>> if for instance the french came to us and said we should work together because there is a problem, either in close of zero or -- in cause of low -- in kosovo, we should do so in a french venture or vice versa, but we have the capability to do so, as in the balkans, for instance. some people say this was like the end of the british armed forces being independent. that is ridiculous. it does not affect the independence of the british armed forces at all. we can have more a400-m's, better tanker aircraft, more effective armored vehicles. we can save money on nuclear research, all of which we can put back into research for more effect.

>> as you just said, you are going to lisbon tomorrow. what is coming out of it as the moment? is it going to be a landmark summit? the strategic concept process is a split between those who want territorial limits and want to see -- and those who want to see -- >> i think the strategic concept going in, it if you read enough boring official documents, i think the strategic concept was beautifully clear in how it was written, and i told them that i think it is very clear. i think it is a good vision for nato, which is both about european defense but also being able to act collectively for our wider security as we do in afghanistan. i think what comes out of the council is real solidarity over

afghanistan, that we are making progress, we must do this together, fill the training mission, and i think that should be the preeminent conclusion. >> the strategic defense to you, places emphasis on the importance of the world. as you know, the responsibility .f this is being transposed the editorial content will be decided by the bbc. how do you think this will impact services? >> i think, as you say, the foreign secretary has the determination of where, and the bbc has editorial control. it seems to me that is the right division. this was a good agreement with the bbc.

the bbc should not be immune from the difficult spending decisions the department had to make, and the agreement where they fun part of the world service and is a six-year freeze of the licensee, it seems to me that is quite a fair agreement for all concerned, having a freeze for six years. >> in terms of the importance of the bbc world service, what was said just now about green governance and having an understanding of the importance of the environment and in terms of global security -- is that something you will make sure is

put in the arrangements? >> all of the editorial independence, but i think they have had -- they have been quite effective with good thinking on the environment. when i was in china recently, there is a fantastic program in chinese schools encouraging children to think about the environment. i think it is something about our power institutions, if you like, which is the bbc and the british council are good examples of those. >> the creation of the national security council as a recommendation of the -- this is a concern about the coordination of counter- terrorism policy. can you tell us practically how it works with regards to a country like yemen? we all accept that terrorism does not have any boundaries. a parcel bomb was found to have

originated in yemen. ncc would meet monthly to consider strategy. presuming that we started a strategy and yemen. how would that strategy be implemented, which would diminish the risk to human? >> national security council meets every week. and the way i want it to work is all the ministers have a role in national security. so energy, business, treasury, home office, prime minister -- in addition, if you like the experts, you got the chief of the defense stuff, the heads of the security services. if we are discussing resilience, having people from the environment agency, the idea is it meets every week. it normally has an update on the key priorities -- terrorism,

afghanistan, to make sure we are getting decision makers that are getting the latest information from the experts. each week we try and have a discussion about a particular issue that needs a strategic approach. so we had very good discussions on pakistan and on yemen and on looking at terrorism in northern ireland and other subjects. yemen is a good example where we have a range of engagement with yemen. obviously we have a big a budget. we have a bilateral relationship. -- a big aid budget. we have a bilateral relationship. we have a relationship in terms of security. we use all of those tools to make sure that what is happening in yemen is moving in the right direction.

it is a country with great difficulties, as you know. there is huge poverty with declining oil resources. massive population growth. rebels in the north, rebels in the south. it is a very challenged and also a base for sockeye debt in the arabian peninsula. but what we need to -- it is a very challenged and also a base for al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. we ought to be thinking across government rather than just relying on the foreign office for bilateral relations. >> you are the chief of the service, not being a civil servant. >> i missed -- the national security adviser, peter rickets -- >> does it come beneath the right -- >> the reason that peter is

doing a brilliant job is he has brought the organization together very well. but one of the reasons he has done is so well as having come from the foreign commission has the foreign office buying into the whole process. it is a much more collective way of making foreign policy. i certainly would not rule out in the future having a different sort of -- i think the key fit is to make sure -- what i am trying to do is whether we are discussing foreign policy to have a more collective discussion at the center, which the prime minister should try and chair rather than be the chief executive of. >> we are focusing on terrorism. being taken from -- off the coast of somalia, are we doing enough internationally to combat

the situation? >> it is a very good question. we are trying, but as you can see with the level of piracy and hostages being kidnapped, the world efforts in all of africa is not as effective as it should be. i think the basic problem is somalia, that you can have as many ships -- and there are quite a few. while somalia is an ungovernable country, it is extremely difficult. there is a number of factors brought there. >> prime minister, give some insights how the national security council is working. i wonder if i could program one or two more points. first of all, could the competition changed? only the 12th of may when it was announced that the department secretary was -- the secretary

of state saw energy and climate change -- you have implied that he is now a full member. >> i have not got the list in front of me, but certainly for the discussions when we are discussing carriers, defense -- remember that they were both there. the key national-security issues -- i do not know exactly. i can let you know. but andrew mitchell is certainly -- >> who actually determines the agenda? in the meeting each week, it is the international development agenda. is it driven by foreign policy or defense consideration? >> it is driven by national security concerns, it is set on the advice of the national security adviser. so far it has had quite a lot of

discussions there really do -- it can play a huge import role. we have made some changes to developing policy and how focused -- and have focused did more on national security concerns. so we are doing more in terms of broken states and more on conflict prevention. i know that is contentious to some people, but i think that is important. >> it is not contentious, but there is concern obviously what you would call the securitization of development. first there is the budget in afghanistan. and in pakistan we are doing so as well. the two questions that follow is, to what extent do you think the increased development budget actually improves national security? how can you reassure people that it does that in a way that delivers paula -- policy reduction in development rather

th sustaining defense activities or more conventional security? >> putting my cards on the table, in order to make the argument for a growing budget at a time of -- i think we need to correctly bring up and the argument for the budget. there is a moral argument, which is either in a time of difficulty there are people desperately poor in other parts of the world that we should be supporting, and that is part of the reason for the budget, and that is why a lot of the money goes to the poorest people in the poorest countries. but i think we should expand the argument and say quite clearly that the budget is also about conflict prevention and trying to stop upstream things that will cost even more money down stream, whether that is vast migration, climate change, conflict prevention -- preventing a conflict is always cheaper than taking part in it. currently, we should be clear

that the developed -- frankly, we should be clear that development budget also gives britain clout in the world and influence in the world. i really feel that. when you sit around the table of the g8 or the g20 and you are discussing haiti or pakistan, often the modern equivalent of the battleship is action. the c-17 loaded with eight, the officer that will go in and help deliver water -- they are real tools of foreign policy and influence and half in the world. i do not think we should be embarrassed about that. >> we may have to persuade the wider public. the other thing that relate on climate change, you talk about mass migration, the extent to which climate change in poor countries could lead to people being displaced or people migrating even to these shores. there was a two-part

international financial initiative. is that all going to become part of development systems, targeted specifically at poor countries? >> my understanding is there are very strict rules for what qualifies as oda spending. we will make sure that we are within those rules. there is a limit put on the amount that can be spent on climate change and climate change finance, and we will be within those rules. i have to mention a bit of work myself to find out what other countries are spending on climate finance because i want to see that others are following the lead that we have taken. so perhaps i can let you into the secret when i find out. >> thank you for that. we have evidence from the permanent secretary and her team to the committee, which indicated across the government budget that would amount to about 7.5% of our overseas

development assistance, which is within the range that the previous government set as a target, that 10% to be the upper limit. your government has not repeated that particular guarantee, but do you accept -- >> my understanding is that we accept what was previously there. we have to make sure that even as we make a slightly refresh argument for the development budget, we have to keep people's confidence that this is money that is helping the poorest in the world. i personally think that conflict and conflict prevention is one of the most importt drivers -- is the best way to prevent poverty, so we should not be embarrassed by the change. >> to afghanistan -- that is where a significant increase in the budget has taken place -- $700 million over the period, a 47% increase. to what extent is that going to

be spent? our defense engagement is in helmand. one would assume that development spending is not confined to that. how will it be distributed both within helm and and across the rest of afghanistan? and will there be sector priorities? >> we have been redoing a number of things. one is the support directed at helmand, where we are providing clean water, we have been livelihood,rmers'' and we are also putting money as well into direct government support to try and build the capacity of that government to raise its own revenue. in the end we have got to try and build and afghanistan that is not so dependent on foreign aid and support, so we are doing direct government to government support where we are helping

them build the capacity to run the government, which is challenging. for instance, we are spending $20 million supporting the -- 20 million and tax revenues have gone to 1.2 $8 billion. that is a good example of capacity building at the center of government. >> but there are some success stories in afghanistan. the commitment on health and education and the liberator's improved. what can you do to reassure people to make sure that we are doing is working. before you answer that question? there is of this concern about level of corruption within the system. i'm concerned that president karzai's crackdown on corruption is lacking in commitment. is there anything you can do to reassure people that the money is being effective? secondly, that there is a genuine recognition that

corruption is the worst way to ensure people will have confidence in future delivery? >> it is extremely difficult. our aid programs are seen across the world as being relatively good at making sure the money gets to the frontline and is not diverted in support of corruption. we have to do what we can to reassure people about that. i think we need to explain with relation to afghanistan the reason for national security -- we are not going to create it a perfect country, with just one and afghanistan that can protect its own country and deny space to terrorists we help build up that country's capacity in all the ways that you suggest. that is the first part of the answer, and the development picture is a subsidiary to that. >> i think the distribution of the previous budget increase to

20% in helmand, 8% in afghanistan. has that report significantly changed in the increased budget? >> all the figures i have here is that 50% is channeled through the government, so i do not have the helmand, the rest of the country right here. but i am sure i can get that for you. >> prime minister, the justification of still being in afghanistan has been to prevent the return of al qaeda. it is quite important to distinguish between the taliban and al qaeda, who are international terrorists. are you still -- do they still think that al qaeda will return to afghanistan? >> that is the advice, yes, because taliban is a term that covers a huge range of different

people. from one end, tribes who have been ignored either by the government or by private security firms or whatever else who have taken up arms are insurgents but who are not really connected to the sort of taliban movement. it goes all the way from their right up to people who do still have a link and a strong association with al qaeda. there are many degrees in between. is it the case that if literally we left now and afghanistan was left as a basket case country with taliban controlling part of it, with all of the bad people that we know are in the tribal areas of pakistan, that they could return to afghanistan and reestablish a base there -- yes, that is the case. i think the state -- i think the

success is that we are having more technical success on the ground in helmand. because we have a effective strategy of squeezing this problem from both sides and serious attrition of al qaeda in the tribal areas of afghanistan, i think that is why we're having some success. but if you pull back either in pakistan or afghanistan, you create a larger space for al qaeda to exist, and part of that could be in afghanistan if we were not there. i think it is important to think about it. >> the military tell us that we are treated to success on the ground. but one is left with the feeling when the military starts going down, that the taliban will come back, will reoccupy ground that the military holds unless we can start talking to

them and negotiate a peaceful settlement. but that does mean having talks at a high level. do you agree that we should start talking to the taliban sooner rather than later? >> this is something for the afghan government to take the lead on and determine. the way i see it is this. most counterinsurgencies the world over through history have ended through a combination of force of arms and some sort of political settlement. president karzai and i spoke this morning to what he has said, that people who take a quite fundamentally strong religious view -- 7 pashtuns -- southern pashtuns that have a relationship with the taliban,

becoming part of the future of afghanistan. so some combination of success -- i think that is part of the answer and it should be led by the afghans. >> but do you think the afghans are strong enough to do that? >> i think that what i have observed in going to afghanistan every year is a change for the positive. they relationship between afghanistan and pakistan is much better than it was. in a way, that is very important to make sure that any form of reconciliation strategy may work. >> there was a one-day seminar. it was a useful? >> yes. it goes back to our thinking

earlier when i was very keen with the new prime minister having taken over existing afghan strategy. while i agree with the main tenets, thinking about what we were doing and how we were doing it, getting to the end point we would want, which is in afghanistan running its own affairs and our troops getting back home as quickly as possible. so getting restored, all the top commanders in helmand, a number of people came, and it was a good session to try and think about what we were doing and how best to do it. >> and that was a number of people, people who agree and disagree with the government's's policies. don't you think that kind of strategic thinking needs to be permanently available to the national security council and the cabinet if the cabinet is

going to effectively lead national strategy? >> i do. we are in an afghan situation that is critical. this year and next year, we need to make really good tactical progress on the grounds of that people can see we are safeguarding the population and denying the taliban space and making progress with the other things i talked about. so if it is a time to have a strategic rethink. i just wanted a stop and check to see how we should be touching the side. since then, it has been much more national security focused, a bit more hard-headed about what is achievable. >> order. order. >> to what extent do think -- we are talking about t afghans' being strong enough what if the

united states is opposed it -- is involved here? as you know, they are opposed to the reconciliation talks. can you make them change their mind? >> my experience is that it is part of the relationship between britain and america that works best talking candidly as friends rather than to do it too much in a sort of public forum. the idea that there is some great disagreement between different countries in the alliance about the combination of military success and a political settlement, i do not think that is the case. >> do you think afghanistan has to be involved in any political settlement? >> the short answer is yes because we have to convince pakistan that it is in its interest to have a stable

afghanistan as a neighbor, and we have to convince pakistan that terrorism in pakistan is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and it has to be defeated. i think you can see with the pakistanis have done. they are really putting a lot of pressure. we would like to put even more pressure, but putting pressure on the bad guys. >> by 2013 it will become very clear how the policies are working. if it does not work, do we have a plan b with this? >> you have got to give plan and a everything you have got, and i think general petraeus' plan has worked. i have said what i have said about the afghanistan training of the army and police. i think if we do all those things, there is no reason why we should not succeed.

