what their next job move is, who might want to hire them. you'd see and hear a lot of people in the private sector as well, political consulting

firms, scheming how to get into the administration or a good office or who the best people are to hire coming out, sort of like nfl draft, who are the most desirable picks. it happens every two years, there are congress races every two years. every eight years since most presidents recently have served two terms is when it really happens in spades. so this is one of those witching years. you'll be seeing hillary clinton has a universe of people around here. they have been in politics many years who will be either angling to get in or stay in or maybe plotting their futures in the private sector. and being able to cash in on their intimate knowledge of

clinton world. there will be some people who will want to step outside and won't want to be in the administration. there are many people who won't get this jobs in the administration who will decide i might as well step outside and make money. make no mistake, these people are highly prized on the outside. there was a study where they looked at salaries of people who came out, who had been very well connected in congress, compared to other lobbyists, for instance. the people with connections made a good bit more money. another study showed that there's actually a shelf life to that money, which is if you're a member of congress you used to work for retires or is defeated, your salary is no longer going to be going up and may even

diminish. so devaluation, there is a very direct cause and effect there. now, one of the best examples i've seen of revolving door action was described in a story by eric lipton in early 2013 in the "new york times." he wrote about amgen and a provision they got put into the 2012 fiscal cliff legislation. and amgen really, really wanted a two-year extension, actually, an additional two-year extension because they had one already, of a provision that essentially medicare was going to put price controls on some medications. they wanted an exemption for a

very lucrative kidney dialysis drug they made. they had 74 lobbyists, including former chief of staff of max baucus, former chairman of the finance committee where all this was being put together and former chief of staff of mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader. not only that, though, they had someone who used to be an amgen in-house lobbyist who managed to get a job as orrin hatch's chief policy person. he was the person in charge of meeting with all of the lobbyists who were lobbying on this provision, including amgen's. lo and behold they got the provision they wanted and nobody even knew it was in there -- most people, until eric lipton

wrote about it. so the revolving door, reverse revolving door extremely valuable to corporations. this is why you see a lot of companies when their people go to work for an administration or go to the hill, they are often, you know, paying bonuses, exit bonuses as their people leave, which, of course, they would not admit was connected to, you know, the government service. but there are many suspicions, right? these days one thing besides people who have worked in government and go out to the private sector or people who go from private sector into government, don't forget to look for people who have worked for super pacs or political nonprofits, some of these dark money groups that are much like super pacs but don't have to disclose their donors or charitable foundations that are connected to lawmakers. there are a number of those. i guess, you know, i should probably -- the danger, as

you've probably heard already today, of this revolving door is kind of obvious. you have people -- a high degree of closeness between the private sector and government officials who are supposed to be watching over and regulating the private sector. if you have continual, you know, flow of people going back and forth, that's not always bad. it's good to have the expertise. but the danger is something that, you know, we call regulatory capture where the overseers really aren't doing much overseeing except what the industry wants. you've seen that over and over again in agriculture and other areas. what's really in the public

interest is subsumed by the industry's presence in one way or another at agencies in congress. there's also the danger of playing devil's advocate. there's also a danger assuming it's always bad when people from industry go into the government. and assuming the public interest won't be served. exhibit a for this may be tom wheeler, the chairman of the fcc who everyone criticized at the beginning because he had been the head of a telecon trade group. he had lobbied on the hill. and he wound up actually being a pretty good chairman. you know, favored net neutrality and a bunch of policies people wouldn't have predicted he would favor. i guess i'm going to hand it off to dan and then we'll answer questions after. dan will get into more of the rules and regulations. >> so the rules and restrictions

on where you can go work when you leave the government and incoming from the private sector are relatively straightforward for congress. senators have a two-year cooling off period for lobbying congress. house members have a one-year and then staff pretty much has a one-year as well with some restrictions on them contacting their own offices that they worked for. the situation with the executive branch, however, is a little more fluid. the recent history basically revolves around executive orders. so when a president comes in,

they kind of decide how restrictive they want to be. for instance, bill clinton using executive order barred former officials from lobbying the people they worked with for five years, which is pretty targeted and, you know, was not a blanket restriction across the whole executive branch. george bush did not really have a similar policy. of course when obama came in, transparency and good government was kind of something he had made an important part of his campaign. on his first full day in office, he signed a couple of executive orders that said people who leave my administration and become registered lobbyists can't lobby the executive branch essentially. this -- there are underlying rules that were most recently updated in 2008 with honest leadership and open government act.

