information? i gave an answer that was similar to what the mock judge on my left had to say today. i said it was a matter of the function played by the individual. a they should get that protection, regardless if they were employed by a television station, a magazine, or not to which the response of the judge. do you know how easy it is for somebody to become a blotter? you can't do it in two seconds. it is easy. -- a blogger. i was like, i really understand. i get the point. it is not a new point.

i did not say that. it is nice to have the chance today. but my point is, that issue is still an issue. when congress gets down to draft a federal shield law. one of the main stumbling blocks is the issue of who was the journalists. who gets the protection. members of congress asked the same question that i always ask. are you really saying that everyone -- even if you add on everyone who, what, gathers information because the person wants to put it on a person's website can promise confidentiality? it is a hard question, and an example of how modern technology makes some arguments more difficult. one might argue in the

development of this new technology has made it less likely that the press as defined will receive "certain privileges"that they argued for. with that, it still makes sense to me to treat the same people in and out of employment status as a journalists -- as one friend of mine once put it, money in the high two figures are no less entitled to first amendment protection than others. i think that is in all likelihood the way the law is going. whether that means that the

result of that is no one gets the protection rather than giving it to everyone is a very live question. now, 11 addresses some of the issues that were raised today and what i would call new technology -- facebook, i agree with the judge. i do not think the panel was sufficiently sensitive to the privacy interests of the jurors. i think there is a very strong get compelling argument. it is one thing to draft a citizen of the street to sit on a jury, it is something else to say that the juror has to open up his or her facebook to the world. to me, it is not that different

than 100 years ago if somebody demanded that a prospective juror brought his or her personal diary. that is true that facebook has a public quality to wit, but we know that it also has a private quality to it. it can have a private quality to it. i do not think it is so easy to say or so persuasive to say that simply because facebook might to reveal a bias -- and indeed it might, therefore there is a legal result that ought to be facebook be made the kick facebook access be made available to counsel, let alone to the world. i do not think we would easily agree to the proposition that

what wire tap transcripts ought to be made available to protect -- projective -- prospective jurors because of what might be on them. now, with that said, i think that the areas which are not so new are ones which had also been affected by what is new in technology. the questions that were addressed about television in the courtroom for example, these are pretty old questions by now. i love the answer that was provided earlier -- are we still arguing about this in 2011? i think we are, and i think some of the more recent cases -- which are illustrations of the public been most interested,

seeing more of the trial, and thinking that they are learning more about what is going on in the court room -- are cases which in turn may make it harder rather than easier to persuade legislatures and the courts to allow more television in the court room. the case the anthony case comes to mind. -- the casey anthony case comes to mind. i will put it this way. if anything happens to her because the public is so enraged at her acquittal, there will be people who will blame the fact that the trial was televised. the public became so engaged that there are people out looking for her who want to do more than just the ticket.

-- just picket. that is not an argument i will make -- that has been a good argument of my career. my only point out is that that trial which is the most recent example of a trial that swept the country in terms of national interest, it is one for all sorts of reasons is not likely to lead to the expansion of television coverage. i had a judge, to me after the o.j. simpson case. i've represented court tv. one of the lawyers to argue to the court that the trial ought to be television us to -- ought

to be televised. i had somebody come up to me a year after the trial a tribute to in the decision to me as if i had persuaded judge ito to provide cameras. he said you have set back to the course of justice in america. you have done that by assisting, preventing a situation in which the public got to see that trial, the lesson of that trial is not the lesson of justice in america. that is what the judge said to me. my reaction is about the o.j. simpson case and the anthony case is that really, that is an argument that is deeply anti- democratic in its nature. that is really not an argument against television. that is an argument against

information. i think that is exactly what it is. we have to recognize and accept the proposition. sometimes information which we ought to protect and ought to allow people to have can be used or misused by the reader or the person who watches, by the person who becomes enthralled by what is going on. i was struck by what was said about jurors in terms of protecting them. i do not think it is a very close case. i do not think it is a hard issue about letting jurors and certain parts of high publicity case go out by the back door or trying to find some ways in

certain cases -- and actually very few cases -- to protect them. i feel sorry for the jurors and the anthony case who i assume are sitting in their homes are waiting for the time to run out by which their names will finally be released. again, like the o.j. simpson case, that one was so extraordinary, so atypical of television in the court room and a highly publicized case, let alone all cases. i think we ought to be careful not to draw large conclusions about what the law ought to be based upon those extraordinarily unique and a typical cases.