>> can i come back to that plan b? but suppose that the targets which president karzai has sent himself and the targets for which we want to see achied are not achieved. do we then nevertheless withdraw combat troops from afghanistan, come hell or high water? >> i will be as clear as i possibly can be. i said very clearly that i did not want combat troops in large numbers in afghanistan for a very good reason, which is this. we have been in afghanistan since to the someone. we have been in helmand since to the six. britain by 2015 will have played a huge role, made a massive

contribution, massive sacrifices for an independent afghanistan. i set the deadline of 2015, and, yes, it is a deadline. i think deadlines helto focus minds, help to focus the mind of the afghan government. in my judgment, that is the right approach for the united kingdom. we are five years away from that point. we have a huge amount of effort to give, and we will put our shoulders to the wheel. we are the second biggest contributor. we are making an extraordinary contribution to that country, including eight. i think the british public needs to know there is an and point to this, and it is 2115. >> why do you take this view in relation to afghanistan when you did not take it to the rock --

to iraq? >> i am in the position of taking responsibility for what we are doing in afghanistan. in the end, you have to make a judgment as prime minister what strategy you want to set, and do you want to set a time limit on it. i have taken the decision that we should. different situations in iraq and afghanistan -- i have been pretty clear on. we have already been in helmand for four years. by theime we are not in a combat role with much reduced troop levels, it will be more like nine years. that is a massive contribution to the security of the country, and i think we should use the fact we have given so much, not spend so much, spent so much life to encourage others to make sure that they play.

even if they can i get a combat role, make sure they are in a training mission helping the country. yes, of course we work in a combat role. but should britain go on as -- where we are helping the country, helping train the military, helping support the treasury. because i think we have learned the lesson in the past of walking away from afghanistan. >> so you said what you said in canada in order to reassure the british public. with some pressure coming up on you from the british public to mixup -- was their pressure coming on you from the bridge public to make such a statement? >> looking at the defense arguments and the policy -- foreign policy arguments and the national security arguments, to

take the country through what is a difficult time -- we have faced some great forces in afghanistan -- and wanted to make sure that we could take the country in the most united way we can through the situation of national good and take people with us. that is actually important. >> you will see the twin fold risk that we might -- we might be encouraging the taliban to think if they can wait it out. and that might concern the local residents of afghanistan to support the taliban rather than us. >> the second? >> the second risk is that we leave afghanistan and leave the job of combat troops to allies, which is not surely in the british tradition. >> let me reiterate as best i

can. first of all, i think that the 2015 deadline takes the pressure off what the other governments have felt, which is i must insist on a troop removal by that month or that month. that is a much more dangerous situation to get yourself into because these are conditions based on the ground, and we must rush -- we must not rush it and not get it right. >> i would like in motion of conditions based. >> this is five years we're talking. this is a long. of time. secondly, leaving afghanistan, what i will say is this. we have 10,000 troops in afghanistan. we have been in the toughest part of the country for the august period of time. when you look at the price we

paid in the casualties we have taken, we can hold our heads up high in nato and say we have paid a huge part in trying to get this country to a better place. i think the nato members respect and understand that, and i am extraordinarily proud of what our troops have done. what i have tried to do is first of all make sure that the mission, we have a proper spread of troops to deliver that mission. that is why i was absolutely clear we had to come out of sanguine, that we were overstretched. there are tens thousand u.s. troops, 2000 al qaeda troops. we have seen people who have been extraordinary things, and i have been there and seen it myself. but it was right to make the decision to focus on central helmand where we have enough troops to do the job properly.

that is now happening. that was absolutely the right decision at the time it was taken. the second point is that it will be a serious amount of time that we will have been there, and i think a whole lot of people would say we have raised our role exactly to the -- >> we are reminded week by week of the names who have given their lives by this very costly conflict. we want to have these occasions more often than your predecessors did. is there anything you would like add? >> i suppose on a happier note, first of all, it is the pleasure to be the first prime minister to ever have been appearing

before a net elected committee. everyone will want to put on record that in the house of commons, the role where we are looking forward them that. but we're looking forward to that. whether or not there ought to be a bank holiday, i think we have -- even if it is the weekend, this is entirely a decision for the formal -- for the royal family. >> that sounds like a decision. thank you. order, order. >> thank you. >> tonight, a panel discussion on whether or not civil discourse is a thing in the past in politics. we will hear from democratic

strategist, brazil, radio talk- show host crowley. a former ambassador to the united nations, john bolton, will be asked about the different -- will talk about the different kinds of government throughout the world. the event is hosted by the new criterion magazine. you can see it tonight at 9:55 eastern on c-span. here are some programs c-span is airing thursday, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. jeff bridges talks about reducing world hunger. chief justice john roberts on the role of the supreme court. and lawyers discuss the impact of retired supreme court justice john paul stevens. former president bill clinton presents the liberty award manual to tony blair.

president obama now issues at a pardon for two thanksgiving turkeys. two 21-week old 45-pound turkeys were flown in for the white house presentation. >> ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states. [applause] >> please, everybody, have a seat. good morning. i have my two trusty assistance here for one of the most important duties that i carry out as president. before everybody heads home for thanksgiving, there is one official duty. i'm sworn to uphold as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. today i have the awesome responsibility of granting a presidential pardon to a pair of turkeys. for the record, let me say that it feels pretty good to stop at least one shellacking this

november. [laughter] this year's national turkey goes by the name of apple, and his fettered under study is appropriately named cider. they are being presented by the chairman of the national turkey federation. i want to point out that hubert seems very comfortable with that turkey. [laughter] as well as the man who helped raise and handle them since birth. where is ira? give ira a big round of applause for raising the turkeys. apple and cider came to us from the foster farms ranch outside

modesto, california. out of about 20,000 turkeys born at the farm this summer, 25 were selected for a final competition that evolved strutting their stuff before a panel of judges. with an eclecti mix of music playing in the background. that this kind of like a jersey -- a turkey version of "dancing with the stars." except the stakes for the contestants was much higher. only o pair would survive and win the big prize -- life. and an all-expenses-paid trip to washington where they have been living it up on corn feed at the w hotel. the hotel has really been putting them up it is great advertising. if you want to stay at the w.

after today, apple and cider will spend their retirement at the same beautiful place our first president spent his -- mount vernon, virginia. later this afternoon our family will deliver two turkeys who did not quite make the cut to martha's table, which is an organization that does extraordinary work helping folks who are struggling here in d.c., and i wanto thank the people at the 30 farm in pennsylvania who donated these turkeys two years in a row. this of course is what is truly meant by thanksgiving, a holiday that asks us to be thankful for what we have, and generous to those who have less. it is a time to spend with the ones we love and a chance to show compassion and concern to people we have never met. it is a tradition that has brought us together as a community before -- since before we we're a nation, when the

ground we are standing on was nothing but wilderness. the simple act of survival was often the greatest blessing of all. later, president lincoln declared the first national day of thanksgiving in the midst of the civil war. during the depths of the great depression, local businesses gave donations, and charities open their doors to families who did not have a place to celebrate thanksgiving. in times of war, our military has gone through great lengths to give our men and women on the front lines a turkey dinner and a taste of home. so in america we come together when times are hard. we do not give up, we do not complain, we do not turn our backs on one another. instead, we look after one another, pitch in, and we give what we can. in the process, we revealed to the world what we love so much about this country. that is who we are, and that is to thanksgiving reminds us to be. i hope everyone takes some time

during the holiday season to give back and serve their community in some way. i also want to take a moment to say how grateful i am to the men and women for serving this country bravely and selflessly in places far away from home right now. you and your families are in our thoughts and in our prayers, and you make me so very proud to be your commander in chief. so on behalf of michelle, sasha, malea, and myself, i wish everybody a wonderful and happy and safe thanksgiving. now it is my great honor as well to give apple and cider a new lease on life. so, as president of the united states, you are hereby pardoned from the thanksgiving dinner table. may you have a wonderful and joyful life at mount vernon.

god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. all right. make a little moas. .oiseke a little malloy i >> on the back of the head. >> yeah, buddy. can somebody explain to me what waddle thing is about? >> all the blood collects in the waddle. >> i am glad we --

[laughter] thank you. have a good life. is this the rest of your family? >> this is my family. my nephew, jake. my brother, al. >> are you going to miss these guys? >> we have plenty more. >> nice to see you. ["stars and stripes forever" plays]

>> from barack obama to george washington, learn more about the nation paused presidents on line at the c-span video library. biographies, interviews, a historical perspectives, and more. it is washington your way. republicans have gained control of the u.s. house, and as of now they have picked up 64 seats, two races still undecided. democrats currently have 191 members. republicans, 242. it is still hard to know when we will have winners announced. one california district and one in new york, both with a republican democrat running, have yet to call a winner. one republican member will be bill flores of texas.

he takes over east central texas, including waco and college station. he is an energy company executive who has never held public office. the c-span networks we provide college of -- coverage of politics, american history. all available on radio, television, on-line trephined our content any time on the c- span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus, local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. earlier today irish prime minister brian cowen released his economic recovery plan at a news conference, a plan that called for spending cuts and new

taxes. ireland currently has a record deficit. from dublin, this is about 40 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i wish to say a few introductory remarks. today we have come to announce a four-year plan between now and 2014. to let them know that while we have a challenging time ahead, we will go through as we have in the past. the crisis that has come to ireland that we are dealing with since the middle of 2008, which we need to set out for the details as to how we deal with this between now and 2014 is similar in some respects to

other crises and other countries at other times. those countries came through that crisis. they came through those problems. this is a time for us to pull together as a people, time for us to confront this challenge and to do so in a united way. to do so in a way which ensures those who have the most will make the most contribution, those who have leased will be protected to the greatest extent we possibly can, that no one can be sheltered from the contribution that has been made towards national recovery. i think is important in conveying to people why we can have a hope and confidence in the future. it is to say that the basic idea behind this plan is to move our present levels of revenue, levels of revenue of 2003, up to 2006. people can recall what their tax

situation was in 2006, and that will give them an idea as to where they will stand on that side. in relation to government spending, we have to reduce our spending from 2010 back to 2007 levels. and of course central to all of this is not just the cuts in spending or the increase in taxes, but it is about growing the economy, identifying those sectors which are proving to be competitive, which are ensuring that we are burning our way in the world as we move to a past that we are earning our way in the world. miti 1.8 million people at home in jobs -- maintaining 1.8 million people at home in jobs. we believe we can grow the economy next year by 2.75%. on average but to me now and 2014. we do that predicated on our

knowledge of the flexibility of our economy and labor markets, how we have improved competitiveness, and how we continue to grow and create jobs. looking at the fact we are a strong diversified economy with a strong multinational sector, a well scaled up irish native industrial base, internationally traded services, building on our national resources and agriculture and tourism, looking to the future with confidence with a well-educated population , the youngest population in europe and the greatest number of graduates, we are smart, resilience, proud people and we will come through this challenge because we love our country and we want to make sure our children have a future here, too. this is an expression of generational solidarity. this is about we now having come through very good times in the

previous sector, unprecedented prosperity for which lessons will be learned, too. we have to make sure in this new set of circumstances we provide the policies and framework that will get us through by 2014. that we will have a public service at that stage that will decide -- where we will have tax rates and tax levels of income tax at 2006 levels, that we would have spending back to what we were spending three years ago. this is something that can be achieved. this is something that the people can envisage, a challenge that can be surmounted and it is one that we must all be determined as a people to overcome. i'm confident that the talents and will and ability of our own people is going to make this a

reality for us as a people. i am confident that the -- i am hopeful that this plan is another confidence-building measure, another signpost along the road towards national recovery, a journey on which we have been on since the crisis began. finally, to say to our people that what we have done for the last 2.5 years has made that week -- has meant that we have made adjustments on the order of 15 billion euros, 14.5 billion euros over three budgets. we face an adjustment over similar size. we will front load this adjustment next year by taking 40% of the requirement by having a $6 billion adjustment in our 2011 budget. this is about us making sure that we plan our way through

these difficulties and that this four-year plan and our budget to be passed and our arrangements to be negotiated and finalized to put the facility in place that will add confidence to our people's capacity to overcome the challenges that we face, those three things can and must happen for our people in the weeks ahead. we are determined as your government to do that. we are appreciative of the assistance from states and european union institutions with whom we are engaged in a constructive way to find a solution to a problem that is not just for ireland to consider or to confront, but for the wider euro area as well. i nd over to john gormely. >> thank you. good afternoon, everyone.

earlier this week the government brought greater certainty about the timing of the general election. this afternoon we present plans to bring greater economic certainty for the coming four years. we must be candid and acknowledged that these are very difficult times for the irish people. we face the biggest economic challenges in the history of the irish state, and we must work with the eu and international counterparts to achieve a good outcome keep ourselves from our current difficulties. we in the green party late great emphasis on protecting education spending in preparation for the plan. we are proud education spending will be increased over the coming period. this is vital to protect the needs of a rising generation. increased spending on education is above all central to efforts to rebuild national prosperity. so for these and other reasons, we have prioritized education.

we have also worked to ensure the best environmental practices at the heart of this plan, minimizing waste and encouraging people to better respect our environment and our resources. we have insisted that what has happened before a fair system of overcharges is introduced. i will again be frank and say that these are elements in the plan, many that are difficult for many people, and we know that we are in our current difficulties because of past mistakes leading to an unsustainable property bubble, further inflated by reckless banking practices. since coming to government in june, 2007, we have worked with our partners to deal with the ensuing problems. we succeeded in bringing in some reforms, but also the appointments of outside people to head the financial regulation

system and the central bank. overall, we in the green party worked hard to conclude this document before you here today, and we believe it is the first crucial step on the road to recovery for the irish economy. this four-year plan is the first of three crucial items which must be achieved ahead of the general election early in the new year. the other two are the budget of 2011, due to represented on the 22nd. this government is determined to meet our responsibilities to successfully conclude these matters and help lay the foundations for a return of confidence and the irish economy, and above all else, ladies and gentlemen, to give the irish people greater hope in the future of this great country. thank you. >> thank you, john.

ladies and gentleman, the government decided in early october to prepare a recovery plan, and i want to thank my colleagues individually and collectively for the enormous amount of work that has gone into this plan. government meetings took place on a constant basis since early october, mornings, afternoons coming evenings, weekends, and weekdays. all of that work was concentrated on rebuilding confidence in this economy, preparing areas where mistakes were made, and the plan has been launched or is being launched today. as the negotiations for the external assistance program for financial support take place. but the work here is the government's work.