that kind of sets a baseline two-year cooling off period in the executive branch as well. obama's restrictions are widely regarded as pretty -- not draconian but pretty restrictive. their efficacy has been questioned. one issue is they apply to registered lobbyists, which is a little different than what a lot of people conceive of as a lobbyist. there are very specific definitions you must meet in terms of how much money you're making from a client. you have to have more than 20% of your time in that -- the registration quarter is spent for that client. so especially that 20% number is a big opening as a loophole for people to unregister. so one of the reactions to obama's restrictions was a drop

in the number of registered lobbyists. it went from about 14,000 to 12,000 during his first term, a number of registered lobbyists. there's not much reason to believe those people totally left the influence industry. a lot of them people who left the registration roles were working at the same firms under title and clearly still working under government affairs but had just technically not met their registration requirements. where in the past there was almost a pride about being a lobbyist and people would register out of an abundance of caution just to not go afoul of

the rules. that changed around 2008 after the abramoff scandal and obama's new policies, if you could get around registering, a lot of people would not register so they wouldn't have to face these they also applied to incoming officials into the administration. they were restricted pretty heavily on what they could work on. basically it made it very hard to work in the obama administration if you had recently been a registered lobbyist. so looking to the future, what hillary clinton or a president trump would do is kind of a big question because the president has a lot of sway over what the policy is. i know it's been recorded that hillary clinton's transition team that has a ban on lobbyists

working in the transition team, so we maybe could foresee she would have a similar policy to obama. but it's really not clear whether obama's policies will carry over. at the end of bill clinton's administration, he actually rescinded the restrictions he had. i think it was even after the election, the 2000 election. but basically that's something that obama potentially could do because, of course, over the last year i'm sure people who work in the white house have been looking for jobs in the private sector. and they would -- that process would be easier for them if

there weren't such limited restrictions on them. that's kind of the landscape of the rules. i want to talk about what we do with regard to the revolving door and show you a little bit of what's on our website that you can mime. there isn't like a central government database who has everyone that's been through the revolving door. one of the things we do is track the news, obviously, and law firm, press releases and twitter accounts, and we sometimes get tips from people as to who is moving. we use some data including staff directories in the hill and if they show up in lobbying registration to propagate our

revolving door section of the opensecrets.org. so when you land in this section you see this is a little bit out of date, feature revolver, someone in the news or we think is important and we write up a bio talk about the possible implications of their move from the government into the private sector or vice versa maybe looking at whether they have made campaign contributions as well and just add that for your information. the most important thing you'll find in here is these personal profiles of revolvers.

you'll find graphical time line of where they have worked and then table below that kind of really lays out exactly where they worked and provides links if they are a registered lobbyist or work for a lobbying firm you can go look at the activity of the lobbying firm, what members they worked for and what not. now, if you're looking for stories, you'll probably want to check out a bunch of these kind of top lists that we have including, you know, what members have had the most revolvers, what agencies do you find a lot of revolvers in, where the people who work for the committees have moved, how

many people there are, and you can look at industries. so if you're interested in a particular state, for instance, you might want to go check out your state's delegation and see who has worked there and what firms or companies they went to work for and then you can kind of tie together some of the other pieces you'll find on here including lobbying, the company they now work for, how does that industry tie in to your members. so as has been mentioned, we cover a lot of ground including campaign contributions and superpacs and extensive lobbying profiles and all that are other things that you'll find on open secrets. and i think that's my overview.

so if we're ready for questions. >> so we have time for questions. if i could ask just one definitional thing. the definition of a registered lobbyist, more than 20% -- a client representing more than 20% of the work. so in theory if one lobbyist has five clients all at 20%, they would be registered under all five of them. if you had six clients at 16%, they are not registered as a lobbyist for any of them? >> that's essentially true. this is a very vague rule, which is why it ends up being a loophole. how you define what 20% is has never really been tested. is that 20% bigger, of course probably working on projects

that are not strictly for lobbying clients. but yes, that's essentially correct. >> okay. so questions out here. let's go right over there. >> yeah, this is a very narrow question but i'm curious about it. do you know what the rules are, if any, on someone who has been uniform military and becoming defense secretary and another high-placed civilian job? i'm thinking particularly about mike flynn who has been out of uniform for a while and likely to be trump's defense secretary. >> i don't know anything specific about the military rules that are different. >> i don't know there are specifics. >> i think so. okay. thanks. >> james.

>> you mentioned the obama administration's role not hiring lobbyists. was that circumvented in any way? you mentioned that loophole chris brought up. there are also waivers that the president can grant. there have been a few dozen of those. it wasn't really widespread but there's certainly examples of that. >> how do they define the lobby -- >> registered lobbyist. >> so if you were registered and they wanted to bring you in, you could get a waiver, which is something that becomes public, of course. >> the waivers are public. there were some, i think, that pretty clearly there weren't as many lobbyists going into the obama administration as had gone

into other administrations. there were exceptions made. they did bring in some. >> okay. let's go back there and then over there. so you first. >> could you give us a sense of where lobbying and influence laws are particularly strong and where they are weak and the ramifications of those two environments. are they strong, for example, at the s.e.c. and weak elsewhere? what comes to mind. >> well, in general, the disclosure laws are relatively strong. in many cases they are self-reporting. however, it's in areas such as registration loopholes we talked about and those kinds of

definitions that things vary. i'm not particularly familiar with the agencies that have much stronger rules or any that are really lacking. >> the rules are the rules. they apply across the board. so you don't have strong rules one agency versus another, as far as i know, right? there are certainly -- there's certainly agencies that look more favorably, i think, on people who have been lobbyists, depending on who is leading the agency. i know there's a lot of revolving door activity. there has been, in the past, at the fcc, but, you know, there's a bunch of others. but the rules are the rules across the board.

yeah. >> a variation of the question, can you talk a little about the revolving door between wall street and s.e.c. and treasury department? >> yeah, there's a lot of -- yeah. right, right. one name that springs into mind is goldman sachs, which has been quite a font of people for jobs coming out and provide people coming into the administration. so wall street has been very important for both of those agencies. >> you track that on your website? >> yeah. do you want to show goldman sachs? >> sure.