the older issues that we talked about, older and the sense that some of them really go back to almost the battle of last century, issues of closing court rooms, gag orders, and the like. these are ones as to which the law has really developed a highly protective degree of protection for the press and for everyone. chorines' are presumptively open. quorum's are rarely close. it is extremely difficult to get a court order, and it should be. and dad orders are the exception rather than the rule. --gag orders are the exception

rather than the rule. i think that should remain to be the rule as it is. from my perspective, i found the discussion especially interesting because it showed that in any kind of case, let alone the most highly visible and most interesting to the public case, there will be issues which arise and which a good defense lawyer will raise issues such as the ones that we heard talk about today. on many of those issues where

the claims of the defense are contrary to the interests of the press or even the values of free expression. the issues are close ones. we have opted as a close proposition for more legal protection here than anyplace in the world for the press. in close, just reminding us how different we are from even a country as democratic and it democratically rooted as england. where we used to say that in england they could not report watergate because the watergate was once in front of the court something that the american press could continue to report it out. it would violate a good part of

english jurisprudence is the press continued to publish information suggested of guilt of the defendants, including information which might not be admissible in court, all of which is basically barred in the united kingdom for being published. once there is a charge levied, not just be our rest. -- not just to the arrest . the bet that we have made as a society is one that says we will opt in favor of allowing the press to say more, and to give criminal defendants more rights as we go a long in cases to

mitigate the potential harm. we will not -- just to take the easiest example, we will not just pick the 12 people out there and put them on a jury. we will spend a lot of time going through a question after question after question, all of which is unknown in england. they really get their jury -- some federal courts do also, i can speak freely now. there are some federal judges who will panel a jury in any case an hour or two. that is not the case in most said courts. it is not the case in my experience in a significant number of a federal court. that is the rule. that is the way it works. it is almost like literally as

saying, you guys, op. you are our jury. . little questioning. we do things like that. we have all sorts of protections. the one protection we do not give defendants is enforced silence by the press. enforced silence within the public. that is a vast difference and theory and in practice. i think it is one of the great american contributions -- one of the great first amendment contributions that we can talk about stuff that has a high level of sensitivity, including potential prosecutions, real

prosecutions, ongoing cases. nancy grace is free to speak out, especially when she is on television with my son. the commentary -- the on going commentary that accompanied the anthony case would be unthinkable and a contempt of court in england. that is the debt we have made by having a sweepingly powerful and judicially and forced and judicially created a level of first amendment protection. i t y all for coming here. if anybody on the panel has anything they agree with me

about -- please feel free. any comments or questions? >> i enjoyed what you had to say. the thing is, you mentioned it nancy grace. following the anthony trial, there have been comments about the position of the tabloid tv commentators and how they literally campaigned for casey anthony's conviction. it really skewed the impression of the public of what was going to happen in this trial. i did not follow the at the trial that much. i found the issues in significant on the vast scale of what trials can symbolize. but as far as really a change in the tide of coverage, it appears that the world of the

unbiased journalist is going away. for me, that is bad news because that is what i am. i just wondered from your perspective, how does this change everything from a first amendment standpoint? >> i do not think it changes anything from a first amendment standpoint. journalists are allowed it to be biased were unbiased. it changes things from a journalistic perspective. it changes things from the perspective of what the public sees and what the public learns. i do not think we would what legislators or courts getting involved in making distinctions as to who is protected by the first amendment based upon whether they had a sound or unsound or sensationalized more nuanced presentations.

but there is no doubt that one of the new were things that have been happening is a level of ongoing commentary which is deliberately and knowingly intended to persuade the public of the guilt or innocence of a defendant. it covers the amanda knox case in italy. no one would suggest that was influenced and an italian court. nor do i think the judge who handled himself extremely well in the anthony case was influenced by what commentators on television had to say.

that is why i referred earlier to the proposition that if things were to get sufficiently out of hand, what some would call almost public incitement had occurred that it could impact badly on the success of those of us -- many of us in this room, who have sought to persuade legislatures that there ought to be more rather than less right to televise trials or to televised hearings or to televised appeals or the like. so there has been a change. as i say, i do not think it ought to affect -- it will not affect the lot in terms of first a member protection. whether it affects the law in terms of whether we have more or less coverage by television is

yet to be seen. anyone else? >> i realize that there are about as many methods of selecting state court judges as the states, but many elect them by a general election. the attitude of the judges to appoint for life regarding allowing public -- publicity and india into the courtroom is greatly colored by that status as opposed to state court judges, particularly when an election is imminent, seem to have a different view of letting the media into the courtroom. has that been your observation as well? >> i have not seen that, but i would not know it really as well as you.