as the plan points out, recovery in our economy is beginning to take shape. our our budget deficit will be 11% of gdp. with the benefits of the budget that will be introduced on tuesday, it will decline to 9% next year. our tax revenue this year is somewhat ahead of target so far and spending has been contained. it is expected that our gdp will record a small increase this year, improving on the forecast made at the time of last year's budget. that has happened on the back of strong export growth. indeed, our exports have held remarkably well throughout this downturn. they are expected to grow by 6% in real terms this year. the growth is not just coming from the multinationals. our own indigenous exporters are also building their market share. it is to broad -- is a broad

based recovery driven by exports and demand bite trading partners, and also by significant improvements and competitiveness that have already taken place. it has already been contributed to by our work force and employers. conditions in the labor market are beginning to stabilize. unemployment, of course, is unacceptably high. the register has fallen for two consecutive month, the first time in 2007. of benefit payments will show -- the benefit payments will show a small surplus next year but we are beginning to pay our way in a wider world. all of these data paint a picture of an economy that is returning to growth after a deep and prolonged recession. the purpose of the recovery plan is to plot a course and have sustainable growth in the four years ahead. the plan will dispel

uncertainty, reinforce the confidence of consumers, businesses, and of those whom we trade with and are from outside the country. taxpayers have the benefit of knowing that the changes in the income tax over the life of the plan will bring us to liberals a tense -- the levels of taxation we saw as recently as 2006. taxes paid by all holders will be introduced next year, averaging just over 2000 euros per household by the end of the plan in 2014, and the minimum contribution of 100 euros per household will be the maximum contribution for those most in need, pensioners and those in lower income. the certainty that the plan gives about taxation over the next four years will allow consumers to plan investments and give them confidence to spend in this economy. the revenue measures in the plan will perform an overhaul our tax system, will broaden the

base and provide revenue stabilization so that we can raise the necessary results to pay for public services we are about to see. we know from our experience and the international evidence that a broadly based tax system as its economic growth. it concerns not only the quantity of the revenue raised, but the quality of the measures adopted we will have a tax system that serves an advanced, growing economy. our tax system will continue to incentivize work and incentivize enterprise, incentivize innovation, and incentivize investment. for that reason, all but 5% corporation tax will remain unchanged -- 12.5% corporation tax will remain unchanged during the period. expenditure will be brought back to years and will terms. the numbers at a public service will be reduced by almost 25,000 by 2014. we will not allow this reduction

in numbers to be detrimental to the quality of the public service. that is why we have an agreement with our staff, that is why we have a public service agreement , and and efficiency and productivity will be delivered under this agreement. the reductions in expenditure of focus in the areas of public sector pay, pensions, social welfare, and other programs relating to the capital program. it is important to understand that they are the key drivers of expenditure, and that is why these have to be protected. careful truces have been made in determining expand -- careful choices that been made in determining expenditure over the next four years. investment in education is a priority for the whole government. so is investment in innovation and enterprise. these will all be maintained at high levels to foster the growth potential in our economy. the labor market must be reformed to remove barriers to job creation and to incentivize

growth and to make it worthwhile to employee and be employed. the minimum wage will be reduced, and the short-term focus return of the agreements that apply in agricultural, catering, and construction sectors is underway agreements cannot endanger jobs or prevent the creation of jobs for younger persons. this plan is not just about expenditure assessments and taxation arrangements but these are realistic strategies for growth in this economy. the strategy is set out in the plan both in terms of the conditions that will apply to reducing cuts and in terms of each sector of the economy and the divestment of each sector of the economy and how the state can assist in developing different sectors of the economy. by providing certainty to consumers, the plan will

provide certainty that the economy desperately needs. it is important for us to recall that the economy has had strong, balanced growth in the past, and the purposes of this plans to resume the economy on that track way of balanced growth. there are some matters in the past to which of necessity cannot be fully disclosed until budget on the seventh of december. the details of taxation within the annual budget and that will be the case this year. if, in your perusal of the plastic, you find it short in detail in some of those areas, it is because more precise announcements will be made on budget day, as has been the custom and tradition. it is a rational and sensible plan and bring us out of the downturn that we are already getting out of. it will he ensure that as we climb out of it, we will do

so on a sustainable basis for the teacher, ensuring that the next generation can enjoy standards of living that we have had the privilege of joining in recent times. -- of enjoying in recent times. >> the greens were very adamant that those fees would not be reintroduced the students contribution to those levels is effectively fees by another name, is it not, minister? >> note, and you will have to await the forthcoming budget to see how we deal with that particular issue. but we always said that education has to be prioritized. and he agreed with this assessment that education was the most important issue, because he had the experience in his own country and in mind when they laid emphasis on education. -- on country in finland when they laid emphasis on education.

again, i emphasize that you will have to await the budget to see where we go with that particular issue. >> this plan is going to cause a lot of hard chip for a lot irish people. do we really need to make savings of as much as 6 billion because the labor leader argues the figure only needs to be 4.5 billion. >> the basis for what we're having in terms of providing a facility for the country is on the basis of a 6 billion adjustment. that is the context under which we are operating. therefore, i don't agree, obviously, with the contention on that point. the second point to make is that, yes, this will ask a lot

of all of our people. but i am confident that people, if we can do this in as fair and equitable way as we possibly can, that people will see that there is a genuine effort to see that the burden is shared appropriately and proportionately and progressively. if people can see that the basic contours, the basic format of this plan is about taxation levels and income tax at the 2006 model and spending at 2007 levels, then people will see over the next four years a progressive improvement in our situation. it is about creating jobs, the conditions under which we can create more jobs for our people. without putting public finances on a more sustainable basis, we cannot have confidence or investment from business and the private sector to drive a job creation. we have got to create those

conditions and work with people who are creating jobs. we believe that implementing this plan by 2014, we can get unemployment under 10% by 2014 by implementing these policies. this is a big priority for our people. it is realistic, and in relation to our spending program, we have to have it affordable for the moneys that the taxpayers are able to provide in the present circumstances. finally, at the end of this plan, of the 40 billion we're spending on foreign services, 40 billion -- of the 48 billion we are spending on foreign services, a 40 billion will be on health, education, and welfare. we must make sure we have an affordable basis from the taxpayers' point of view in providing these services. >> one thing i would really emphasize is that the 4.5 billion was an adequate figure, because i'm sure he has said many times the state is funded

halfway through next year, and then the state runs out of money. gilmor announced that he believes spending more money next year would make it easier for us to borrow money next year. under this plan, our overall borrowing will decline next year to 9%, a single digits. last year we were at 11.7%. this year we have to get to single digits, because every other country in the euro zone is in single-digit borrowing. never mind the single target we have to reach by a 2014. as a minimum next year, we have to get to single-digit levels. that means correction of the 6 billion. everybody has pointed this out. when the commissioner visited dublin, he extended invitations to all the parties to meet him. deputy gilmor chose not to meet him. that is their own business. but they should be informed, and i know deputy kenny accept

the figure. but debbie gilmor should inform himself of the basic facts. if we do not do a correction of 6 billion in this year's budget, we have no credible way of borrowing money to pay for our social welfare, to pay for a public salaries, to pay for our education system and health system. we have to face up to that as an asian and stop pretending that there are -- we have to face up to that as a nation and stop pretending that there are simple cure-alls. >> looking at these figures, it seems that your tax increases are going to be more than we were expecting, in the next budget in particular on income taxes. the figures here will make the average middle-income person was off by 3000 -- worse off by 3000 euros a year. at the bottom end, or reducing

minimum wage, it seems that minimum wage people will be subject to the engine tax for the first time it is that the case? >> no, i think you are anticipating the budget. i don't accept your contention that there are thousands and thousands of euros been taken off, middle income taxpayers in this proposal. we are out looking at approximately 20 euros a week in terms of the individual taxpayer. i accept that, but i don't accept the rather more inflated figures that you give it there. >> "irishtown times -- irish times." you talk about intergenerational solidarity. isn't this an attack on the younger generation? all the pensions are not going to be touched, and yet you are -- older pensions are not granted to touch, and yet you are closing of the jobs to young people.

where the jobs for them? >> well, the answer is that we have to make what are called structured decisions. in other words, what is sustainable in the longer term? we are seeing that in relation to pension provisions, new entrants to employment in the public service. when this four-year period is over and we bring back balance to a public finance and we have order back in the public finances, then, of course, we can forge ahead. our horizons can go beyond 2014, but we must concentrate over the next four years on consolidating our position, reducing what we spend as the country, and basically improving our tax base. we have to have a sustainable taxation system for the level of services we are providing at the moment. and beyond 2014, there will be a policy framework that people can

look at the new policies and new possibilities. in the immediate term ahead, this is what we have to do. we will create jobs by reducing -- we were sent out your to create jobs by improving the environment under which jobs are a creed, by making sure we have more credibility and we have a more competitive industry trade that involves keeping down our costs, making sure that people can solve more -- can sell more. tring circumstances are difficult, but this year -- we had a very bad year last year, we contracted by 9% -- we see manufacturing up this year. we are competing better, we are getting more products and services out to the market in a way that will maintain jobs at home. >> public servants have seen average reductions in take-home pay of 14% apart from the additional taxation over the

last two years. that has happened without industrial disruption. it will play an ongoing part in that. we are looking at public sector pensions any reduction in public sector pensions in this particular plan. we are working and will be working to make sure that there is a reduction in number. that can be done, and the level public service can be maintained, if we work with our staff. in relion to the and the people and their opportunities, by focusing the investment in education, we develop jobs and we develop the human capacity to build and grow this economy. >> "daily telegraph." i am looking at some the details of what you call the deficit dynamic. the assumption seems to me. -- the assumption seems to be very optimistic.

there are warnings that taking this money out of the economy is not going to help with ttp in this period. it also seems that it is not a straightforward fiscal deficit problem. you have a problem with your banks. it seems that your sovereign debt assumptions in this period seem to be optimistic as well. can you tell us more about these assumptions? >> first of all, in relation to get dynamics -- to get dynamics, this is part of the negotiations. i should point out that there was of a substantial correction last year of 4 billion, notwithstanding that we had growth in gdp since. the execution of that particular correction will cause huge damage to the economy and lead to deflation and a lack of growth. it did not happen.

we have to control the spiralling debt and reduce it. we have brought it under control and we are taking a decisive step in reducing that debt and bringing it down to single-digit figures. that is essential for the future of this country, and that is what we are going to do, and that will create confidence in this country in its capacity to manage its own business. >> "sunday times." if you are reducing the minimum and you arereuro going to reform social welfare, is it implicit that the reduction in social welfare over four years will be of a similar order, 11% or 12%? >> in relation to the social welfare issue, we set out in the plan how we are going to go about this. it may involve further cuts in rates during the course of the span, given how well other

activation measures work. we are not avoiding that prospect. but obviously, we will have a very carefully consider that on a budgetary basis year over year. we have a situation where it is a very significant part, and during the good times, quite rightly so, we increase will be on the top living increases -- well beyond the top living increases, doubling the pension at the time. it was a very progressive approach in terms of helping those at the bottom to bring them to a threshold of income. they would not have been contemplated prior to doing that. we now have a situation where we take some steps back in order to go forward again. it is obviously important that we maintain, to the greatest extent we can, many of those

gains. we will not be able to keep all the gains we made, but we have to be conscious that people on low incomes and people on social welfare -- to assist them to the greatest extent weekend with the resources we have available and to grow jobs and opportunities for people. we saw that in the past when we sought a return to growth after the last recession. we were able to bring down fees for the work force for 12 months and were successful in getting people back into the workforce. we have a big job to do here, and there is no simple, easy solution that i can put forward today. but we have to come in making these choices and the budgetary decisions going forward, be mindful of where we expect the burden to fall could we not in a position to say we can shelter people from decisions and maintain them in all circumstances. >> in respect of the inds, do

they include the riability with respect to the banks? >> yes, the current position. again, the forward position is a subject to negotiation. that will be made clear at the conclusion of those negotiations. as i indicated in reply to a previous question. you are right to raise the issue, because it is key to these negotiations, what our european partners are telling us, that we need more capital investment in the banks, more efforts to transfer, and stronger guarantees in our banking system. they are looking to business on the measures the government has already adopted, and the precise cuts to this will be decided at the conclusion of the discussion. [unintelligible]

again, you are anticipating a different press conference, because the negotiations have not concluded. [unintelligible] as fardoesn't, because as the budgetary position is concerned, the for work in the document is a realistic framework for the next four -- the framework in the document is a realistic framework for the next four years. in terms of the realism of this framework, it is correct. >> could i make the point, in addition to bryan said -- brian said -- we are providing for reducing deficits over the next four years, bringing it down to 3%. included in our figures are the deficit requirements of the economy going over that period. if, say, we negotiate and finalize and except the facility for the country it would be possible to cut down some of

that facility instead of the debt we are putting into the figures. the difference would be the difference in if there was the interest rate -- we are putting into our figures with the deficit requirements would be by 2014. [unintelligible] >> the point you were making that apart from this, some of this may be on the banking system. in relation to that, much of the funding their is being talked about as a contingency fund. to provide fire power, and is not necessary -- the national pension reserve fund also stands ready to assist in the banking area, and that is not requiring any additional borrowing. >> your government has pledged

specific investments in a number of major projects in northern ireland. are you determined that the will continue at the thomas lovell? >> -- are you determined that that will continue at the promised level? >> yes, i am determined, and we will be able to proceed on the course we're seeing in reductions in our capital projects. i am confident we can work through those issues and they still have the priority that we would require when the money is required. is a multi-annual project. -- these are multi-annual projects, as you know. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> [speaking foreign language] >> sky news. what consideration has been given to a bilateral low, and under what circumstances do you see taking up the offer? >> we will to the offer of assistance -- we welcome the offer of assistance from britain as to a bilateral loan, and sweden and denmark.

there are a number of funds will make up the full complement of the facility when we finalize our discussions. as we say, those discussions are ongoing and i don't want to say anymore that. let me say that we welcome the offer that has been made. >> the chancellor has been extraordinarily supportive of ireland in this crisis, and we expect a new maturity in the relationship between the united kingdom and ireland. the united kingdom is required on a bilateral basis to be on assistance and we are grateful for that. the of a v -- they have been very supportive, and while we would increase taxation on the plan, it is up the government to decide where those increases would take place. >> bbc news. you have a big financial problem with your government. do you blame yourself for the rest of the world? >> no, we take our

responsibility at all times. clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, one would say that there were certain things you could do differently. but in relation to the fact that we are in any situation, we have to deal with the situation as it is. it is not a question of apportioning blame. the people will speak upon it shortly anyway. what is important for the country is that we bring this plan for word, that is credible, that it is accepted by people with whom we're dealing, acceptable to them, that we bring forward our budget and complete discussions. this country, in the last 10 years before this crisis, showed what it was capable of achieving in terms of growth rates. we overcame his or problems of under investment and underemployment in -- our own

-- historic problems of under investment and under plummet in our own country. this crisis has hit the people part in many respects and people are trying to find direction and a weight forward, trying to plan for themselves and their families. it is a human issue for many people, a very human problem that is affecting many people. but we have to confront the problem and move on, and we have to be able to do that, and we can do that by having our democratic accountability as well, now and in the future. i don't want to get into that debate. that debate will be had with the campaign begins. today is about putting its best foot forward. here is what we need to do to put to rights issues that have been put to write to give ourselves the prospects of prosperity again. we are a people sufficient ability and intelligence to win

our way through this difficulty. i hope that we can do that and don't pull it together. -- and can pull it together. >> an answer from you and john gormley, please, but could you give us an indicative date for the next general election? >> i cannot do that, because i have indicated in broad terms what we're going to do. let the focus remained on today's business and let's see that this is one that has to happen. will we do is put this budget through, enact legislation required to do that, show our commitment to 2011 is set, and then, whenever we have that completed, the people can decide on who they want to cover in the next four years -- to govern in

the next four years to get this applies the implemented. -- get this plan implemented. >> this document is important from an economic point of view, and the preparation that has gone into it. it is enormously important from a political point of view. it sets out realistic options that are open and available to this country in europe ahead. this document has to be the basis of any sensible proposals in the next general election. ellsberg forward is not. -- anything else put forward is not. >> tonight on c-span, a panel discussion on whether or not civil discourse is a thing of the past in politics could be a lawyer from democratic strategist, brazil, radio talk- show host -- donna brazille,

radio talk-show host monica crowley, and others. after that, remarks from former ambassador to the united nations, john bolton, about different threats around the world, and the threats they pose to free-market economies. it is hosted by "did new criterion" magazine and he conceded at 9:55 eastern on c- span -- you can see it at 9:55 eastern on c-span. this thursday on c-span, jeff bridges on reducing youth hunger, jane goodall on her love of nature animals, chief justice john roberts, and later, lawyers discussed the impact of retired supreme court justice john paul stevens, and former president bill clinton presents a medal tony blair. thanksgiving day on c-span.

the house and senate return from their land -- for the lame-duck session on monday. among the issues that house members will deal with after the thanksgiving break, sanctions for former ways and means committee chair charles rangel, a federal spending for the remainder of the budget year, and dicks driving bush administration tax cuts. -- the expiring bush administration tax cuts. the senate returns on monday, and it will look at food because and food imports, and pending after that, federal spending and the bush tax cuts that expire in january we follow the house on c-span and the senate on c- span2. and now, more on the list of elements falling north korea's tuesday -- latest developments on north korea's tuesday attack on the hong kong island. this includes the director of the center for arms control and non-proliferation. this is from south korea's english language channel and is about 20 minutes.