>> so as you saw, there's also a more extensive search page you can go to. you can go and search by a company you're interested in, and you'll get a list of all the people who either currently work there or previously worked there and have been through the revolving door. so if you are taking a look at a company, this is a good place to go and kind of explore. of course each of these names will take you to one of those profiles that more extensively

lays out when they were there, if they happened to work at s.e.c. or the finance committee or wherever. so that would be a good entry point if you're looking at a company. of course we also have, look at it by agencies as well, if you wanted to come in through the other way and look at the s.e.c. you'll get a similar list of people who have been through the revolving door and work at s.e.c. >> give me a sense of when did you start building this database. what's the scope and how many years or administrations back does it go? >> we began in 2006. we began with database of influence people that we purchased and we've been

building on it since then. so of course there are people in here who worked for the ford administration, but definitely the last 10 or 15 years is going to be more complete than those older years. >> more questions? james again. >> lobbying has sort of been part of washington since the beginning. where are we now? do you think the influence is as great as it's ever been, or has there been any sort of rollback? i guess the obama administration's would signal some resistance to it but i wonder if you would look back historically to where we are now. >> i think that -- i think it's part of the fabric of washington and, as you say, has been for a long time. it's very hard to measure.

you know, now, as dan said, you have a lot fewer people registering as lobbyists. that doesn't mean they aren't strategic advisers or providing some other services that in the past they might have registered as lobbyists because of that. but cause lobbying has been a dirty word under the obama administration doesn't mean they aren't out there. there is a lot of people making a living doing this, and it's just very hard to get a metrics on it. you know, i think -- the end of earmarks on capitol hill, not really the end of earmarks but at least the end of some kinds of earmarks, i think, was something that did not -- it may have contributed to the drop in the number of lobbyists but probably not by a lot.

there are various ways that the administration or congress tries to implement to reduce the influence that the public out there sees as being an the public sees us being an onerous thing. like public and politics, it's like water, there's always ways around it. we live in a capitalistic society. there are always going to be private interest out there trying to make their case and trying to find a way to make more money using policy. >> okay. >> just giving what you've said so far, do you think obama's rules were misguided in a way? seems like we have less transparency because we can't look up as many lobbyists. is that true? >> i mean, to some extent that is true.

it's definitely two sides of a coin. it wasn't universally good. but i think his policies served a purpose. like they were successful for what they wanted to do. it is not ideal that the result was driving people off the rolls and learning less about it. on the whole i think it was a positive thing but it certainly had consequences. >> over here. >> i'm just curious if you think -- my impression, it seems like with the revolving door, the flow going out is probably a little bit bigger than the flow going in. seems like you hear about a lot of lawmakers if they get ousted in an election, first thing they do is register as a lobbyist. is that true or is the flow a little more balanced?

many people are going from like the private sector and lobbying sector into administrations and different staffs. >> well, the flow out probably is more intense. of course it varies after an election, there's a whole lot of activity especially with members who have lost elections or just decided to leave congress and the change in administration on the executive side causes a lot of activity. but, as viveca mentioned, how -- there's basically a salary incentive to having these connections. that's what the whole system kind of revolves around. there is some incentive, and we see this relatively frequently for people to kind of go in and

out of public service and private sector, which if you're cynical you can say they are just renewing that currency they have of connection and influence with the people currently in government and writing the policies. >> okay. we have time for a couple more questions. let me ask one definitional question. you said, dan, the rules for congress, for senators there's a two-year cooling off period and for congress one year. what's the definition of cooling off. no activity in how do they define the activity. >> right. well, it involves being a registered lobbyist again. there tees -- there's a definition of contact and

covered official. essentially they can't be making more than one contact with government officials on behalf of their clients. >> other questions? y'all have been watching this issue for a long time. viveca, you were a reporter covering it at some point in your reporting career. tell these young journalists, what's the coolest, you talk about eric lipton story, but what's the one really memorable story. if you have any idea how the reporter conceptualized and reported it, you know, help us out to figure how to kind of execute, think about one of these stories. >> well, the amgen one obviously

was a big one. often this is like a piece of a bigger story. we have notable people like tom daschle is the example frequently given of somebody who everyone knows was basically being hired to revise people as strategic adviser and do a lot of activity most people would call lobbying but he wasn't actually calling folks on the hill, so he didn't have to register. he recently did register but for years that was a big one. >> i think a lot of this you see something funny going on. you start to dig into it. it's sourcing on capitol hill or administration, some kind of provision in a bill. again, i go back to amgen example because it was so classic.

ittle thing that thing that eid came up. i don't know how eric got onto that story. it could well have been that somebody on the hill, some staffer said, you know, look at this weird thing that's in the fiscal cliff bill and he started digging into it because it clearly benefited, even though they weren't named, it benefited only one company. you start pulling threads and see the connections. so i think whenever you see something that appears to be casting favors in one direction or another, you start looking. sometimes it's a campaign finance angle you stumble on. oftentimes there's a lobbying connection. there are connected lobbyists to the people who made this happen.