i live in a backward state which so rarely allows television, it is called new york, that i cannot try any influence about the behavior of judges. i would say in most situations that i have had were cases were televised, the judges be paid really well. i had one judge tommy that the only difference he noticed -- i had one judge who told me that the only difference he noticed was he wore a blue shirt to court which he did not do pre television. in terms of whether it really

impacts the decision to allow cameras, i do not know. i would say in some states like florida where the presumption is in favor of cameras, i do not think it is so that judges have leaned over in the direction of allowing hot of a sense of personal gain of some sort. thank you so much. [applause] >> i want to speak to you for just a second. we have about seven board members. first of all, on my right, floyd abrams, david sellers, water bush. they all had the privilege of hearing what i am about to say. i will ask floyd to elaborate just a little bit on the notion that in the near future, the first amendment law very well be

made with curious individuals. i did not know what it meant that the time. >> it means that with new technology, the people who are born to get in trouble, the people who are born to get sued, the people whose cases are going to be great cases may not make great newspapers anymore. individual bloggers and it is all the more important to try to ensure good representation of those people and to ensure first amendment protection is genuinely available for all. one of the great things that occurred, looking back on it the last 40 years of the last

century, the establishment press as it was then willing to take very strong stances and court defending first amendment rights that had not been the case before. there had not been many cases before. it had not been the case before. it matters so much who the litigant is in terms of making law, making new law, the affecting the development of the law. i always thought pentagon papers would be lost if the defendant had been the village voice rather than the new york times.

so, it really matters with the litigants are. i think the litigants in the future may be sympathetic because they are individuals, or may be unsympathetic because they are unattractive wackos. one way or the other, we have to make sure that the first amendment protects them. >> thank you. [applause] >> the and attractive wackos defense. last question, and then we will be out of here in 30 seconds. one comment your report, ceo said do not have 10 ideas, have won. then have others, things like this conference, supported.

i call all of my board members and floyd and he said, make it useful. he just had a big chevron case where there were try to make it useful. give them something they can use. i hope we have done that. if you are not a subscriber, this is a shameless commercial. we charge $26 for this. that is pocket change. even a bad economy, we will take your business card -- not even a check, right 26 on a business card and give it to us. last announcement and we are out of here. if your employer, you have developed a silly forms or they would not allow us to give you credit. they are in your packet. if you do not know where there are, get another one from danny right back here. in the final announcement before we adjourn, danny marsh but this entire conference together. it was mostly her, give her a

big hand. [applause] any other announcements? and my for getting anything? we are adjourned. thank you for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> president obama spoke earlier today. he said there is nothing wrong with our country, but there is something wrong with our politics. we will show you the comments tonight at 9: 0 5:00 p.m. on east on9:35 pm on c-span. parliament was on its summer recess but reconvened today to hold the debate. we will show you tonight at 10:05 eastern. back to politics. coverage of the republican presidential candidates.

live coverage from the state fair and des moines. at 5:00, remarks from michelle bachman. we will have coverage of those events tomorrow. just a note about saturday, texas governor rick carey in south carolina will announce his run for the presidency. -- rick perry . earlier today in iowa, mitt romney hoping that the state fair. he cannot do speak to the group. after the comments, he took a number of questions including numbers about social security and taxes. this is 25 minutes.

>> good to be here. >> good morning, everyone and welcome to the des moines register soapbox. i'm carol hunter, the politics editor and we are glad to welcome our first soapboxes the speaker of the affair. it is and mitt romney, a former governor of massachusetts. [applause] mr. romney is speak -- seeking the republican nomination for a presidency. let's give him in iowa or welcome. [applause] >> thank you, carole. thank you for the work of the desk moines register, one of the grape pickers in america the kids our democracy free and open. i appreciate the free press and the work you do. it is good to have so many friends here today. what a great day. this is fabulous. last and i was here four years ago, i will speak louder -- does

that work better? there is brian kennedy. it looks like he stacked the crowd with a couple of old friends. i appreciate your help. this is a challenging time. i wish i could start off with terrific news about how the country is doing and what bright prospects people fill in their hearts but right now, people are concerned about the country and recognize that america is in crisis. that is because we have 25 million people out of work or have stopped looking for work or are in jobs will be need their skills. with kids coming out of college that cannot find jobs. we have people wonder if they could stay on the family farm. we have people wonder it manufacturing will lead our country and go elsewhere. i was not only a state that lead the nation - iowa is a leading state in manufacturing. this is an extraordinary state with a diverse economy. iowa is very better as the

nation as a whole but the nation is struggling. part of that reason is we are led by a man who is a fine fellow but is out as a bridge the out of his death and does not understand how the economy works. [applause] i happen to believe that if you want to create jobs, it helps to have had a job. [laughter] i have spent my life and the private sector. in my career, i have been doing what you have been doing which is trying to make ends meet. my business help me start a company and i worked to try to manage enterprise is to make them better if i could. sometimes i was successful and sometimes i was not by learned the lessons of a free economy and i believe it is essential in washington if we are going to turn around the economy to have someone who knows how the economy works and has spent time in the real economy and not someone who's so professional experience was being a politician.