>> coming up on arirang news, the leaders of south korea and u.s. promise a tighter security alliance and stronger sanctions under the case of more provocations by north korea. >> the south korean military raises its surveillance alert. >> south korean officials expected the impact of north korea's attack on the soft economy and financial market to be short-lived. >> and a nuclear scientist says north korea may have more uranium enrichment plans than the ones it recently revealed. >> welcome to arriang news.

-- arirang news. south korean president lee myung-bak was working the phone to discuss the tuesday artillery attack by north korea with leaders of other allied countries, including the u.s. and japan. >> he called on his officials to review the need to change the rules of engagement with p'yongyang. our congressional office correspondent has the top story. >> president lee myung-bak began the day by convening a meeting at the presidential office at about 8:00 a.m. local time to be briefed on the overnight situation and discuss countermeasures against north korea's assault near the western maritime border. the president has canceled its entire schedule for today except a meeting with chairman of the constitutional court of the russian federation. the korean leader ordered his government to determine whether

there is a need to change will the regulations that could allow more active confrontation against regional confrontations and call for a thorough inspection of military strength of the westernmost five small islands located within close firing range of north korea. he repeated his call to take swift and reinforce measures against the north if the regime is to take further provocations, and instructed the ministry of public administration and security to the into ways that ensuring safety and accommodation for civilians on the island. the president also had phone conversations with leaders of allied nations, including the u.s. and japan, to affirm cooperation in dealing with the no. 3 during the almost hour- and-a-half conversation, united states president barack obama and the korean leader agreed to hold a joint military exercises this sunday, providing military training in echoes security cooperation between the two allies.

the u.s. president stressed the role of china, north korea's closest ally and the only country with leverage on the north, using its influence over the socialist partner to help ease tensions over the divided peninsula. china has not released a statement on its position over the tuesday incident. the korean leader also hot telephone talks with japanese prime mr. -- at telephone talks with the japanese prime minister, who said that the attacks could not be tolerated, and that cooperation by the international community, especially among south korea, japan, and the united states, is a must in dealing with the north. >> following the attack, seoul raised its military surveillance alert to the second-highest level on wednesday. our defense ministry correspondent has more. >> south korea's defense ministry based dealer level to its second-highest on wednesday, a day after north korea fired

about 200 artillery shells on the south korean island of yeonpyeong. the ministry added that there have been no further provocations since the shelling stopped tuesday afternoon, r.i. 3: 40 1:00 p.m. -- around 3:41 p.m. >> the south korean military activated the crisis management system, raising the military surveillance level, and is beginning a round-the-clock military readiness against possible north korean moves. >> if south korean military official called the assault and intimate attack on civilian areas, and said that seoul would not tolerate any further provocation from p'yongyang. >> we are outraged by north korea's inhumane actions attacking residents on yeonpyeong island. we won the north that it cannot avoid responsibility for the assault -- we warned the north

that it cannot avoid responsibility for the assault. >> due to the attack, many residents have no access to electricity or water, and there have been blacked out from power outages. 19 houses are severely damaged, and the military continues to help residents evacuate from the island. meanwhile, the united nations commander announced that south korea and the united states will hold enable readiness exercise between november 28 and december 3 in the west seat, with the u.s. nuclear power aircraft carrier, the uss corp. washington, participating. but the military official said that this drill was planned well before the north artillery attack on tuesday. over a telephone conversation on midnight wednesday, the south korean defense minister and u.s. defense secretary robert gates agreed to coordinate any response to north korea's latest provocation, and secretary gates vowed to police reports up to.

i always possible. -- fully support south korea in all ways possible. they emphasize the aims at strengthening the u.s.-south korea military alliance while demonstrating america's commitment to regional stability through deterrence. >> the united nations command, led by the top u.s. general in korea, has proposed high-level military talks with north korea. according to a statement on wednesday, the u.n.c proposed talks with the p'yongyang korean people's army. the commission says that the high level talks are intended to initiate an exchange of information and to escalate tension on the korean peninsula. -- deescalate attention on the korean peninsula. a military body will investigate the incident and determine if there were any violations to the

1953 armistice agreement. the transfer of a in the form of food stamps has been suspended to the city in response to tuesday's attack. the unification ministry announced that the south korean red cross' delivery of tons of cement and $506,000 worth of medical supplies has been halted as of wednesday. nearly $2.4 million worth of private-led humanitarian aid for vulnerable people in the north is now awaiting transfer, also been withheld. >> the south korean government and financial authorities and the country held an emergency meeting tuesday to discuss ways to minimize the impact of north korea's bombardment on the economy. senior government officials say the impact will be temporary,

and pledged to take appropriate steps to absorb the extern shock. >> how badly, or by how much, will north korea's artillery assault on tuesday affect the financial markets in korea? this obviously is one of the biggest concerns of investors both inside and outside of the country. while it appears that the impact will be another temporary -- rather temporary. financial authorities here in the nation say that while the incident might momentarily be perceived as a geopolitical risk factor, market conditions will gradually stabilize and there is no abrupt change in the current situation. during an emergency economic meeting on wednesday, a finance minister stressed that as the credibility of the korean economy has improved greatly, thanks to its steady economic recovery trend, fiscal soundness and current account surplus, it has enough to the ability to absorb any external

shock. senior government officials also pledged to carry out appropriate measures if any tipping effect is created in the financial and foreign exchange markets due to excessive investor anxiety. an example of a tipping effect in this case can be when the value of the korean currency plunge as rapidly, or when interest rates soar excessively. the government will work with the central bank to provide a sufficient amount of local and foreign currency liquidity if necessary. at an emergency meeting set for thursday at the presidential office, the korean president, lee myung-bak, and his cabinet ministers are expected to further analyze the impact of north korean provocation on the economy, and discuss ways to minimize it. meanwhile, moody's investor services and standard and poor's say that the skirmish between the two koreas will not negatively affect the sovereign credit ratings.

the moody's senior vice president said that the agency will lead south korean government on ratings unchanged, considering the strong. -u.s. military alliance -- strong korea-u.s. military alliance. >> the international community is condemning north korea's attack, and now leaders around the world are showing strong support for south korea, hoping for stability on the peninsula. >> north korea has plunged deeper into isolation after shelling the south korean island on tuesday. leaders from of all the world are calling for swift action to stabilize the situation on the korean peninsula. russia's foreign minister, surgery left -- sergei lavrov, refer to the incident as a colossal danger, and urge talks toward denuclearizing north korea to resume.

the german minister said he was very worried and he hopes for both countries to act in a collective manner. meanwhile, the canadian prime minister, stephen harper, strongly condemned north korea for the attack, had promised his countries full support for the south. united nations secretary-general ban ki-moon called for restraint, referring to the attack as one of the gravest incidents since the end of the korean war. condemnation poured in from the u.k., spain, and hungary, as well as john young's asian neighbors, japan, vietnam, -- john y -- pyongyang's asian neighbors, japan, the vietnam, and i wataiwan. >> if we reply to that provocation, our self-defense,

and if there is a provocation, we will reply decisively. >> representatives at the un are exchanging opinions with the security council members regarding the tuesday artillery attack, and are expected to take steps to convene a meeting once they hear the south korean official stance on the incident. >> in an editorial on tuesday, but britain's "financial times" heavily criticized the response to the attack. the editorial, titled, "stopping a rogue state," argued that china is ducking its responsibility to keep peace in the region and that the asian giant is primarily concerned in preventing the collapse of the north korean regime. it said that beijing should ally itself more directly with the u.s. by endorsing seoul and washington's combined naval

exercises. >> a leading american nuclear scientist who reported on north korea's uranium enrichment facility over the weekend, said that north korea's newly installed centrifuges are likely to have been imported from a third country. >> u.s. nuclear expert revealed this month that north korea is building an experimental light water reactor in yeonpyeong, with a nuclear facility is located, and that the communist country has a long suspended -- long suspected enrichment program. at the korean economic institute in washington on tuesday, he made additional remarks on how the clause of the state might have been able to develop its uranium enrichment -- how the reclusive state might have been able to develop its uranium enrichment program.

>> i was stunned. looks like hundreds and hundreds of centrifuges lined up at three different locations. this was just stunning. >> he says the newly installed center figures are unlikely to be homegrown -- newly installed said the figures are unlikely to be homegrown. the program takes several years to be properly developed and tested. given north korea's current level of technology, he says it is highly conceivable that the new setup centrifuges were made and tested in a third-place could the nuclear scientist stresses that people should not exaggerate the potential threat from tom lange. -- pyongyang. >> they could change the size of their arsenal, but don't hide it. from what i saw, to get to a hydrogen bomb -- that is an

incredible step. i don't believe that in any way, shape, or form. >> he added that the motive behind the isolated regime's decision to show centrifuges is to generate fuel to power a light-water reactor. >> and now we want to bring you more perspective on the briefing by the doctor. let's turn to a former colleague of ours, who is now serving as the deputy director of nuclear non-proliferation at the center for arms control and nonproliferation in washington, d.c. she joins us on the phone, on the other end of the like now. based on the doctor's findings that you heard at the korean economic institute, what is your assessment of north korea's nuclear program? >> first of all, it is pretty clear that north korea wants to

weapon i spread the experience of the light-water reactor appears to be for the potential to tone in production and the uranium enrichment facility. these are tools for bomb making. it fears that p'yongyang may have the domestic and international objective to have a fast approaching deadline by 2012, and there may be an element of talks with the u.s. tong ya -- phe is not a technical expert but he is well connected in washington. the doctor is a technical expert and would know what he was shown, which means that he was needed to confirm the latest development. the final group is one that went with the ambassador to p'yongyang last year.

it suggests that north korea is snooping around for another bargain. >> one more question, what is your take on the latest attack on the young john island -- yeonpyeong island? what is the exopinion of experts like yourself in washington? >> it is much more serious than the last time, because north korea directly attacked south korean territory, resulting in casualties and injuries. it is a clear violation of the korean armistice, a clear violation of the un charter, and a violation of other non- agression agreements. south korea really has many options here. it can always take this to the u.n. security council. many in washington asked if this leads to war. i highly doubt it, because south korea and the u.s. will not intentionally go to war. it is out of the question for the allies. south korea already experienced

a devastating war in 1950 and the u.s. is preoccupied in the middle east and afghanistan. china will not want to go to war, and north korea probably doesn't want to go to war also, because it knows the u.s. will instantly make it out -- wipe it out. however, even though military action short of war is a sensible decision, we need to be careful of unintended consequences by all parties, escalations that could unintentionally lead to the worst-case scenario. no. 3 in the past used provocations and crises to illicit dial-up -- north korea in the past used publications and crises to illicit a dialogue, but we can expect seoul to react very sternly. >> no doubt there will be plenty to analyze about north korea in the coming days and weeks.

great having you back on the program, although in a little different capacity this time. thank you very much. >> thank you, good to be back on the show. >> the deputy director for nuclear non-proliferation at the center for arms control and non-proliferation, speaking to us from washington. >> this weekend on booktv's "after words," james zogby questions muslims about stereotypes and the war on terror. he discusses his findings with barbara slavin, who covered the middle east war "the usa today" and "the washington times." starting thursday on c-span2. videos year's studentcam competition is in full swing. make a five-to-a-minute video on

this year's theme, washington, d.c. through my lens. upload your video by the deadline of july 20 for the grand prize of $5,000. for more on the rules, go online to studentcam.org. >> yesterday the comptroller of the white house's financial management office discussed the steps the federal government is taking to control spending within the agency, including looking for waste and fraud in current operations. he keeps these remarks at a symposium held by an organization of private sector and state budget officers. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> we are going to go ahead and get started. my name is john stehle. welcome to the symposium. today we conclude a celebration of 35 years of service with aabpa. were fortunate to get in this ballroom with some of our founding mothers -- founding members, and one of them who was able to join us was the pressure on the first board. over her 54-year federal career, and even afterwards, she was an advocate for this profession. pictured here in the center, seated with others who helped to found his organization, and current members, she celebrated with us the legacy of the efforts begun in the 1970's. she passed away this september, and you remember her here today.