>> and with that, i think this panel will come to a close. i want to thank our two speakers very much for your time. as i said, opensecrets.org is a great resource for all kinds of political money stories. for paul miller's, we now retire from here and head back to our offices. lunch will be waiting for you. our first panel talking about budget issues starts at 1:15 so be ready of the "wall street journal" and ben weil of "politico." for nonpaul millers in the audience, thank you for coming out and joining us. i want to thank university of maryland college of journalism, roll call and c-span for helping us put on this event today. that's it for this morning. i'll see all the paul millers at the national press foundation office. make your own way there. see you there in 15, 20 minutes and thank you very much.

on election day, november 8th, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race, including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump and their surrogates. follow key house and senate races with our coverage of their candidate debates and speeches. c-span where history unfolds daily. tonight on american history tv prime time, world war ii pra programs from our american series. at 8:00 eastern, a 1943 film on the battle of russia followed by a film called "know your ally,

britain." at 10:10 eastern, films from 1944, the negro soldier and the hidden war. prime time all this week on c-span 3 while congress is on break. exploring the legacy of british prime minister, winston churchhill. we'll be live with a discussion on his u.s. presidents. today, relationships with british royalty and churchill's financial team. bobby kennedy's last words before he got off the stage were, on to chicago. the next day he was due to go to chicago and meet with the very powerful mayor, richard daly. his son, bill daly who was chief of staff to barack obama says there was a 70% or greater chance his dad would have

endorsed bobby for president during the trip to chicago. >> boston globe reporter discusses his book "bobby kennedy: the making of a liberal icon." >> america would have been a different place, i think. some of the issues we are revisiting today, racial tension and international discord might be a little different if with we tried to address them 50 years ago. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. british prime minister theresa may discusses leaving the european union known as brexit. jeremy corbyn pressed her on it saying her plan was to have no plan. they asked about uk's role in syria and domestic issues. this is 40 minutes.

questions to the prime minister. james morris. >> mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with colleagues and others in addition i should have further meetings latder today. >> james morris. >> thank you. in the black country, the west midlands, we are proud of our long industrial heritage. we are also very proud of the recent revival in the fortuned of the black kucountry with new jobs and investments. would the prime minister agree with me one of the ways to create an economy is power to the west midlands to drive investment and a strong leadership and vision that only this can provide? the candidate for the west midlands. >> thank you.

thank you, mr. speaker. my honorable friend speaks well for the black country. i'm pleased to echo his comments. since 2010, we have seen 20,000 more jobs in the region, more businesses in the region. he's right, the deal is important. it's the biggest. it's the deal that is being done for the west midlands. part of that is crucially the election of a directly elected mayor and i think andy street with his local knowledge and his business experience will drive economic growth. >> jeremy corbyn. >> thank you. thank you mr. speaker. could i start by welcoming the child refugees that arrived in great britain. they are deeply traumatized and we should welcome them and love them and support them in the best way we can. in respect to the parties, when

members of the house go to help problems we reach out in solidarity to them. i want to pay tribute to stanford for the social media message you sent out this morning. it shows amazing humor and bravery. we wish him all the best and hope he fully recovers from this. mr. speaker, there are narrowly regular sessions to announce brexit. it seems the prime minister's counter parts are feeling the same sense of frustration as members of this house. the first minister from whales says there is a great deal among certainty and they are clear they need full access to single market. can the prime minister help the minister of wales and other administrations by giving clarity. >> first of all, can i commend in response to the comments, can i commend the home office for the work you have been doing and ensuring it is working carefully to look at the best interest of

the child refugees so they are provided with the support they need when they come here to the united kingdom. can i also join him in commending my honorable friend stanford for willing to be so open about the health problem he has and we wish him all the best for the future and for his place here in this house. in relation to the issue of clarity on the aims the government has in relation to brexit, i have been very clear and will be clear again. the -- there are those who talk about means and those who talk about ends. i'm talking about ends. we want to see the best possible arrangement for trade and operation within the single european market for businesses in goods and services here in the united kingdom. >> i thought for a moment she

was going to say brexit means brexit again. there are others -- i'm sure she'll tell us one day what it actually means. the mayor of london also added this is causing unnecessary uncertainty but also very important -- uncertainty. mr. speaker, it would be also very helpful if the prime minister could provide some clarity over the northern ireland border. will we continue membership of the customs union or see border checks introduced between northern ireland and the republic? stk leader of the opposition tries to poke fun of the phrase that brexit means brexit. the point is this -- brexit is

this gomvernment that is listening to the voice of the british people. what the -- brexit means brexit. that means we are coming out of the european union. what the honorable gentleman is doing is frustrating the britt itch people saying brexit means something different. a considerable amount of work was going on with the irish government. that work is continuing. we have been very clear, the government of the republic of ireland has been very clear. the northern ireland executive has been very clear. none of us want to see a return of the borders of the past. i would remind the honorable gentleman that the common travel area has been in place since 1923, which is well before either of us joined the european union.