let's send some citizens to washington in addition to some politicians. [applause] i happen to think that the reason that this recession was deeper than it could have been and recovery is more tepid than it should have been is because the president just doesn't understand that his policies did the exact opposite of what the nation needed. he said he wants to create jobs and create the conditions that will let employers add jobs. did promising to raise taxes help create jobs? no. did obama care convince any small business to hire more people? no. if you are an energy-intensive business, did capt. trade and higher energy costs cause anybody to add more jobs? no. did dodd-frank, the financial regulatory reform, cause banks

to give out more loans? no. on every dimension you can think of with this president, the actions he took made it harder proctor for north to build businesses, for banks to loan money, for big businesses to invest in capital and people. as a result, the american people are still suffering and that is why i predict that in november of 2012, president obama will not carry the state of iowa. [applause] i happen to believe after a lifetime of working in the private sector and some service and the governmental sector for only four years, i liked my experience as a governor. it was terrific but i did not in help politics. i am a business man and a private citizen for dialer for my business experience that there are a number of things that economy has to do if it is going to perform better than the other nations around it.

it should allow americans to have a standard of living that leads the world. you have to have tax rates that are comparable with competing nations. you have to have regulation and bureaucracy which is streamlined and modern and which encourages the private sector as opposed to burdening it. you have to have trade policies that work for us not just for the other guys. you have to have energy policies to get america free of our dependence on foreign oil. you after emerald law. -- you must have rule of law. when the president says we will bail out the automakers, you wonder if we have the rule of law. when they say you don't -- you can't have a boeing plant in south carolina, you don't have rules law. we are a capitalist nation.

that does not mean capital of a physical nature but capital of a human nature. we have to a great schools, universities, and immigration policies that bring in the best and brightest. you have to have a government that does not consistently spend more money than it takes in. you have to balance your budget. [applause] over these last several months, we have watched people in washington debate about what we should do about the debt in this country. there were a number of people on the other side of the aisle who consistently pleaded to raise taxes. the people on our side of the aisle said absolutely not. we don't want to take more money out of people's pockets.

we know if government takes money out of people's pockets, it will not help the economy. government is already too big. during the days of john f. kennedy, government all levels comprised about 1/4 of our economy, 27%. government today comprises about 37% of the economy. we are inching closer and closer to a nation that no longer has free enterprise. we insisted that we cut federal spending and cap federal spending and that we have a balanced budget amendment and that is the right course for america if we are going to reign in the excessive growth of government. [applause] a don't know why the president is as misguided and in managing our economy as he is. sometimes i wonder whether he takes his political inspiration from the social democrats of europe.

i don't think europe is working. i don't think europe will work here. can happen to believe that we got it right and they got it wrong. i believe in freedom and opportunity american-style. [applause] i believe in capitalism and free enterprise. i believe in the constitution as it was framed by the founders. by the way, i like all the amendments, not just a few of them. those who served in state government are particularly fond of the 10th amendment. -- it says those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are to be reserved by the states and the people. when the president imposes obama care on the entire nation, he not only puts in place bad policy or an entitlement we can afford, he travels on the principles of the 10th amendment to the constitution and that is

why he will be -- it will be repealed on day one of my administration if i am lucky enough to be president. [applause] let me tell you one more thing -- i believe in the american people. many people these days are cynical and skeptical. i love the country because of the people of this country. i have had the chance to go across the country. i have met people across iowa. we visited a lot of counties last time. we made a lot of friends. this is a fundamentally patriotic nation. we love america. it is not just for our temple hills, we love america because of the values that this nation has promoted around the world and preserved for ourselves, our destiny -- our descendants, and our friends around the world. we show that love for america when the national anthem is being played by placing her hand over her heart. that tradition began in the days of fdr. he asked to put our hand over

our heart in recognition of the blood that were shed by heroes proved in liberating strike. --s trife. because of the love of this country, i am convinced that despite our challenges, $14 trillion in debt, $62 trillion in unfunded promises by government, jihadists that want to kill us and russia who is resurgent, china that is now an assertive grand power, we face real challenges in the world. i am convinced that the patriotism of the american people if combined with leaders that will actually tell the truth and live with integrity and to know how to lead america back to greatness, that we will rise to the occasion overcome those challenges and remain as we have always been, the greatest nation on earth and the hope of the earth. thank you so much. thank you.