-- we remember her here today. it was a pleasure to meet her and discuss the vision of all those involved in the founding of aabpa. it is now turn to be stored of this vision. -- it is now our turn to be stewards of this vision. it is important to look back on how this organization has been an agent of change over its first 35 years. in the 1970's, members of the federal budget officers conference saw the need to elevate the profession and provide opportunities for training for mid career professionals. they proposed a accretion of a professional organization and merged with the american association for program analysis to meet those needs. i-95, the american association for budget and program analysis -- in 1975, the american association for budget and program analysis was launched. one of its release accomplishments was to partner with what is now known as abfm

l thatlish the journal appeared in the spring of 1981. "public budgeting a finance" has become a premier journal of finance, for practitioners interested in ideas and scholars interested in practice. in the 1990's, aabpa focus on the congressional budget process and the grant procedures of the 1974 act. aabpa took the lead it to provide information and training and the heightened emphasis on performance management. aabpa numbers have been prominent in designing and implementing systems across the federal government. most recently, aabpa has strengthened its ties to academia and students, the professionals of the future. this effort has benefited significantly from the movement

of several members from public- service into academic positions, the creation of a research competition and a summer intern program. each of these initiatives has provided special contacts and support for students to transition into public service. today's conversation on the current economic outlook and the resulting significant challenges it poses at the federal, state, and local level requires a thoughtful balance of competing interests and needs. many of us have been intimately involved in the delivery and accountability for stimulus programs, the restructuring of health insurance mechanisms, and the ongoing debate on how to regulate the financial institutions. information technology has transformed the way we do day- to-day work. it has also expanded the analytical roles and expectations for budget and program officials. the session will give you the inside seat and exposure you looking for in this changing

environment did i urge you to connect with analysts and managers and officers from across the federal government who are also changing with the times. we are front and center in the formation and delivery of government services and continuing education is the key to staying ahead to give you a brief outline of today, our first speaker will give you a perspective on the current trends, at omb. during lunch, a panel of four budget experts will share their insights on my favorite tunnel the day, "the good, the bad, and the ugly of budgeting." capping off the date will be a discussion on how our work is used in the riding -- writing on cnn. don't forget, ice cream and all the toppings you can handle after lunch. there will be a panel on continuing resolutions, development, the current economic climate, and change management, and developing a tie between financial management and

budget formulation and execution. i am very pleased today to talk about some of the people who are helping us out. these include our sponsors, those of us sitting at the membership desk, and all the students who have fallen to today. i am grateful to the students who have volunteered as reporters. you will see them in the panel session taking notes, and can look forward to summaries in our upcoming newsletter. you will also see members taking pictures throughout the day. i encourage you to take a moment and stop by to see our sponsors. you are probably familiar with the names, but not the extent of services they can provide you. we are grateful to having some of the share expertise on battles today. the corporate sponsors are price waterhouse coopers, grant thornton, project performance corp., management concepts, cgi

federal, and cfo academy. we at aabpa want to thank pricewaterhousecoopers for sponsoring the tote bag, grant thornton for sponsoring our water bottles. i know we have some proportion in the audience. welcome. as a gentle reminder, a summary sessions are on the record but panel sessions are poor background information only. i would request that you silence yourself phones. aabpa'se is last year's president. come up and introduce our morning speaker. >> good morning. i am with price waterhouse coopers.

it is my pleasure this morning to introduce danny werfel. danny werfel was confirmed as the first controller as the office of federal management at omb. as the controller, he is responsible for coordinating efforts to initiate government- wide improvements in all areas of financial management including financial reporting, improper payments, and real property management. he is responsible for coordinating the development of government-wide policy on standards, grant management, and financial systems. he served in multiple capacities within omb, and was also the budget examiner in the education branch. prior to that, he was a trial

attorney and the department of justice's civil rights division. he has an undergraduate at cornell university, labor relations. he has a degree from duke as well as north carolina, chapel hill. with that, i turn it over to mr. danny werfel. [applause] >> a thank you. the answer is duke. a lot of teams that i do not like -- that people do not like, i like. i want to thank jonathan and the aabpa for having me today.

this is the second time that i have showed up at a conference like this and was surprised to find that we were going to be broadcast. the last time that happened, an interesting thing happened. someone in the audience asked a question, an unusual question. they asked me to go over the statistics for my son's little league season so far, which i happily did. later that night when we were watching because c-span re- shows, the question came up and i proudly recite my son's baseball statistics, which was a fine accept my daughter was very upset because she did not get any mention at all. nobody asked a question. so i would like to mention -- [laughter] my daughter molly.

you would not believe her report card. [laughter] i almost put it on a power point slide. i think the privacy act prevents me from doing that, so i will not. i am really glad to be here. one other important note about watching yourself speak, and this is where i need your help. every once in awhile, the camera will pan on you. it was disappointing how many people were sleeping during my remarks, so i am going to try to cut that down. hopefully, you will be smiling and laughing and threw out. what the wanted to do today is give you some perspective on where we are and what i consider to be a very important world of

financial management and the role of the chief financial officer in government today. in particular, this is a timely topic. on friday of last week, we celebrated the 20-year anniversary of the chief financial officers act. this act enacted in november 1990 not only created the division for which i work in and my position, it also required for the first time a cfo to be placed in every confederal agency. it started the requirement for audited financial statements to be produced each year. prior to that, the requirement and financial statements it did not exist. what we did last week was look back at the journey that we have taken over the last 20 years and look at some of the challenges

we still have today and where we need to go forward. i think some of the themes that emerged from a look at the journey of the chief financial officer in the federal government has a broader applicability for government more generally i think some of the thoughts i will share with you will resonate with you both in your work when you are working directly on financial management issues and more broadly on budgeting programs. the first reflection -- the timing was interesting. last week, the audited financial statements for all of the agencies where do on monday. that happened to be the same day, november 15, that the anniversary of the cfo act falls on.

one of the first reflections of that i have, and i am sure this will resonate, it is hard work. we work really hard in financial management to do this activity. this past audit season -- it is a really long process starting in april. it really grants up september 30. we have 45 days to produce them. this season in particular -- i have never experienced the amount of stress and workload that i saw hit the federal agencies. it was a lot of late nights, weekend work, stories of finance shops working 16, 17-hour days to try to get the work done. a all across government, we

successfully reported. when you hear something like this, it draws two reflections. we need to get to a place where the work we are doing to produce these financial statements is more routine. that is something we have been striving for for some time, but even after 20 years, we still see the heroic effort to get this done. that is something we have to reflect on and figure out how to get the environment more stable. the audit still drives the type of accountability and that will have the federal agencies and federal employees working through weekends, until the late nights to make sure that they crossed the finish line on time. for that, i am encouraged by that and i think it is an opportunity. in particular, imagine

harnessing that energy and those activities, and the fact we have the federal workforce singularly purposed for similar objectives over the course of months, weeks, days, and then hours to get to that deadline. if we could harness that and make sure we are applying that type of accountability and energy on things that have the largest return on investment for the taxpayer in terms of cost and eliminating waste and improving government performance, if we could make sure that the environment we work in his having it so the agencies are lifting and pushing and driving in those most critical areas, then i think government performance and the landscape can change and transform overtime. formed -- from a cfo perspective, we need to think

about the questions about whether our activities today, what omb requires the agency's to do and what congress requires e agency's to do, and all these various things that are causing the late night e-mails and work, are they maximizing the impact of government on behalf of the citizenry? that is a question that we were retrospective and introspective on as we hit the anniversary. probably not to your surprise, we found out that in many cases we are not hitting that exact sweet spot of where we think we are getting the maximum return on investment. so our challenge is to make sure we are the harnessing -- we are harnessing that same energy level toward a set of priority and activity that has a positive return on investment and a

higher impact. let me give you a flavor of what that could look like and what that means. if you go back to 1990 when the cfo act was passed, you can basically summarizes the objectives of the act in three basic ways. the first was to make sure that we were making the government's finances and agencies of finance is transparent to the public. that was the notion of creating a cfo and having financial information flow out to the public in the form of balance sheets and financial statements, similar to what shareholders could see for corporations. so, public transparency was the first objective. the second was to put in place internal controls at the agencies or improve those controls that were there to mitigate risk such as fraud,

errors, and waste. the notion continues to be that millions and sometimes billions of dollars are flowing in and out of your agency's on a daily basis. in what environment are the flowing in and out of your agency's? are they flowing in and out in an environment where we have an accurate tracking of this dollars in a way that we are mitigating situations where funds are wasted or misspent, etc.? that is the type of internal control and firemen that the cfo act envisioned -- that is the type of internal controls the that the cfo act envisioned. leaders, whether they be government leaders or policy- makers, have the information they need, timely, to manage both the short term and longer- term objectives of federal

agencies and the federal government, getting that information in place to make informed decisions. transparency, internal controls, informed decisions. you can go through each of those today and do an analysis of basically and say how are we doing in terms of making that information transparent to the public. how are we doing in terms of focusing our efforts on internal controls, and our leaders getting the information they need to drive results? from our standpoint in the financial management community, we think we have a lot of work to do on all fronts. but i think there are important trends that have developed recently that not only help close that gap -- we were going along for about 16 or 17 years

at a pretty stable gap, but then in the last two or three, that gap closed in a major way. i want to talk about what those areas are and how we start to build and reinforced time going forward. let's start with transparency. how many of you have recently reviewed the balance sheet for your federal organization that you work for? three, four, five people. that is actually better than i usually get. one of the lessons learned that we have seen, we produce financial statements which have numerous benefits in terms of the disciplines that goes into producing them, but we get very, very small foot traffic on those financial statements on our website.

the fact that financial statements are posted on the web, and of course they were not at the beginning of the act, but the fact that they are now posted on the web is helpful because we can track how many hits in these financial statements are getting. one agency who i will not name told me recently that they had about 300 or so hits on their financial statements on their web page. that is about the same number or less of the people in these cfo shop of that organization. just to take that number, 400 hits and a year. the website, recovery.gov, got 400 million hits in the first three months that it was up and

running. what do we learn from that dichotomy? the balance sheet, just to pick one of the financial statements, tracks what we owe and what we known as the federal government. that is the rallying principal around these sets of financial statements, it is the balance sheet and it answers what we owe and what we own. own being liabilities. recovery.gov answers where our money is going, which is a very different question with a very different data. this is something that is extremely a voluble, this 400 vs. this 400 million statistic.

because for years, under the cfo act, we have lamented the fact that people are not reading our financial statements. i think joe wrote a report called "these are the reports that we all love to hate and hate to love." one of the conclusions was that people do not read them. we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what is that touch. between the public and financial information. because they are not reading the information in a way that is commensurate with the effort in which we are producing them. along came the recovery act, and along came the transparency act in 2006.

it requires federal agencies to report on the website, usaspending.gov, all payments that they make up of a certain amount. for both web sites, the user has the ability to go in and run it searches and queries. they can take in harvard university and figure out how many awards and for what purpose and from which agency harvard university has received payment. that search function gets a lot of foot traffic. the reality is, the public is extremely interested in where federal dollars are going in for what purpose. if you were to go on recovery.gov today -- from the time the website was launched, it has been dramatically

different and has more functionality and significantly more graphics and different types of interesting tools that can be used. i think you'll be amazed with a different ways that you can search for the data, and in particular the mapping functions. you can drill down to your location and figure out exactly who in your neighborhood is receiving federal money under the recovery act and for what purpose. it is changing the way the public interacts with federal financial information. it is extremely useful for the cfo community to see this growing demand because it lets us know where we need to focus on one of our fundamental responsibilities, and that is the reliability of the information being reported. that same agency, who had 400

hits on their financial statements, invests a tremendous amount of time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears to make sure the information on those statements is a reliable. they invest in systems, people, and training, and then they have an independent auditor come in and scrubbed these numbers. they scrub them hard. they scrub them down to maybe the fifth or sixth decimal pin oint to make sure the information is reliable. yet in that same agency is producing information for usaspending.gov and there is no independent auditor coming in and scrubbing. we do not have years of investment, systems, personnel,

and training to validate the reliability of that information that is going out into the public sphere. we have to reconcile this discrepancy. we have to rethink, i believe, and make sure our investments are aligned so that we are scrubbing and scrutinizing the data that is moving into the public sphere and is being relied on for a sense of where our money is going and how we are being held accountable for that money. that is transparency. i mentioned earlier that gap analysis of the act's intention and where we are today. five or six years ago, if i was standing up here and somebody asked me where i thought the touchpiont is, i would have not known. i would have said we are still

searching for the answer to that question. now we know so much more than we did. we know how important it is to the public that they understand not only where federal taxpayer dollars are going, where they are ended up, what they are being used for, and a real challenging question that we have on the horizon, what we are getting for the money. with the recovery act, what was so incredible and enlightening, it not only asked us to track where the money was going down to the recipient and to the vendor, but it also said how many jobs are being created with this money. so we had not just the layer of where the money was going, but we had this critical performance measure associated with the recovery act to see if it is recovering jobs.

now you have a multi dimensional awful view of taxpayers' dollars and what is happening, the full list of view we have ever had. the results are, people are paying attention. everyone is much more informed, and important debates are occurring on the recovery act that would not have been able to occur if not for this effort. it is really a great example of the cfo act that was originally envisioned in action. i think this was exactly envisioned to stir public debate and to allow the public to at least have the knowledge and trust that they can see where their taxpayers' dollars are going, how they are being put to work, and raise concerns or celebrate, however they want to react to with the dollars are

going. let's move down to internal controls, which is the next item i mentioned. transparency was the first. i think we have a good sense of where to take the community going forward. internal controls is the other area. i think we need -- i think when we are fully functioning at our highest level, we are investing in their internal controls that reflect the highest risks that we face in the federal government when protecting taxpayer dollars affectively. for that, we have to figure out what the government's bottom line is and how we can protect the bottom line and make sure the internal controls are in place to reinforce that bottom- line. one of the things that sometimes happens with a financial audit is an agency can lose its clean

opinion or a red flag is raised are around a whole host of different areas within the accounting world is that one could argue are not exactly aligned to the bottom line of protecting taxpayer resources. examples of that really are if an agency, for example, gets an audit issue because they have not valued a set of assets correctly. we are not accurately reported the value of a particular set of assets or inventory, and that is an important question. it is important to know the value of the assets that we are maintaining as a federal government's present underlying that are other critically important questions as well. let's say the issue is a fleet of aircraft that the agency owns, and the auditor is saying

they are not valued correctly. the internal controls have not enabled an accurate the value methodology, so there is a red flag on the audit. things start happening and agencies start investing resources and spending taxpayer dollars to fix this problem. my question, and at think a question that we need to raise, whether other elements about the way we hold these assets that are more critical that need to be examined more thoroughly? for example, did we need to own these aircraft to begin with? when we purchased this aircraft, it repurchased them fairly with no conflicts of interest? did we get the right price? what cost is it costing the taxpayer to maintain them effectively and has the cost been benchmarked correctly?

these are the questions on one could argue are equally if not more important in the value of those aircraft in how we carry it on the balance sheets. the question, or we investing in the internal controls? do we have a robust set of internal controls so we are sure exactly when our aircraft is surplus? and we can drive and hold managers accountable to drive the costs of maintaining those aircraft down. i think we are not where we need to be in terms of making sure that the internal controls we are being held most accountable for have that closer and nexus to the bottom line of being an effective steward of taxpayer dollars, which i think means controlling costs and

eliminating waste and inefficiencies in. that is a question that we need to be asking ourselves, and federal agencies across the board need to be asking themselves. when you try to find out when your disciplines and your readers are all in place, where they in place and are you holding or people accountable to answer the right questions about the way you are operating your agency? that is something that all agencies should be continuing to ask themselves. we are asking ourselves and we think we need to potentially a look at modifications to the way we track our finances and the way we thought it ourselves to make sure we are driving to that exact, right question. the last area is decision support. this is a challenging one, one where you have so much

difference among federal agencies in terms of the financial information that would be most relevant for driving decision making. if you are sitting down with the secretary of h.u.d., as then turning to talk to the secretary of labor, they would likely have different needs in terms of information to make sure that they are managing their agencies affectively. one of the benefits of my position is that i worked very closely with all of the cfo's. they tend to turn over because it is often a political position. when the obama administration came on, we had a whole new confirmed by the senate. i can talk to them and get there early reflections. a lot of them are coming from a

state government or the private sector. i can talk to them about these complex and enormous agencies that they are now the cfo for. one of the constant themes have heard is that they are struck by how much data there is within their organization. but how difficult it is to pull from that data in a strategic and seamless way of the relevant information to help them in form on both the day-to-day and long-term decisions that they need to make. we have this new challenge of trying to figure out how do we pull data from various databases in a way that helps us answer some of the key questions. again, i think the recovery act

has been an informative situation for us to learn from. let me give you an example. the recovery board, which is made up of approximately a dozen was createdeneral's, to be a watchdog. the recovery board was established. a very wise choice was made for the appointment of the chairman. the board was given tools and resources to go ahead and do its job. one of the things they had done

was deployed a forensic data mining tool. it takes enormous quantities of information from both public and government data bases and it runs algorithms for questions or queries of the data that are strategic and targeted to help earl and the inspector general's meet their business need or objective, which is to find fraud and error. what i have learned, it is very important for the federal government to do critical things to make sure we are managing information better than we have in the past. the first is to make sure we are keeping up with technology and with best practices and from the corporate environment. we know exactly what technology can do.