>> jeremy corbyn. >> they said the customs union was not a binary choice. i can't think of anything other than a binary choice of whether you have a border or don't have a border. there isn't a third way on that one. on monday, her friend, expressed concern of the automotive and aerospace industries. the banking says the members are poised quivering over the relocate button. every day the prime minister dithers over this chaotic brexit, employers an investment and rumors circulating about relocation. this cannot carry on until march of next year. when is the prime minister going to come up with a plan? >> i have to say to the honorable gentleman, the fact he seems to confuse the customs with a border, they are two different issues -- yes. shows why -- shows -- shows why

it is important that it is this party that is in government and not his. he talks about the plan. i have been very clear. i have been very clear we want to trade freely with both trade with and operate within the single european market. i want this country -- i want this country to be a global leader in free trade. the labor party is against free trade. i want to introduce -- i want to introduce control on free movement so we have an end to free movement. the labor party wants to continue with free movement. i want to deliver on the will of the british people. he is trying to frustrate the will of the people. >> there was no answer on the board, which was the question. on monday, mr. speaker, the prime minister told the house and i quote, we have a plan which is not to set out in every

stage of the negotiation the details. i have been thinking about this for a couple days, mr. speaker. i think -- i think when you are searching for the real meaning behind and the importance behind the prime minister's statement, you have to consult the great philosophers. the only one i can come up with -- calm yourself. you are imperilling your own health, man. it's great concern to me. corbyn. >> our cutting plan is to have no plan. brexit was -- brexit was apparently about taking back control but the government doesn't know the plan, businesses don't know the plan, parliament doesn't know the

plan. when will the prime minister abandon this brexit and develop a plan that delivers for the whole country? >> i'm interested -- of course the act of playing it was a member of the labor party, as i recall. i'll tell the honorable gentleman what we are going to deliver. we are going to deliver on the vote of the british people. we are going to deliver the best possible deal on trades and goods and services with the european union. and we are going to deliver an end to free movement. that's what the british people want and what this government is going to deliver for him. >> mr. speaker, three years ago, the united kingdom backed saudi

arabia for the u.n. human rights counc council. there were elections for the human rights council. a u.n. panel warned saudi arabia's bombing of yemen violated international law. amnesty international says, i quote, executions are on the increase. women are widely discriminated against, torture is common and human rights abonn donned. will her government be backing the saudi for membership of that committee? >> as the right honorable gentleman knows where there are human rights concerns in relation to saudi arabia, we raise them. we have been clear we want the incidents referred to to be properly investigated and we want the saudi arabians, if there are lessons to be learned to learn lessons. i will reiterate a point i made in the house before, our relationship is an important

relationship. it's particularly important in relation to the security of this country and counterterrorism and foiling of activities who wish to do citizen citizens harm in . >> a yemeni man who lives in liverpool told me yemen is becoming the forgotten crisis. if people aren't being killed by bombs, hunger kills them. the uk needs to use its influence to help the people of yemen. bombs exported from britain are being dropped on yemeni children by saudi pilots. if war crimes are being committed, they must be investigated. isn't it about time this government suspended the arms sale to saudi arabia? >> the issues are being investigated i say to the right honorable gentleman. we have taken action. he's right to refer to the humanitarian crisis in yemen. this country is one of those

that is in the forefront of ensuring humanitarian aide is provided. that is a record of which i believe this country and government can be proud around the world in terms of the actions that have been taken. it is important, the world cessation of hostilities in yemen, which was for a period of 72 hours over the weekend, as i referred to in this house on monday, i spoke to the crown prince of abu dhabi other the weekend. one of the issues was the importance of trying to find a political solution in yemen and seeing if that cessation of hostilities could be continued. it hasn't been continued. but, we are very clear the only solution that is going to work for yemen is to make sure that we have that political solution that will give stability in yemen. >> mr. christopher chope. >> 20 years ago, a conservative government believes councils could retain their sovereignty

and control over their own destiny. will my right honorable friend show the house that the government will not agree to the abolition of christ church against the will of my constituents? >> my right honorable friend is right to speak up for his constituents. he's also right that there isn't a single model that is going to work in every part of the country. that's why we believe it's important for local people to come together and determine what is right for them. i know my right honorable friend is trying to build a consensus and endorse it. i think it's right that local people are able to respond to the consultation and their concerns are listened to. >> angus robertson. >> can i take the opportune toy

praise the fund-raisers, volunteers and veterans involved. colleagues in other parts of the house will as well. mr. speaker, one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our time is in syria. specifically in aleppo where we expect a cease-fire to end shortly and an onslaught to begin. will you tell us what efforts the uk is taking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and to deal with those in an exasperating position? >> may i join the honorable gentleman in commending and praise zing the work of those across the united kingdom who raise money for the appeal. it is very important we never forget those, through many conflicts who are given of themselves for the safety and security of us and it is important that we recognize that

and give generously. in relation to syria, of course it is important to approach this in a number of tracks. we are involved, my friend the secretary has been involved in talks with the united states secretary of state, secretary kerry about these issues looking for that way forward. i raised the issue of russian actions in syria, particularly the bombing of aleppo at the european union counsel. it was on the agenda because the uk raised it. as a result of that discussion, the eu agreed that should the atrocities continue, then we will look at all available options for taking action to put pressure on russia to stop their indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians.