[applause] thank you] thank you, guys. i will take a couple of questions. >> do you support the cells security tax on rich people? do you support stretching the social security payroll tax for rich people for them to pay their fair share into the trust fund? >> it has become a very popular -- the question was do i support raising the cap on social security's of rich people pay their fair share. there's a ton this country where we did not celebrate attacking people based on their success. we did not go after people because they were successful. i have watched this president go

across the country attacking people. [applause] all the streets in america are connected. i have watched people connect wall street. we want to make sure that people pay their fair share. half the people in this country pay no income tax at all. when we talk about their share, what is a fair share? we don't want to raise taxes on the american people or grow government. government is too large already. we want to restrain the growth of government and when it comes to sell security and medicare and medicaid, the truth is the promise we are making young people have to the promises we can keep. you should say with to raise everybody's taxes. the tax rate would have to be,

but payroll tax is 15.3%. that would have to rise to 44%. we will not do that. hold on just a moment. i will give you a chance to speak in a moment. you will get to ask your question. all on a second and i will let you speak. [yelling and shouting] >> we are also on medicare which is a tremendous program. what are you going to do to strengthen social security, medicare, and medicaid without

cutting benefits? >> and you had your chance. anything else? >> i want to see what you are going to say. [laughter] >> you get to ask your question i get to give my answer. if you like my answer, you can vote for someone else. [applause] are you ready for my answer? i will not raise taxes. that is my answer. i will not raise taxes. [applause] if you want somebody that raises taxes, you can vote for barack obama. he is killing this economy. he is why 25 million people don't have jobs and cannot find jobs. >> wall street-free! >> you closed corporate tax loopholes as governor of

massachusetts to raise revenue and balance the state budget. if you are elected president, would you do the same thing? >> let's describe what is a loophole and was raising taxes. a loophole is when someone takes it that is of a tax lawyer and a way that was not intended by the legislation in my state, we had a special provision for real estate enterprises that owned a lot of real-estate. it provided lower tax rates in certain circumstances and some banks figured out that by calling them sells real estate companies, they could get a special tax break and we said no more of that. if there are taxpayers who find ways to distort the tax law and take advantage of what we call loopholes that are not intended by the people, absolutely, i would close those loopholes. there are many people use the

word local to say let's just raise taxes on people. i will not raise taxes. >> pay your fair share of. >> i am a peacock farmer and schoolteacher. i supplement my income as a peacock farmer. since the last election, my peacock farm went away. i was going to add more people can keep everything in this state. if i support you, can you assure me that you'll make small businesses like mine better? >> i will not send you checks. i will not promise checks. >> i want to earn it. >> when politicians get on the public stage, they give a promise to the american people all sorts of free stuff. it is time in america to tell

people the truth. we have to earn what we spend. we cannot spend more than we earn year after year. we cannot go to china and other nations and ask them to give us your money so we can spend more than we earn. i will make america the most attractive place in the world to start a business, grow a business, expand a business of any place in the world and i will do that by making sure that our corporate tax rates are the same as the corporate tax rates of other nations around us. right now, they are the highest in the world. i want them to be competitive. i want regulations to be competitive and modern and up- to-date. i want trade policies to open up markets outside the u.s. agriculture is one of the biggest exports we have. people in this state understand the value. other nations in europe and asia have put together some 40 different trade agreements to

open up trade. we need to do the same thing. i will make it easier for you to sell peacocks to other nations if people want to buy them. do they buy the fattest? >federer is? feathers? i want to make this a better place. thank you. >> i have a non-controversial question. [inaudible] congress had voted -- has voted themselves a raise for four years then he said he is a senior citizen but in the last two years, so security has not

been raised but congress has voted themselves a raise. it would make sense for congress to link their pay to what is happening on social security and retirement. congress should not get a better deal than the people on social security. all this talk about entitlements, recognize that we want to make sure we can keep those programs and we can assure that the next generation knows they will have those programs. you want to raise taxes? that is your right. vote for somebody who wants to raise taxes. for you at vote puzzle you want. >> that's just fine. as a free society. we have a group of people who think we should raise taxes to pay for their benefits. how many agree? you got your answer. i don't agree with you. your turn has been heard. i will take one more question.

social security legally cannot add a single dime to the deficit. do you agree that social security should take no part in deficit-reduction negotiations? >> can i answer? >> do i believe the social security should take no part in deficit reduction negotiations? social security and medicare are a large part of the federal spending.