it is quite remarkable how some of the data mining and forensic calls that are out there was taken to today in terms of drawing enormous quantities of information into a business intelligence formats and it allows us to identify trends or spot problems in ways that are ever evolving. if you have settled into a way of looking at data and analyzing data that came about two or three years ago, or maybe even 18 months ago, and you are not paying attention to some of the advance is going out in private industry, you are already behind the curve. we have to be dedicated to being on top of how the technology changes and how we look at and utilize data. that is less than #one. lesson no. 2 is we have to know

what we are asking. we have to understand what the key questions are that we will -- that we want to focus in on. it is so critically important to know what to ask the data. a corollary to this is it is important to bring a diverse set of expertise to the table. because if you are trying to identify fraudulent patterns in an agency program, and you just have the experts in the room, that is helpful because they are going to know where some of the potential weaknesses in the program are and where some of the risks are, and they might have an historical perspective of where it might an error has occurred in the past. but you need other expertise as well. you need more general expertise, people that have an

understanding of how all schemesters may operate. trends in different sectors of criminal behavior that you might not be privy to but someone who is more -- someone who has more of a criminal enforcement background might be able to help you with. what we realize is that it is the assimilation of expertise from different areas that really help figure out and pull out of the data up with the problems are. it has to be multi dimensional. this is another lesson learned by me in this area of support. and what is out there to help us take this enormous amount of data and move it into more usable chunks? are we asking the right questions of the data because

thinking about what to ask the data is really an -- it really is a critical and important part of your job. do you have expertise in the room? if you have a sense that everyone around the table has the same background and interests and its stakeholders, you might not have the right group in the room. so it is one of these things, a mixture of we are not where we need to be, but recent developments or understandings are helping us to figure out where we need to go, and we can build on those successes going forward. i want to spend a little bit of time talking about one area. i want to do a deep dive on one

area in particular. then i will turn it over to questions from the audience. improper payments, i think, is an interesting case study. it has a little bit of everything. it is a payment that goes to the wrong person in the wrong amount at the wrong time. someone should of been -- a classic examples that i always use is that in medicare reimbursement. it was really only a chest x-ray that occurred, so we reimbursed $4,000 for a $1,000 procedure. that is an example of an improper payment. last year, we made $125 billion in improper payments across

government. that is an enormous number and is a reflection of an area that needs to have tremendous focus and attention going forward. one of the interesting things about improper payments, going back to my questions about are we focusing on the right place, is this question of payments. on the one hand, we need to have a foundation to understand all the payments we have made, records and correctly, -- record them correctly, understand the audit trail associate with them. if it is just being audited and tested, we made 100 payments in the month of april at this amount, i am done. if that is the end of the have missedome the, then we

a very important part of this discussion. was a correct? that is what i talk about about bottom-line impact. you cannot ignore a foundation. we have to make sure absolutely that the number of payments that we made in the month of april can be reconciled and audited. all that goes without saying. it is critically important. but the work is not done. there is an airport -- there is a performance element. that the end of the day, the risk to the taxpayer is greater if we fail on that performance. so, more needs to be done in my opinion. harnessing the energy of those

cfo's working through the night to produce their financial statements, harnessing them are around the improper payments question and challenge is something i am interested in working with the entire government, and in particular the cfo community. that improper payments issue is something i have been working on for a long time. i am proud to say that it is now as prominent as any issue i have ever worked on the law was passed back in 2002. we have spent about eight years trying to do more and more measurements in figuring out how to measure these programs for error. that is often a real challenge for these programs because you have to go out and pull samples, audit payments, and extrapolate. you are working with state

governments, and states often administer programs differently. whether they be food stamps, medicaid, programs like that. it is a lot of partnership that goes into the first question of measuring what your error is. when the president took office in 2009, and we first presented -- i had the first opportunity to present to the information the new leadership the improper payments results for 2009, their reaction was both inspiring and humbling at the same time. it was an unacceptable amount, and it needed quick and effective and comprehensive action. so the president almost immediately signed an executive order, which we try to take all

of our years of working on this issue and tried to put in what were the things that were going to have the most positive return on investment. that executive order required us to do a number of things. agencies now have officials for improper payments at every agency. the website lists all of our improper payments, at each performance target, how we are doing against those targets, so accountability through transparency. the executive order has us doing things and had us require to do that analysis and pushed deeper into the questions of where our errors are occurring and how we used data to pull out that error and analyze it and see it in new and different ways. it required us to look at

incentives for contractors to do a better job in terms of helping the government manage the error that is existing today. the executive order, very exciting for the president to issue an executive order. a few months later, the president issued another directive this time on repayment capture. it was focused on the prevention. the next presidential directive which occurred in march of 2010 was about recapture, setting a goal to make sure we work recapturing payments to contractors and vendors. what we were able to demonstrate was that when you hire an auditor, a specialized auditor, and pay them based on the amount of recoveries that

they get, on a contingency basis, then the right incentives are in place because they are going to get paid based on what they find. this works pretty effectively. the march directive required federal agencies to make sure they were leveraging this very important tool and enhancing and. so we've set a target to essentially double our recoveries by 2012, double the pace of our recoveries of improper payments. so that was in march. then, what occurred in june was yet another continental directive. three in eight months, just to give you an idea of how important this issue is. it required the federal government to create a global do-not-pay list. that is the recognition that there are various databases out

there that can let you know whether an individual is eligible or not. things like the exclusive party list. things like the incarcerated database from the federal bureau of prisons that britain are the individuals incarcerated? the social security master death file. are these recipients of deceased? we continue to make payments to the deceased, to the incarcerated, and to the suspended and debarred. delinquencies -- those that are delinquent should not be paid. their payments should be offset or otherwise not paid. all these data bases exist in different spheres, and federal agencies have had mixed results in terms of integrating these

databases. the directive required us to bring these together in one platform and figure out a way to enable federal agencies to more seamlessly tap into that data to help make sure for these mower basic instances of error -- for these basic instances of everror. that occurred in june. then in july, the president signed a new legislation. it was not a quiet signing. it was the signing done in the east room of the white house, a packed room with bipartisan senators and congress people there. improper payments has arrived, apparently.

it is both a humiliating and energizing at the same time, because we need to do something about this number. the fact that we now have the highest level of engagement and attention. it drives more accountability, more scrutiny in making sure we are pulling out errors, strengthening audits. it also expands this authority for federal agencies to hire auditors on a contingency basis to get recoveries. just about all activities have the authority to do that. just last week, with all of the financial reports coming in, we had the opportunity to report the first year results for fiscal year 2010, all this activity generated around improper payments. the 2009 results were troubling as i mentioned.

there was some good news to report. it was a step in the right direction. the government-wide air raid, which is the most critical metric, which it the government- wide -- the government-wide error rate, which is the most critical metric, went down. if it did not go down and if we stayed the same, we would have made $4 billion more in improper payments. the president set a goal to reduce or avoid $50 billion in improper payments by 2012, so we are $4 billion in. i am confident we are going to meet our goal because i think things are coming together. it is taking time to use all of these authorities and mechanisms

that we launched in 2009. they started to bear fruit in 2010. i think we are really going to start to see the effects of the activities we are taking in 2011 and 2012. we set a goal to double our recoveries. in 2010, we tripled the amount of recoveries made from 2009. $687 million was recovered in improper payments in 2010, representing a 300% increase from where we were. why did the one to draw down on improper payments? i think it is important to recognize that this is probably the most critical metric that we have in financial management. we can get clean audit opinions at every agency and have a very reliable balance sheet, but if we have an improper payment

problem, that is going to erode the public trust in government and continue to do so. it is something that resonates outside the beltway is something that is easily explainable. it is something that people have experienced and know about. it is fundamental to our work so it needs to continue to be a priority. it also fixed the overall theme i have been sharing with you today. it is about what information is most relevant to the public. it is about are we scrutinizing the right set of activities. are we driving behaviors in a way that will maximize the return on investment and protecting taxpayer dollars? and it is about getting information for decision making. because the only way to tackle this challenge is to understand the problem better than we ever

understood it before. we need to enable ourselves to see the trends and understand the root causes. i have witness to the recovery act -- one thing i did not mention, it as head -- it has an unusually low amount of fraud and errors associated with it. it is something that is not just me saying it. the government's watchdog talk about how well the fraud and error rate is in the recovery act. we are trying to look at what that is and to understand it to make sure we are drawing the lessons across time. i will close with the thoughts on why that is. a couple of things. a first of all, i already mentioned the fraud detection tool.

it is impressive and powerful. it allows us to see connections. an example would be we found entities that were suspended and debarred that we incorporated under a new name. on your old practices, we would not have caught that connection, but this tool that has been deployed it goes deeper than just the company's name. a goes into what people work for the company and affiliations from the past. it is building a network of connections to see if any of them have been involved in fraud by collecting information from other databases. there you go. you start to figure out where the errors might occur before you have to make the payments. another tool is the focus and

accountability. there was recognition early on in the recovery act that there are risks associated with spending out a significant amount of money in a shorter period of time because there is always that tension. we want to get that money out quickly to start creating jobs and rebuilding infrastructure. we don't bureau -- we don't want bureaucracies holding that money back. we want to get that money out of the door, but we want to do it wisely. in some instances, money was going out at different rates. there was a lot more money going through that same channel and the same administrative approach. what did that do? it created a healthy and stress on the prepayment and varmint for federal agencies. more people started looking and scrutinizing.

more deputy secretaries started looking at the message. we have to get this right. there are increased risks associated here, and we need to raise our game and get this right. that is what happened. i have talked to many federal agencies about this and their senior leadership, and they have rethought how they made their payments, how they track the money in ways that have not been done before. so, major, major lessons learned here. i will sum it up by saying over the years, we have had an ongoing debate in the cfo community. what is the role of the cfo? a common question -- is the cfo stock in the back room when they should be in the boardroom?

we have to challenge ourselves to move the cfo from the back room into the boardroom. i reached the conclusion that we do not need to do that anymore. that job is done. i don't know if we made it happen or if circumstances made it happen, but two things in particular are realities that we face. foris the public's demand financial information. it is at an all-time high. it is the new standard in terms of the type of information that we have to produce of federal activities and the cfo has to champions at and be successful. second, we have to figure out how to do more with less. we are in budget environment today where cost-cutting is going to be a primary theme and activity of every federal agency

for the foreseeable future. if the cfo is not in the room, that is a major problem because the cfo has to be leading the effort to drive costs down. identify costs, evaluate them, -- that is the challenge for the federal cfo in the years to come. i don't know if i have time for questions and. thank you very much for your time. [applause] thank you. i do have time for q uestions. >> and there is a microphone in the center of the room. draftn the chairman's

commission came out, i immediately went on google and was able to find it in a matter of seconds. going through that, you know, there were various proposals on re.i would it be feasible for some government entity in the executive branch to create a web site where you could model those proposals? when i looked at them, there was the use of improper payments, freezing federal salaries for three years, eliminating 250,000 civilian contractor jobs. what about freezing salaries for two years? do you think something of that nature would be feasible?

i imagine you would get a lot of hits on that. what is your comment on that kind of tool? >> it is a very interesting question. it reminds me of something that i have learned in terms of government transparency. there is two ways to do federal transparency, i think. i have to give credit to my colleague at omb who taught me this dichotomy. he says you can either do the restaurant approach, where you come in and have to choose from a set of meals. you choose from a set of reports that the government hands you. or the supermarket approach. you go in and buy the ingredients and build the meal you want. i think it needs to be a mixture. we need to be able to -- and

through transparency efforts, we need to make that information available and allow the public, think tanks, and educational institutions to do the kind of modeling that you described to inform the policy debate on whether a freeze for two years vs. five years is going to have this kind of impact. it is going to take some time if the federal government is going to sponsor it. it is going to take a lot of time of how to fairly present that information and do it in a way that the public can rely on it. there might be questions about whether there is a political influence. i would start from the perspective of the raw data in

there to enable a debate to occur and for people to model that information. that is where i think we need to focus. . .

one of my jobs is to make sure that we have a real process in the agenda and this is bringing people together around common challenges and creating networks among cfo's and deputy cfo's. we are attacking problems more globally. the question that you raise is a good one and you have to take a more multi dimensional approach across councils and government. if we've tried to attack things only with auditing and finance, we will miss. if we don't have procurement,

information technology working together. one of the things that was part of this administration's initiative, this was trying to focus in on that situation and the high a priority goals for the federal agency. each federal agency was asked to develop a series of high priority goals, what they will focus on going forward. this is whether it is reducing the homelessness or hud, this must be a combined effort. you fostered better truncation by setting the right goals and

what we will be held accountable for. by focusing on the bottom line, this allows things to come into place rather than saying my goal is to make sure that this particular activity will be just the cfo, the program people, procurement, they all need to figure out how to make that program work more effectively and efficiently. >> this is the last question. >> i work in the government and i liked the idea that he mentioned about to the auditors who are paid on the contingency basis. we have not done well with that approach because the contractor comes in and takes the easiest cases, how did you deal with the fact that you make sure that those auditors that you hire are really adding to your values,

getting paid and not really adding much? >> as a great question. and has to do with the fact that nothing is easy. you have to be strategic and you have to be business-oriented. i will hire an auditor on a contingency basis, people will get their recovery and then you go on autopilot. you hope that that incentive structure and framework will work. you are likely to not be hitting the sweet spots in terms of your return on investments and efficiency. you need to be successful to understand your payment life cycle. where is it that i can deploy these auditors more effectively? i will set us up with a contract on this particular part of my

life cycle. i will want to make this relationship the most effective it can be. you want to make sure you have the right expertise, you were thinking about things multi dimensionally. you have your business had on to make sure that you are staying ahead of the curve in terms of managing your contract and effectively. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> congress is out for the holidays. when they return, the house will resume the investigation -- resume the ethics trial of charlie rangel. they will vote on a vote of censure. both chambers are expected to be back at the capitol on monday, november 29th. january, there will be many new faces in the freshman class including martha roby. she has served on the montgomery city council since 2004. she will be joined by a john

carney of delaware. >> here are some programs that we are airing thursday starting at 10:00 a.m.. jeff bridges talks about his work to reduce use honker. jane google on her love of animals and nature. chief justice roberts and the role of the supreme court. president clinton presents the liberty award metal to tony blair. >> our student at a documentary video competition is in full swing. upload your video to c-span before the deadline of january 20th. kof>> the prime minister joint -

in mourning the deaths of miners in new zealand. he also addressed questions about the funding and immigration issues. this is about 30 minutes. ome consensus on that in this house but it's a subject way above my pay grade. >> order. questions to the prime minister, michael? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will want to join me in paying tribute to guardsman christopher davis of the first battalion who died on wednesday november the 17th of afghanistan. he was the 100 british soldier to die this year a reminder of the high price that we are paying.