>> angus robertson. >> steaming across the mediterranean aboard the admiral and the battle group. in recent years, more than 60 russian naval vessels resupplied. will the prime minister join me, eu and nato allies in unequivocally calling on spain to refuse the refueling? >> the gentleman refers to the passage of russian naval ships. of course on the high seas they are able to travel and they wish, although, when they went through the english channel, they were accompanied by royal naval vessels as they went through. but the -- what we have seen, sadly, is the russians are already able to unleash attacks on innocent civilians in syria. what matters is that we put pressure on russia to do what

everybody agrees is the only way that we are going to resolve this issue, which is to ensure we have a political transition in syria and that's where we should focus or attention. >> wendy morton. >> mr. speaker, my constituency forms part of the new west midland combined authority, so the power moved to the authority. can the prime minister tell me how these powers will help my constituents and local businesses such as pl manufacturing, the automotive industry. >> i can confirm to my honorable friend the deal being proposed will provide 1 billion pounds to spend on local projects to drive economic growth. this is part of the deal that is important to have a man who understands the local area and business expertise to ensure

those economic projects are being developed with the interest of the locality in the prime focus for them. i believe that the deal will deliver more jobs and economic prosperity. it's good for the west midlands and good for the rest of the country as well. >> helen hayes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the independent inquiry on child sexual abuse was for long awaited justice for victims and survivors. it must have their confidence. the associate represents 600 survivors of abuse that took place in children's homes and recently raised serious concerns about changes to the inquirinqu. will the prime minister meet with me and representatives from the association to discuss their concerns and take action so that confidence can be restored? >> she makes a very important point. the whole purpose of this inquiry was to provide justice

for those whose voices have not been heard for too long. people in power and institutions of the state and other organizations have not heard. properly investigate what happened to them. it is important that victims and survivors have confidence in the inquiry. the inquiry is an independent inquiry and up to the inquiry chairman to work with survivors and victims, which i know the inquiry chairman has been doing. i will certainly ensure the secretary has heard the representations that the honorable lady has made and take away what she said and consider very carefully what she said. we want to work in interest of the victims and survivors. >> prime minister will be aware the commitment to our present personnel and families by way of the armed forces is a work in progress. we have made important moves and

there's much more to do. take this opportunity to ensure this house of her personal commitment to the values and promises set out in the government and lend support, efforts to continue the work begun to ensure personal affections and families and the sacrifice they have all made for our country. >> my honorable friend is absolutely right. i know she has championed the armed forces covenant and a great proponent. everybody in the house owes a great amount of gratitude for the armed forces for what they do to keep us safe and secure. it's important it's not just a responsibility for the government. we should all be working to ensure that those who have served us and served us well do not face disadvantages. it's why we put money into forces to help them with houses and the figure is 200 million.

we must continue to do this. i absolutely commit to ensuring this is a government that continues to support our veterans and members of armed forces. >> karl turner. >> last year, my 25-year-old nephew committed suicide after a very short period of depression. as referred for talking therapy counseling but warned him it would be at least six months before he got an appointment. mr. speaker, these treat m treatments are a dangerous waiting game and a lottery. what is the prime minister doing to solve this crisis? >> can i first of all recognize and commend the honorable gentleman for raising a personal experience he has of the terrible tragedy that can occur when mental health problems are

not properly dealt with. he raises a very serious issue. it's a serious issue for everybody in this house on how nhs treats mental health. it's why we have established this parody of mental helt and physical health. we are seeing record levels of funding. talking therapies, which are very effective and we have been introducing waiting time standards in relation to talking therapy. i accept there is more to do. those with mental health problems are properly treated and given the care and attention they need. it is an issue not just for them, the whole of our society. >> david amess. >> my honorable friend became prime minister in dramatic and extraordinary circumstances. in my judgment, she has proved more than capable of rising to the many challenges -- it was

not my right honorable friends fault that the report took seven years or more than 10 million pounds in terms of cost. now that we know that parliament was misled, would my right honorable friend reassure me that she has a cunning plan to ensure that action is taken? >> i thank my honorable friend for his comments. it was -- obviously what the report did was an important task. although it criticized the way information had been handled in a number of aspects, it did not say that people had set out deliberately to mislead. i think it's important that we recognize that. it is important, also, that we learn the lessons from the report and that's why the national security adviser is leading a piece of work and

exercise to do precisely that. this was a long time coming. it was a serious report. there was much in it. we need to ensure we learn the lessons from it. >> alasdair mcdonnell. >> question six. >> let's hear it. >> the prime minister aware that the foundation and the elements of the 1998 settlement and references in eu approaches and processes leaving the eu would destabilize the foundation of the settlement. the prime minister given any consideration to the extent of the eu withdrawal from the european union and the belfast agreement on the political settlement and do you have a plan to prosect that settlement? >> can i say to the gentleman, i don't believe there's any reason to believe the outcome of the

referendum will undermine the absolute rock solid commitment of this government and the people of northern ireland to the settlement in the agreement. there is and remain strong support for the entirely peaceful future for northern ireland. that is determined by xhdemocra and consent. we work with others to ensure that future. >> jeremy lefroy. >> thank you. general electric started, shown confidence in the uk economy and my constituents by starting construction of the second of its two new world class research and manufacturing facilities on the business part. would the prime minister meet with general e lek trick and other west midland manufacturers to hear how important supply chains and marge markets free of ter riffs are to them and their