it is about half. not just this year, but over the coming decades, if we are able to balance our budget, we have to make sure that the promises we make for social security and medicare are promises we can keep. there are a couple ways to do that. one way is to raise taxes on people. corporations are people. of course there. but corporations may ultimately go to people. where do you think it goes? human beings, my friend. number one, you can raise taxes. that is not the approach would take. number two, you can make sure that the promises we make our promises we can keep. the areas you have to consider is higher income people receiving less rapid growth and and they're in fighters. if you do not believe that, that

is your right. i think we should consider a higher retirement age. that is my view. you may disagree with it, but that is my view by view is that we do not make promises we cannot keep pierre and i appreciate the chance to be here with you. we had a few people up front who got here early to make sure they got their voices heard. they will lobby voting for me. they can vote for president obama. but the rest of you will be voting for the next president of the united states, a person who will balance our budget and not raise taxes. >> on saturday, texas governor rick perry will announce his entry into the race for the presidency. here is what the coverage on friday looks like from the iowa state fair. it will begin at 11:30 eastern.

in the afternoon, michelle kaufman. also, democratic national committee chairman. coverage from my work. that it's under way at 11:30 eastern. house and senate republicans have come up with the names to reduce the budget deficit by more than one trillion dollars. the republicans' selection from the house side, they made the selection of jeb hensarling. on the senate side, jon kyle, rob portman, pat toomey. the senators announced earlier this week, john kerry and patty murray it will be a co-chair of the deficit reduction committee. bespoke earlier about the picks

made so far. >> now that the pixar finalize, tell us a little more about who was selected starting with the democrats who finalized their picks. >> nancy pelosi pick to three members of her leadership circle to serve on the committee. chris van hollen had really been the face in recent months. jim clyburn, the no. 3 leader of house leadership and the only african-american on the panel was chosen as well. he is close to the obama administration, and is a former whip with close ties across this very diverse caucus. the third pick is xavier becc

erra. he is the only hispanic who will be on the committee. he is also on the ways and means committee. he served last year on the joint fiscal commission that the president set up. he served and voted against its recommendation. none of these picks are particularly surprising outside of the mainstream. >> did the democratic senatorial picks surprise you at all? any unexpected? >> well, will be the only woman on the panel --patty murray will be the only woman on the panel. she has been very fiercely critical of the attempts by house republicans in particular to remake of medicare and other programs.

she is respected on both sides of the aisle. she holds the senior posts on the budget appropriations committee. it was interesting to see her picks. more of an unusual pick is john kerry. he obviously has national stature as the party oppose the former presidential nominee. he has not been a leading figure on budget issues. he has been more focused on foreign relations chairmanship, things going on from libya to afghanistan. it is an interesting pick to see him on their rather than one of the parti's more budget people who have been involved in the gang of six negotiations or one of the other negotiations. max baucus has been on these committees before. he has not really been offering a huge plan of his own. it is sort of interesting -- none of these people on either

-- none of the democrats to what look at and say, oh, that is somebody who will be a rogue and join the republican extreme plan. these are all people who are trusted within the democratic caucus to negotiate for their interests. >> looked go over to the republicans and look at their picks. >> jeb hensarling is probably the most conservative member of the republican team. he notably opposed the tarp financial package back in 2008 even though that was supported by the other members of the leadership team. it was supported by the president. to the extent that there is somebody who can be associated with the tea party sensibilities, it would probably be hensarling.

we have certainly heard from democrats who are nervous about him being the co-chair because they do not see him as somebody who has any real history of compromising the and reaching deals. the other two people who were picked,dave camp, a ways and means chairman, and fred upton, are pretty much standard republn leadership types. upton has been moderate of the years. he has had to sharpen his town to become more conservative to win the chairmanship of that committee. they handle entitlement issues. camp is part of the republican leadership for tax reform. that is part of the question on whether they can get a deal. >> there are newcomers, too.

>> you are not seeing people who have tough races next year being picked by either side. kyl is retiring. portman and toomey do not have to face the voters until 2016. portman bodes the best for getting resolution. he has fostered ties on both sides of the aisle. he has talked about doing something on tax return to deal with the deficit. he is also seen as someone who might be a potential or vice president next year. portman is one to watch. he was the budget director under george bush for a couple of years. toomey is also interesting. he was the former president of

the club for growth. he has a little bit of a break with grover norquist. he said this week that some of these things are indefensible. the ethanol tax break should be considered a spending program. there is some sense that you can get some wiggle room on taxes and that could free up democrats to do something on entitlements. that is what they have to all the side, this group of 12. they have to decide early on, in the next month or so, do they go for a big package, a grand bargain of some sort.

or do they try to get up to the $1.20 trillion figure, the bare minimum of what they are supposed to produce by cobbling together things that are less controversial, like agriculture programs instead of really taking on the big issues? >> let's wrap it up with a couple of quick questions about when the group will start their work and what you have heard that the meetings will be open or close to the public? >> we do not know the answer to either yet. as for when they are going to start meeting, it will be fairly soon. it is an urgent issue and they have a lot of ground to cover and not -- and only a few months to do it. they have been called by leaders to do things in the open. that would be good for c-span cameras and the worse -- and viewers. there will probably be a

combination of open meetings and not so open meetings. the way these things work is, stuff happens behind closed doors where the real negotiations take place. the other thing to think about is that all of these people are close to the leaders themselves. in order to get a real deal, you have to pass it through both chambers. that means the leaders will be involved. the president will need to be involved because he will need to sign it. this will happen in the public to some degree. i would not be surprised if you are familiar with a lot of these things -- a lot of times some of this public and a lot of it will be private. >> steven dennis reporting on the upcoming deficits committee. thank you for that update. >> thank you very much.