christopher was an utterly and highly respected soldier and we send our deepest condolences to his family and his lived ones. mr. speaker, this morning i had metal with ministerial colleagues and in addition to such duties i should have more meetings. >> i join with my col dolences and express families to the families of those in the new zealand mining disaster, two of whom come from scotland. did the prime minister share my concerns that while 100% tips are passed to the staff some are using scams to pay national insurance while ripping up to 14% of the staff tips will. will he grow to meet with myself and a delegation of hospitality workers of the one year review on the operation of law on tips. >> thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, the honorable gentleman is entirely right to mention the tragic accident at the new zealand mine.

i spoke to new zealand prime minister john key this morning and our thoughts and with the whole house with the 29 miners who lost their lives. i know a high commission and the consular officials are in touch with their families and doing everything to help in what might be an impossibly difficult of time on the issue of tips, the honorable memory is a wonderful campaigner on this. it's right that tips should be distributed to staff. they should not be used to top out the minimum wage and they should not be diverted in any way. the law is very clear, tips musn't be used to back up the minimum wage and enforcement officers should take action to ensure that doesn't happen. and they should have a look of the code of practice that's produced and make sure that the hospitality industry is meeting this code of practice. >> will my right honorable friend will take steps to sort

out the mess on the square and on the 29th. does he think reasonable that visitors from london to home and abroad should be faced with a no-go area surrounded by a campsite? >> i have to say i entirely agree with my right honorable friend. i will always defend the right to protest and protest peacefully and it's entirely free that people should protest but i have no reason why they are able to sleep in the square. i had many discussions with many and i think april the 29th is too far a deadline to get this problem sorted out. >> mr. speaker, can i start by joining the prime minister in paying tribute to guardsman christopher davis of first battalion of the irish guards. he like our other troops died providing heroic service to his country.

and could i also join the prime minister in expressing deep sadness of the deaths of the miners tragically killed in the mine explosion and from scotland. i know the risks of miners take from working underground and our hearts go out to the miners' family and friends. can i also thank the whole house for the good wishes on the birth of my second son samuel. and in particular, to the prime minister and his his wife for their generous gifts. [laughter] >> i'll keep the gifts secret. [laughter] >> but i want to turn to -- i want to turn to a decision which has been made in advance of the education white paper in which there will be a statement at 12:30. is the prime minister aware of the deep concern among schools, families and leading sports men and women about the education secretary's decision to take

away all of the funding from the highly successful school partnerships? will he now overrule the education secretary and reverse the decision? >> well, first of all, let me welcome the right honorable gentleman back and congratulate him again on the birth of baby samuel. i very much know what it's like. the noise the mess the chaos trying to get the children to shut up. i'm sure it was two weeks away from it all. [laughter] >> he's very welcome. [laughter] >> the point about the sports funding of the white paper which my right honorable friend is talking about. we are taking a lot of the specific grants -- we're taking a lot of the specific grants that were spent on specific subjects and putting them into basic school funding. what it means the school's budget will go up 3.6 billion over this parliament and i have to say to the honorable

gentlemen what we experienced over the last decade is, yes, a lot of money put in the sport but we didn't see a lot of progress. yeah. we didn't see a lot of progress. let me just give him one figure. the number of schools offering rugly, and gymnastics. >> the prime minister will regret that answer because he shouldn't believe the nonsense the education secretary telling him. since 2002, we've seen an increase from 25% to 90% in the number of kids doing more than two hours of sport a week. we've seen 1 million more kids as part -- doing competitive sport between schools. and, and i would have thought the prime minister supported this. we have a network of 200,000 volunteers from the school -- i do say to the prime nister,

that sounds like the big society to me why is he undermining it? >> let me tell you what it's ended up after 10 years of this approach. only 2 in every 5 pupils play any competitive sport regularly in their school. only 2 out of 5. that is a terrible record. only 1 in 5 children play competitive sport against other schools. the approach that you took for all those years didn't work. the time for endlessly telling head teachers what to do, how to spend their money is over. it's time to trust head teachers, give them the budget and let them decide how to make sure we have great competitive sport within school and between schools. >> okay, mr. speaker, if you won't take it from me, perhaps you will take from joe phillips who is the school sports coordinator in his constituency. she says this in a letter.

i'm devastated to witness the potential demise of this legacy of the sweep of mr. gove's pen and i wish he could have talked to our students, our parents and our local sports clubs and providers. i do say to the prime minister, this is a daft decision, it is a daft decision that you should u-turn on as soon as possible. and i'm afraid it sums up this education secretary. high-handed, incompetent and unfair. why doesn't the prime minister get it? >> last year the proportion of 11 to 15 years old playing sport went down. this was after all the money they spent, all the initiatives. it simply didn't work. what we are doing is protecting the playing fields under our planning rules where taking back the betting and borrowing schemes. but again, there is a fundamental difference. their approach was specific grant after specific grant

wrapping teachers and schools in red tape and not making any progress. we take a difference approach. put the money in the school's budget, growing by 3.6 billion pounds, holding our schools olympics, promoting school sport. that's the way they will make a difference. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i ask my right honorable friend during his international negotiations regarding the island at any point did anyone actually suggest that those countries with large deficits should be slowing down the rate in which they are reducing them? >> the honorable lady asked a very good question going to the g20, going to the g8 and going to european counselors there is absolutely nobody who thinks if you've got a big budget deficit you should do nothing about it. the only people who seem to be taking this view are the party opposite they've now got a new approach. they're having a policy review and it says this. this is the leader of the opposition. in terms of policy, we start

with a blank page. [laughter] >> it got to be a great help with the g20. [laughter] >> russell brown. >> thank you, mr. speaker. uk border funding to support immigration on other religion work at the ports unit ceased yesterday with the commitment that all such work would be dealt with in northern ireland. without additional resources all at that location i believe that that cannot work. if in the coming months the portshire in my constituency does not see a reduction in cases, will the prime minister revisit this issue? >> i think it's incredibly important what we do at our borders. i spent some time yesterday with the home secretary at heathrow airport meeting with u.k. staff and i want to help them go on doing that. the answer is that what we're

going to do is make sure that the immigration work will be done in northern ireland and i will look at this to make sure that the system is working. >> geoffrey clifton brown. >> does my right honorable friend that a proper plan to the irish economy would be far less damaging to the wider economy this country then some of the other possible dire alternatives. >> my right honorable friend makes a good point. every man, woman and child pays 3 million on pounds. they are very intertwined and we do right to ensure stability and growth from the irish economy. >> jim sheridan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in the context of we're all in this together, could the prime minister explain why he is proposing to abolish the agricultural wages po protect

some of the -- and at the same time, he is protected from solid scrutiny the salaries of those in the country. >> we have looked very carefully at all and tried to work out which ones need to stay and go. i think that was long overdue. we have a minimum wage in this country. we have a tax credit system and there are so many quangos that aren't doing any value. >> mr. william cash. >> would my right honorable friend explain why at every city the city of the investigative order, the economic governments of europe and also the stabilization mechanism that this government is has more integration and no repatriation of powers? >> i'm surprised to hear that these wrong.

under a previous government we would have caved in when they asked for a 6% budget piece. we will make sure -- >> order, i want to hear the prime minister's views about the honorable member for stone's views and i hope the house does. mr. prime minister? >> we will secure to make sure that future bailout mechanisms should not involve non-euro countries like britain and that is something like we're going to secure in europe. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister agree with me just as it is right to disclose top salaries in the public sector so it must be right to require banks to disclose a number of employees paid salary and bonuses over 1 million pounds? >> yes, we do agree with that and the last government commissioned -- the last government commissioned the walker review, david walker has carried out that review. he's made his report. he's made very clear that he thinks that we should make progress with this transparency

agenda at the same time as other european countries. that is a view we think should be taken into account. and i think it's important -- he shakes his head. the fact is -- the fact, he was part of the government that appointed david walker. i'd rather listen to someone who knows something about banking then someone who doesn't nothing something about anything. >> mr. speaker, he'll have to do better than that. he's demanding -- he's demanding transparency, rightly from the public sector. but unless we have transparency in the banking system, then shareholders can't exercise their duties to clamp down on unacceptable bonuses. when there was news when it was in the offing and he said transparency is the key to confidence in any commitment from our banks to behave more responsibly on pay and bonuses. why won't the prime minister listen to his business

secretary? >> we agree with the approach of transparency. that is why the walker review was set up. that is why we should examine what walker has to say. i have to say i will take lectures from the honorable gentleman about certain things but not about the bank. he was in the treasury when they didn't regulate the banks properly. he was in the treasury -- he was in the treasury when they set up the tripartheid system that failed. he was in the treasury when they had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. he was in the treasury when they gave fred goodwin a knighthood. i'd go back to the blank sheet of paper if i were you. >> i'll compare my record in the treasury anytime to his. he was there on black wednesday. black wednesday. now, isn't this just typical of the prime minister?

before the election he promised a day of reckoning for the bankers. we passed the legislation. it's there for him to implement. it's not very much to ask, mr. speaker, all that the legislation would require is that they would to have publish the banks, the number of people -- not even their names as the chancellor used to call for, the number of people getting pay and bonuses above a million pounds. it doesn't make sense to wait for europe. why doesn't the prime minister show a lead and just get it done. >> he says -- he says he wants to contrast his record in the treasury. yes. let's just remind people when he was in the treasury they built the biggest budget deficit of any g20 country. we had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. he says it was his government, it was his government that set up the walker review and he should listen to what they have to say. i got to say, the honorable

gentleman has got nothing to say about the deficit, has got nothing to say about regulation. he's just the nowhere man of british politics. >> mike -- >> mr. speaker, i'm sure -- i'm sure the prime minister is aware of the november campaign where a man growing mustaches for the month of november for prostate cancer. would he join knee half million people worldwide many in the u.k. who are on the 25 million pounds this year in sponsorship and given how good we look, would he consider joining us next year? >> first of all, can i congratulate the gentleman of a mustache specimen of the mustache that he has grown. it's absolutely right to raise awareness about prostate cancer. i think it's a very good charitable move. i can see some of his neighbors have followed his example as have some of the people in my protection team.

they are all to be commented for raising awareness about this real killer that we need to do more about. >> mr. geoffrey donaldson. >> i join the prime minister in paying tribute to christopher davis who sadly lost his life in afghanistan. the prime minister will be aware of problems with post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by many service personnel and veterans across the united kingdom. will he give a commitment to implement in full the report prepared by his honorable friend the member for southwest wellshire to help our veterans and service personnel with this? >> he did an excellent report particularly about mental health issues and how we need to invest in those both in the forces and in our nhs and we're carrying out those recommendations. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the prime minister inform the house how much foreign students contribute to the

economy? how much jobs they creates and how much for funding for higher education for domestic students? >> foreign students do make a big contribution to british universities and to the british economy but i have to say to the honorable gentleman the home secretary went to heathrow yesterday to talk with border agency staff and the one thing that they all raised was the problem of bogus students coming to the u.k., people arriving at our borders who have got a visa, who are claiming to go and do a m.a. or a b.a. and who can't speak english. i'm quite convinced as i've said at this dispatch before. we can control immigration properly by cutting down on bogus students and people coming here without a reason while also helping the u.k. economy at the same time. >> would the prime minister agree with me 162 million pounds of sports budget is a prize worth paying for the health and fitness of our school children?

>> everyone wants to see an expansion of competitive sport in school. i feel absolutely passionately about this issue. the approach we've taken for the last decade has meant that only 1 in 5. that is pathetic. 1 in 5 of our children are playing competitive sport against other schools. you have a choice in politics. you can go on with an approach that is failing. you can go on with an approach that is failing or you can make a change and do it differently. they are shouting on the front bench because they know their record was one of lots of money spent the complete failure. >> the issue of workplace bullying has been highlighted in an article in the new statesman this week. i quote ed's team are terrified -- they think they are going to kill him because -- >> order, order. the honorable gentleman will resume his seat immediately. that question has got nothing, whatsoever to do with government policy.

mr. dennis skinner. >> if the prime minister is so keen to put a cap on immigration why did he earlier state that he gave his 100% backing for turkey to join the e.u.? surely, he knows that most immigration to britain comes from the e.u. doesn't he think there's a stench of hypocrisy about this immigration policy of the government? >> i have to say i think the honorable gentleman is wrong for a very clear reason. if you look at immigration, the balance of migration of european countries and the u.k. is broadly in balance. the excess immigration is all coming outside of the e.u. the current figures were for for net migration of 2,000 a year. that is 2 million people across

a decade. in our view that is too high. it needs to be cut and a cap is a very important part of that. >> jonathan moore? >> what assessment has the prime minister made of the statement that there is no such thing as an irresponsible strike? >> well, i have to say he is completely and utterly wrong and i think the world in a slightly mad place where someone who supports militant tendency can get elected to the largest union in the country on 17% of the vote and that same union basically picks the leader of the labour party and pays all his bills. it's completely wrong and if he's going to be a reformer he better do something about it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. despite being slightly a head to the curve in the mustache stakes, can i -- can i take the prime minister back to an explaining we had in june and further to the question to the honorable gentleman for lock and is really.

much more needs to be done to help troops returning from conflict. the prime minister i know is concerned about it. i am very concerned about it. and i hope that more will be done. in particular, there's so many homeless people now coming back and also the medical services are necessary. will he please commit himself to making an urge statement on this matter before long because time is running on. >> the government is very closely focused on this issue. it's not just about medical services as the honorable gentleman says. it's also about long-term mental health needs. in the u.s. veterans are contacted every single year to check up on the mental health status. when we look at the mental health problems that came out of the fortunes war where more people killed themselves in fortunes than died in that war we're storing up a huge problem of the future because of the incredibly active service that people have seen in both iraq and afghanistan. we need to prepare for this now. the government is fully aware of that. i'm very, very aware of it myself.

i'm not sure about a parliamentary statement but we do want to legislate and make sure it goes through everything it does. >> does the prime minister believe the tax rate should be temporary like the shadow chancellor? >> yes, i agree with the shadow chancellor. the interesting question is whether the shadow chancellor agrees with the leader of the opposition. the leader of the opposition has got two policies on tax, the graduate tax and the 50p tax and the shadow chancellor doesn't agree with either of them. >> before the election, the prime minister pledged not to cut education maintenance allowance. and the deputy prime minister pledged to vote against tuition fees. can the prime minister now explain to my 17-year-old constituent lauren bedford the difference between a pledge and a promise? >> what i would say to your constituent is that we inherited a complete mess from the previous government. we have a choice. we can deal with it or we can end up if a situation like

ireland and other countries where it's not just cutting educational maintenance allowances. you'll be cutting everything. what we're going to do is replace it with something that is more targeted on those who need the money to stay on at school. that, i think, is in the best interest of her constituents and everyone else. >> eric -- >> thank you, mr. speaker. stepping stones in algeria is a children's based charity in my constituency. it worked with its nigerian partners of children who were accused of witchcraft often if they were left they would be persecuted or killed and recently been subject to a great deal of intim days can i ask my right honorable friend to do whatever it can to assist the children's based charities in nigeria? >> well, we do have very close relations with nigeria and i'm sure the foreign office will be interested if what he has to say and the charity he's referring to does an extremely important job. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

is the prime minister aware that in the nursing home in my constituency there are some of the 60,000 people across this country whose quality of life is going to be shattered because of his government's decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance? how can he possibly justify this cruel cut of either 1895 pounds a week to some of the most decent people who have paid their taxes all their lives? >> well, it's important, i think, that we make sure disability living allowances is paid consistently to people who are in hospital and to people who are in care homes. that's what we're doing. and as i understand it, the labour front bench support this change, yes? >> no. >> on a previous occasion, the leader of the labour party said he supported to disability living allowance or is this another area where it's back to the blank sheet of paper?