hundreds of thousands of staff? >> i'm delighted to hear the commitment made to starford. it's a commitment to the united kingdom and our future here in the united kingdom. i understand my friend, the trade secretary has met with g.e. to discuss their interest in trade and how to promote it. i want the uk to be a global leader in trade. we are listening to businesses around the country and the importance they place on free trade. >> jim dowd. >> thank you, indeed, mr. speaker. is the prime minister aware of the recent report showing the continuing and alarming increase in average elbow consumption in the uk amongst women? given the numerous health risks associated with excessive health, would the government

re-examine the case and health warnings on all alcoholic health products? >> well, i recognize the honorable gentleman raises in terms of the figures shown and the figures in relation so women and the use of alcohol. of course, i was part as home secretary part of the alcohol strategy the government produ produced. i'm pleased to say at that time, worked well with the industry to encourage them that they could take steps to have an impact on the drinking habits of the nation. >> maggie throup. >> thank you. with the decision to face imminence, it is imperative we invest in in road infrastructure to support the traffic around the area of the new station hubs. with this in mind, will my right honorable friend back my campaign to assure that

residents don't get stuck in a jam? >> well, i seem to recall i first met my honorable friend when she was campaigning on an issue with motorways. she was right. in order to support the inf infrastructu infrastructure, we need the right road infrastructure needs to be there. boosting roads and seeing further economic growth. i understand highways are looking at the issues in the east midlands, looking at bringing significant roads arnds the site of the midlands hs 2 station and going forward and looking at roads in the area. i trust my honorable friend will make her voice heard on this issue as she has in the past. alison mcgovern. >> thank you. as a conservative promised shorter nhs waiting times for

those who need help with mental health. as prescriptions for anti-depressants rise, my constituents need talking therapies have to wait a month for referral and well over four months for treatment. was that manifesto just words or will the prime minister ever deliver? >> here! >> i gave a serious answer to her honorable friend, which is we have been looking at the whole issue of talking therapies and the availability of talking therapies and the waiting times that relate to talking therapies. we do want to improve the options people have for access to talking therapies because they have been shown to be so successful in so many cases. this is something the government is working on and we will continue to work on it to provide, as we have said, that esteem of mental health and physical health.

>> thank you mr. speaker. >> my friend will understand the significance of transport for southwest london and wimbledon. could my friend assure me you support two and ask the secretary of state to set out the timetable for the delayed consultation? >> i can absolutely give the commitment we continue to support it. we are waiting to see a robust business case and a proper funding proposal in relation to it. my right honorable friend, the transport sector will be setting out the timetable in relation to this. i can assure my honorable friend that we are well aware of his interest in the wimbledon aspects of this and the needs of the local area are being taken into account. yasmin qureshi. >> mr. salespeopler, over the

last three months, 150 people died, 600 blinded by the use of pellet guns, 60,000 injured, many critical, unexplained disapirnss, food and medicine shortages. will the prime minister meet with me to discuss the hugh mant rights abuses for the presh mery salespeople and the u.n. in 1948? can she raise this -- >> extremely grateful to the honorful lady. prime minister? >> she sets out her case and the issues she's identified in relation to this. i take the same view as this government has since it came into power, the issue of kashmir is the issue of pakistan to deal with and sort out. the foreign secretary heard her reputation -- her representations and i'm sure will be interested in taking those issues up with her.

>> thank you mr. speaker. several months ago, i raised the issue of enhanced medical assistance with the former prime minister. i then wrote to the new prime minister. now with a campaign to liberate the mosul ongoing, will my honorable friend meet with me to discuss if we can provide specialists here in the uk for ten vets for seriously wounded and ensure the forces on the ground are getting all the support they need. i understand there are heavy weapons and basic equipment. >> my honorable friend is right. this is an issue he has raised before. i first say, obviously, what we have seen is the coalition activity takes place is actually having some impact and is having an impact as we wish it to in relation tod daesh.

his question or to provide a field hospital and field medical capabilities from the united kingdom. we do continuely review what we are doing in terms of support of the coalition and, of course, p the training that we are providing for the peshmerga, that does include training and the provision of medical activities. >> mr. speak ei'm sure we all recognize a movement is not a long-term solution to ongoing humanitarian crisis. but can the prime minister tell us what the government is going to do to learn from the experiences and to speed up acceptance of vulnerable individuals as it committed to under the lord dobbs scheme? >> individuals are already being brought to the kingdom under the jobs amendment. the 20,000 that will be brought to the uk over the course of this parliament and in addition to the 3,000 vulnerable people, children and others who we will be bringing from middle east and

north africa working with unhcr and all of thyself ese to make t is right for the individuals to come here to the united kingdom and that they have the support when they get here. as this country, the second biggest bilateral donor in relation to aid and we are able to support and provide for more people in region and i think that's absolutely right thing to do. >> thank you, mr. speaker. around heathrow, legal air quality limits being breached. noise pollution has increased. that's according to heathrow data. can the prime minister explain how a third runway can be delivered and comply with pollution legal requirements? does she agree environmentally heathrow is not good enough and cannot possibly be both bigger and better.