>> lots of political coverage this weekend from iowa. we will show you mitt romney's comments from the iowa state fair. you will see this tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. president obama fund raising for the democrats. earlier today, he was speaking at johnson controls. we will show you the president's comments at 9:35 p.m. eastern. after that, the british prime minister david cameron faced a recent wave of violence in the u.k. 450 arrests have been made. the number of police has been tripled. parliament on recess. they reconvene today to hold the debate. we will show you that tonight at 10:00 p.m. on c-span. >> this weekend on "book tv,"

justin martin looks as o lmsted's life as abolitionist. and raul williams' book, "muzzled." and we go inside the world of " the pirates of somalia." >> as an aspiring journalist, i am preparing myself for the small salary that i will be starting out with. >> you have to be disciplined enough to put aside your biases and support the truth. >> the reason people love fox news is because it is an experience. it is love and it is hate.

>> aspiring high school journalists on where they get their news and information on today's multimedia environment. sunday on c-span's "q & a." "the washington post" is reporting that the u.s. postal service is seeking to reduce its workforce by 20% and to withdraw its employees from existing health and retirement programs. the postmaster general joined us this morning on "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. >> patrick donahoe is the u.s. postmaster general and u.s. postal service ceo. general, thanks for coming on. how would you describe the financial health of the post office? guest: we are in tough shape right now. we are being affected by two

major issues at one time. one of them is electronic. people pay bills online and there's less first-class mail. that has a negative effect on our finances. a snail's pace is great for us. it keeps post offices open. the other thing that's happening is the downturn in the economy, people spending less in advertising dollars. half of our revenue comes from advertising. host: our revenues up in the post office? guest: revenues are down. in the last a full year's -- last 4 years we have lost 22% of our mail volume. first-class mail is the driver in this. that is our most expensive and the one product that brings in the most cash to our coffers. host: our postal operations profitable on their own? guest: if we have the right

balance of cost and revenue, yes. what we are trying to do right now is get squared away from the cost perspective. we have some request to congress to make some changes in the law and we are doing some things on our own. we have a very efficient organization. in the last 10 years we reduced the head counts in our organization by 250,000 people. that is while we continue to deliver to 150 million addresses. our people are very productive and do a good job. we are having issues with some requirements from congress. we are required every year to repay retiree health benefits to the tune of $5.5 billion. that is like 30% of our expenses. along with that, as we've lost mail volume, we need to

move to five-day delivery. those two are worth $8.5 billion. we would be profitable if we do that this year. we would save $3 billion if we went to a five-day delivery. host: can you do that or does that have to be approved by the folks up there? guest: there's a lot in congress that requires us to deliver six days a week. if we could do it we would have done it. we would have reacted much more quickly and would not have been in the position we are right now. host: let's put the numbers on the screen. if you want to talk with the postmaster general patrick donahoe, they are on the screen. go ahead and dial in. you can send us an e-mail or send a tweet. we have set aside a fourth line this morning for postal workers in case you want to call in as a

no. how many postal employees are there right now? guest: 560,000 career employees. and another 80,000 temporary people that still in on saturdays and whatnot. we have a big payroll. host: your web site, what is your relationship? are you a government agency anymore? what is the relationship between the post office and attacked their ample government? guest: we are part of the executive branch of the federal government. we are not considered an agency, but it's something like that, like fannie mae and freddie mac, an organization that is affiliated with the executive branch. host: then you are a dotcom

still? guest: yes. you can do plenty of work on the website from a retail prospective. right now over 45% of all transactions of the postal service happened outside the brick and mortar. a substantial portion. if 20% happens on the internet. host: what does it cost the american taxpayer per year to have postal service? guest: nothing. we take no tax money. we are self-contained. that is why this whole thing is a major issue going forward for us. we are unlike any other business. we are governed by the revenues that come into the organization. if we experience a downfall in revenue, we have to make decisions on efficiency improvements and whatnot. we have done that. but when you hit a brick wall of around how to deliver mail six days a week, that $3 billion is