>> mr. speaker, now that the government has brought forward details of its new homes bonus, will the prime minister join me in rug si council who are proceeding with proposals for substantial development? >> i do think this is important. for years we were spending lots of money on housing but not building any houses. why? 'cause there was no incentives for authorities and we're changing that and i believe that even though the resources are limited a lot more house-building will go aad. >> i'm sure, mr. speaker, the prime minister will agree with me that education is a powerful agent for social mobility. and while i welcome in principle the pupil premium, emerging details seems to suggest that taken together with the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, it could

detour some young people from staying on education. will the prime minister agree with me thed delegation of experts to address this problem. >> i know the right honorable gentleman has addressed this problem and i'm sure the education secretary will be happy to meet with him to discuss this. basically what is happening here is that we're seeing per pupil funding that is not being cut and on top of that, you're going to see the 2 1/2 billion of the pupil premium. so that is going to mean overall the education budget rising by $3.6 billion across this parliament. that's a substantial funding increase. i'm sure that the pupil premium will have the effect that i want and he wants but i'm sure he can look at the detail of it with the education secretary. >> mark spencer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've been recently meeting with many charities in my constituencies and indigo children and many of whom have expressed concern at the

reduction of local authority funding and the timeline between the openings of the big society bank. can the prime minister assure me -- can the prime minister assure me to the access to that big fund will be quick and easy for those charities to snacks >> yes, i can. the point the honorable gentleman raises is exactly why we're raising 100 million pound transition fund to help charities that might be affected by difficult decisions by local authorities to help them through that time. that's exactly why we're doing it. and i expect we would have the support of the whole house in doing so. >> shaun james? >> could the prime minister explain to me how the cloture of the identity will pass the security of the country and will be replaced by a risk assessment system which surely cannot be right and cannot be safe and secure? >> i'm very happy to look in the case the right honorable lady

said. we are having to make savings right across the public sector. that does mean big changes in the way we do things but in each case we should be looking at making sure the effect we want to have is delivered by the money we spend. we have to do that across the public sector any government we'd have to do that but i'm happy to take up her individual case. >> andrew bingham? >> and in my constituency have suffered due to excessive traffic. as we try to get the best from the meager resources from the party opposite -- what -- what -- what words can the prime minister offer his encouragement to the residents that will bypass us in the future. >> they don't like to hear about the mess they left this country in. but just in case there aren't any doubt, we'll be talking about the mess they're making not in five months time but in five years time too.

now, in terms of transporting expenditure, we are spending 30 billion pounds on transport investment. that is more than government and the party opposite planned and that means there will be schemes ahead and i wish him well with the work he'll be doing with the department of transport. >> it's now nearly four years since the collapse that left hundreds of people thousands of people throughout the country without a christmas. they have not received one penny compensation or or an explanation yet. will the prime minister meet with me to bring this story to a conclusion as soon as possible. >> i well remember the case the right >> on c-span tonight, a

discussion on civil discourse in politics. here is some of what they had to say. >> the incivility and in balance has been part of our history, especially in the 19th century when there was 34 duels and challenges in congress. we sought in this last electoral season some comments about, well, if i don't when there could be a second amendment solution. that came out of nevada. there has been a rise in the militias since president obama was elected. we saw them rise with the election of bill clinton back in 1990. we have seen in increase in gun sales and ammunition sales. there is some rhetoric which is

over the time -- over the top from time to time. we tried to check this from time to time. i hope that we don't resort to to the incivility that we saw in the 19th century. there were many issues that forced to grapple with i would call inclusion. whenever we have had to include more people, sometimes this has led to fights. >> the conversation we're having today is nothing new. in recent history with the debate over the iraq war, cousins of thousands of people poured into the streets of united states to protest the iraq war and this was a very volatile time to the point where it might the president was hong in effigy and he was called a war criminal and worse.

i'm not is using that behavior but i'm trying to set this in context. there is an idea that we should have civility is a good one but it also needs to come from the top. when you have the president calling opponents of his agenda enemies, as president obama did a couple of weeks ago, that is not helpful. i know that he retracted that statement. he caught himself and i am glad that he did because you will have leaders in this country will go down the road that we are all the moaning and that is not helpful. one final point about this concept of unity. we hear this a lot from politicians from both sides. unity has been overvalued. >> you can watch this in its entirety tonight on c-span

starting at 8:00 eastern. just before 10, the former u.n. ambassador discuss this representative government. >> here are some programs that we are airing thursday starting at 10:00 a.m., eastern. jeff bridges talks about his work to reduce use on your, jane goodall discusses the animals. -- jeff rogerbridges talks about his work to reduce youth hunger. the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. this is available to you on the radio, on line, and social networking sites. find information and videos online with our video library.

this is washington your way. >> now, a discussion on what steps the new congress should take to limit the size and authority of the federal government. panelists include david mcintosh including specialists from the heritage foundation and the american enterprise institute. this is about one hour. we will start at the last panel now. gin by thanking kate o'brien and arthur brooks of nria kei for conving this day's session. i've learned a lot already this morning, and am looking for to learning more from my fellow panelists in a moment.

i met frank, a director of the william a. and carol g. center on religion in the constitution at the with us spent institu in new jersey. i am recently retired from teaching constitutional law and political philosophy at bradford university after 21 years. and kate asked me to mention, i'm happy to mention that i have been blogging for the "national review online" since its inception, five and half yes ago. i'm joined by three distinguished panelists today. we will go in the following order. think we just agreed, first will be matthew spalding, director of the center for american studies at the heritage foundation. matt is a constitutional scholar co-author of political thought and religious liberty. author of we still hold these truths, just out in paper recently, i think. came out a year ago. next we will hear from michael

greve, the scholar here at aei, authors among other things, real federalism. he cofounded and from 1989-2000 was director of the center for individual rights of public interest law firm. and finally we ll hear from mr. david mcintosh, former congressman of indiana's second district, served in congress for half a dozen years and was chairman of the subcommittee on regulatory relief. he also served in the reagan and first bush administrations, and when he was five years old or so, cofounded the federalist society, a very young orgazation. i will make a few quick remarks to set things up and then we will go to doctor spalding. brock of him as a cover something in his first two years as president. that bill clinton couldn't manage in his first two years. i don't mean the national passionate passage of national

health care. i mean obama has prepared -- propelled countless americans to read instead and organized a political thought and action around aelt need to return to its principles. we see this in the invocation of a revolutionary forebears in the name tea party. for what happened in 1773 in boston was a protest of constitutionalists. we see it in the habitual references to the constitution made that many tea party gatherings. politicians got the message. think back to 1994, the contract with america, i looked it up again last night, contract with america the 1984 republican party contain no references to the constitution. not one. but they should both the pledge to america and the contract from america may be constitution thing one. the first pledged america saying we pledged to honor the constitution as constructed by its framers. and the second, the contract from america saying as its first

concrete action item that each bill introduced in congress should quote, identify the specific provision of the constitution that gives congress the power to do what the bill does, end quote. such resort to basic principles cost additional as an is a welcome development, and a market change from the outgoing speaker nancy pelosi who said are you serious? when asked what constitutional provision undergirded the new health care law. the new house majority appears to be quite safe. the most important task before the new congress is whether it can recapture a fully rounded sense of its own responsibility for the integrity of the constitution. losses are going forward against the health care legislation in michigan, virginia and florida before federal judges of bearing degrees of openness to such legal challenges. but i think it would be a mistake in principle and in practical politics for the new congress to rely upon the judges to vindicate the constitution. first, the judges reliability is

seriously in question. does anyone really want to trust this to justice anthony kennedy? second, it is not the judge is constitution. it is not theirs, subject to periodic judicial amendment by five supreme court justices. it is our constitution, and it's the fence rests ultimately with us. the people of iowa remembered as three weeks ago when the unseeded three state supreme court justices who had abused their trust in 2009 by inventing a right of same-sex marriage under the iowa constitution. makes one long for a similar opportunity at the federal level, alas. and the whole of america people seem to remember it as well, as many of them were by concerns about the size, cost and intrusiveness on our freedoms of a government that has slipped free of its anchor in the constitution. every branch of government seems to have exceeded its proper

boundaries under the document. the congress itself, by acts of legislation, that cannot find a basis in the constitution. executive branch agencies that rest of asked powers on slender reeds of statutory authorization, think only of the environmental protection agency, for instance. and the judiciary, which claims supremacy over constitutional questions, never intended by the founding generation. a remedy must begin somewhere. the tural starting point being, i think, the congress as the most electorally rsponsible branch, especially the people's house. somehow the members of congress must discipline themselves while also paying heed to the damage done and threatened to t constitution elsewhere as well. a tall order, i hope we'll have some sound advice for the new congress from our three panelists. begin with matthew spalding.

>> thank you, matt. that set up the task very nicely. thank you, adi, especially for putting on this conversation. it's extremely important right now. i think we have entered what we call a moment, shall we say. what interests me about it goes over the course of the 20 century the general expansion of liberalism has always thought to be inevitable, unstoppable. and we finally got over love affair with the founders in a thing called the constitution, but it turns out that's not exactly right. something has been awakened. this debate between the founders, writ large aggressive have been fully engage in the public mind, not only were issues that were naturalized but the election was foundation allies in a very important way. you see this of course in the election outcomes. you have to go back to see a midterm president lose as much in congress, you have to go back to 1938, fdr's second midterm.

to see a large enough example at the state level you have to go back to 1928, when calvin coolidge was president. there seems to be something afoot here. a monumental opportunity. let me put it in broader terms. in 1938, that election stopped the core momentum of the new deal that after that the expansion of the new deal was over. but it was absorbed. in the 1940s you remember the 46 election, congress came in, they lost that in 48. in the 1960s, because a very savings, including kennedy's a fascination. larger national discussion of these matters that the 66 midterms, didn't discuss it that much. and as a result of the various waves of liberalism absorb, or shows that almost constitutionalize. but i wanted something different is happening this time.

this seems a get that -- deep public, but here it seems to me is the challenge. a popular rejection of a broad agenda. is it possible to turn that into an embrace of conservative constitutional? american seem to be ready to reembrace some sort of enforceable limits, but it's not at all cleahow far they wish to go. they oppose to runway budgets, spending debt, living government takeover of health care paid by don't think it necessarily means that they want to scrap social security, or close down the department of education. what we have seen is that not accept that there are no limits, which is an extremely important thing. we must assume the rate of getting rid of eve department. they are just not there. that is the task. now, you take the sentiments, which are extremely good, god

instincts proved a lot of common sense, in deep and expanded how do you expand from a political moment, or momentary, short-lived come into a constitutional moment, which is lasting. is a plausible ot only to stop the latest wave in its tracks, but after change course? i think the answer is yes, but it's going to be very difficult and will take a lot of prudence. one thing it will tak is a constitutional strategy, a pathway, if you will. something, somewhere like between what we might call a cold turkey strategy, which some people might prefer, hyper constitutional, if you will, and on the other end bruce his theory of constitutional moments which is to say that everything becomes constitutionalize. i would call legislative jurisprudence that i did want to talk about five areas where this kind of approach could be used and point at some particulars,

and leave it at that. first area is in the area of congress isn't that congress needs to get control of its lawmaking process. the legislative function, if you will, in the name of responsibility. they need to learn how to write bills again. they need to make those bills public andriting in clear english. there are all sorts of things having to do with getting control of programs and things that are automatically continued that they don't intend to continue, things that are not authorized but appropriated. the user legislative process function to make it more constitutionally responsible. in this area you have a question about the nstitutional authority question, the pledge, the lynnod in the pledge but noting legislative authority. a great idea and we want to encourage debate the question, think that that is actlly enforced. how strictly enforced. i think the question is whether

we can leave room for constitutional improvement. what do you do when the department of education is up for reauthorization, or some massive program that has been whittled down and put in every possible good you are, but the underlying vehicles us dubious? you have to leave room for the question i think. we also need to be very creative in terms of how we identified. say, their marks and turn us into constitutional debates as well. and re generally go after the big stuff. the biggest russian right has to do with health care, obamacare, largest in the constitution adobe an early vote to repeal the. overnnocent, let them mess around with. precedent should pass on constitutional grounds. spending, all these large budgets have in the command it coming i think intimate into constitutional march that the secondary is the executive. i think this congress will do

some series inking about executive orders. and laying the ground, drawing lines about where they can be challenged, especially if there's underlying legislative behind them. but mainly this area touches on oversight. aggressive oversight, how things are actually operator a promise of a lot of oversight -- oversight, we need to turn that around the congress needs o learn oversight as a front end mechanism. which points my third area which is the administrative state it so that the real problem here is its core branch of government called the administrative state. i think congressould use its legislative authority, he are very aggressively, fed by oversight to challenge regulations, the congressional review act. there's something called the reins act, regulations over 100 may, they have to come back to congress for approval for any regulation, so you don't go on and live forever.

some of the congressional react as or they should you appropriations riders that is all legitimate tools congress has a hand to press these things in the right direction. keep in mind is much of the politics i think of the modern era is really a battle over who controls t administrative state. the executive branch of the legislative branch? which is a? it's kind of muddled. why presidents have started to pick czars and things like that. congresses position would be to sayit's exactly passionate its executive and if they don't like that, they should take back the authority, they should start drawing some lines. i will touch on include passing, and train to hear is really thinking about this much more than i have come is federalism. there's some wonderful new opportunities to aggressively pursue new avenues. new cooperative avenues with state governors and legislatures.

and things that we might not think of on the face of the weather might be opt out, exemptions. thinking areas of transportation, education, homeland security, over criminalization. some areas where we might not think of normally which might allow some avenues for creative changes. and a fifth area is a structural area. i think it's important and it's time to be think about structural changes further down the road that one thing i would emphasize is was gng on now should be seen as an opening of a great, not closing. we should be thinking it. the legislative area we might be thinking aboutthings like a legislative line-item veto.