>> the government looked very closely at this of all three schemes proposed by the airport's commission. we took extra time to look at those from the decision to increase airport capacity in the southeast. we wanted to look more particular at the air quality issues. the evidence shows that air quality standards can be met as required by all three of the schemes, including the northwest run way at heathrow. but my honorable friend raises an issue that's about more than airports because the question of air quality is also about road transport and that's why we are looking to do more in relation to the -- what we're doing for air quality. it's why, for example, i'm pleased to see that we're at such a leading edge in the provision of electric vehicles. >> the prime minister's real plan for brexit seems to be to pick winners, to cut a special deal for the city of london and

let the bankers avoid the dire consequences of leaving the economic union. wales has an economic -- has an exploding economy with the 5 billion pounds trade surplus last year and 200,000 jobs dependent on trade with the european union. a soft brexit for our friends, a hard brexit for everyone else. will she cut a similar deal for wales? >> i'll be cutting the best deal for the united kingdom, all parts. >> george freeman. >> every year, hundreds of people are diagnosed, suffer and usually die from rare disease like cystic fibrosis and rare cancers for which there has been no treatment or which fe drugs are extremely prohibitive. we set out a new model that they use genetic and data leadership to get quicker access and discounted prices. will they join me in welcoming that review?

and encouraging them to implement it speedily? >> well, i certainly join my friend. this simm portent in terms of patients being able to get quicker access to drugs and treatments. it is -- i think the united kingdom has established a leading role. my honorable friend, i'll pay him tribute for the work he's done. they'll be looking specifically at the recommendations from that report but we'll be doing so in light of recognizing if we can take opportunities to -- through the national health services to be encouraging the development of new drugs in the benefits of patients, we should do so. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister just told us there are record levels of spending going into our mental health services. our health secretary stood there the 9th of december and told us the proportion of funding going into mental health from every one of our ccgs should be

increasing. why is it 57% of ccgs in our country are reducing the proportion of spend in mental health? yet another broken promise. where will we have real equality for mental health in our country? >> the fact that i set out the record spending levels on mental health is absolutely right. but i've said in response to a number of people who questioned this is we recognize there's more for us to do in mental health. we should have cross-party support in doing just that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. speaking outside 10 downing street on the day she became prime minister, if you suffer from mental health, can i welcome my right honorable friend's commitment to mental health expressed on that day and her responses today and can i ask her what step she is taking to make sure the bold ambitions of the government's five-year

forward view for mental health are achieved. >> i'm pleased to say what we see is that since 2009-'10, around 750,000 more people are accessing talking therapies and 1400 more are accessing mental health services every day compared to 2010. that's up by 40%. but my honorable friend who has particular expertise in this area is right that we need to do more. that's why we are continuing to invest in mental health services and increase the standards that we provide. >> finally, mr. greg mullholland. >> just 20 children are diagnosed with inoperable brain tumors every year. and yet despite earlier indications nhs england turned

that down for funding despite being affordable. will you meet with me to discuss how to get through this blockage and get the treatment these children need. >> i'm very happy to look at the issue the honorable gentleman has raised and what can be done to take that forward. >> order. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday morning from 9:00 eastern until just after noon -- >> the british empire and its commonwealth last for a thousand years. then will still say this was their finest hour. >> we're live for the 33rd international churchill conference in washington, d.c.,

focussing on the prime minister's friends. british historian andrew roberts, author of "masters and commanders." how four titans won the war in the west. 1941 to 1945. and later on saturday at 7:00, texas general land office commissioner george p. bush, jose menendez and musician phil collins talk about the spanish mission the alamo at the 2016 texas tribune festival in austin. >> the memories i have of my impressions of that time were this group of people were going, and they knew they were going to die, but they went. or they were there. crockett went, but there was something very noble and very, you know, romantic. i've learned that it wasn't quite as black and white. and that's one of the things i think would be good in this day and age that we put it into context. >> sunday evening at 6:00, on american artifacts -- >> macarthur is up front.

also notice he's not wearing a weapon. he'd often lead attacks carrying nothing but that riding crop that you see in his left hand. and the men looked at this and realized, hey, if the colonel, and later the brigadier, if the colonel can take it, well, i can take it, too. >> we visit the macarthur memorial in norfolk, virginia, to learn about the early life of douglas macarthur who commanded allied forces in the pacific during world war ii. and at 8:00 -- >> the great leaders also serve as conscience in chief with the highest level of integrity, with their moral compass locked on true north so we can always count on them to do the right thing when times get tough or when no one is looking. >> author talmadge boston explains his ten commandments for presidential leadership. what they are and provides examples of presidents who excelled at each one. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org.

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. coming up on c-span3, american history tv features world war ii programs from the reel america series. next, why we fight. a 1943 film on the battle of russia. then also from 1943, know your ally. britain, a film introducing american soldiers to the uk. after that, the 1944 film "the negro soldier" tracing the history of african-american service in the military. and later, also from 1944, the hidden army. a look at the impact of working women in factories on the victory over germany.