something i need better control over to continue to reduce costs. host: you have to answer to congress. what is your plea to to with the u.s. postal regulatory commission? guest: we are part of the executive branch. there is a regulator. there's also a board of directors, than have postal management. the governors are just. like any just they set policy and we carry out that policy. the regulator is in a position, like any regulator for the utility, where they're looking at prices and level of service and those types of things. host: the governors are the regulatory commissions? guest: no, it's a board of governors like a board of directors. . and host: what is your relationship with the regulator? guest: their role is like a utility regulator. they are looking at prices,

level of service, extended service, any changes we make. in some cases they have to give a thumbs-up, like pricing. they have to register an opinion. host: last week we had the vice chair of the postal service some near thanksgiving. host: right before christmas. guest: there is a real need for speed because this is an important question for america. the postal service does not have the same place in society as the way it used to. it is still a important part of the american fabric, particularly in rural america. host: that was in response to a question that we asked about how long it will take the regulatory commission get back to the post office regarding the inquiry for an advisory committee on changes to the post office. guest: one of the things that he said is true. we are an important part of the

american economy and american society. we work with regulators in a way that tries to make sure we are providing a level of service that americans look for. the going forward for the postal service is important. we have control it -- it is important that we have control over finances. we don't want to cut back to the point we are not providing what america is looking for. host: there's a knock said this morning in the baltimore sun newspaper. "reducing postal service is not the answer."

" that's why i was asking you if postal operations were profitable. he agrees with you. he says post office management, union, and key legislators asked the congress -- do you agree? guest: i agree that we have to move away from the pre-funding of retirement. the second issue is looking forward. changing the requirement to pre- fund $5.5 billion would've been a great solution four years ago. with our revenues continuing to go down, even if we reduced that funding and just do that, next august we are out of cash. so you have to take many more steps to change what we are

doing. that is why we are pushing congress to refund some of the overpayments we have made into a retirement systems, to give us the operating cash that we need to handle some of these business changes going forward. host: among the bad ideas that he writes, this frenzy has produced the ending saturday delivery. guest: we have to address all of our costs. we will keep post offices open so that people can come in and buy stamps or mail packages. if you need delivery on saturday, we will continue to run our networks.

the problem going forward is that our revenues will be $55.5 billion. we are not the small potatoes operation. our revenue next year will be $64 billion. you cannot sit idly by the sideline and help wonder two changes to some funding -- you cannot sit idly by the solemn and hope one or two changes will help that. host: you sat down and predicted your budgets and projected $67.7 billion -- host: total revenue, $49.9

billion. are you on track to match your net loss, or will be greater than the $6.4 billion the new projected? guest: it will be greater. our standard mail at that time was up 9% over the same period last year. we were feeling a first-class mail had slowed a little. we have seen practically since about thanksgiving is a quickening drop-off in the advertising mail along with the drop-off of first-class mail. we have taken a lot of costs out this year. we will have 30,000 fewer people. our people are doing a good job.

you cannot catch up to that type of revenue loss unless you make revenue change. host: patrick donahoe is the postmaster general of the united states. donald works for the post office in massachusetts. caller: i retired as a letter carrier. i was also a clerk. i have an observation. the post office seems to be top- heavy with supervisors. most of them take the job because they don't want to get dirty or sweat. they perform no useful function as far as i can saee. these people can be used in other areas that involve work. to follow people around with a stopwatch is just a form of

harassment. host: mr. donahoe. guest: donald, thank you for your service. we have management like any other business. you can take a look over the past few years. we have reduced the headcount by 250,000 people. 250,000 people. we have reduced management by 20,000 people. 10% of the total. you have to have people to take care of things like purchasing. you have to have people that take care of payroll. a substantial portion of management does that. from a standpoint of making sure that things run correctly, you have to have people to do that. i appreciate donald's service.

i have to disagree that we are top-heavy in management. we are conscious of taking layers out just like everything else. host: anthony in alabama. caller: i am north of montgomery, alabama, the state capital. guy. small-government it seems to me it is clear that you are unever able to get ahead of the game. why shouldn't the postal service become privatized? guest: our focus right now is on profitability. without refunding and some other requirements to deliver mail at six days a week, we can be very

profitable. the postal service has done a great job from the standpoint of service and productivity. we're asking congress to give us more freedom to act like a business. the big issue around privatization is our requirement to provide universal service. that is universal service including places like alaska, including places like alaska, hawaii, and we do that. if you are in private industry, it is hard to get profits at the level that you want with some of those requirements. that is the balance that we manage. let us manage this like we know how to do would. -- like we know how to do it. host: what about the business that competes with fedex. is that growing?

guest: our fastest growing area is packages. is packages. we are fedex's largest customer. we use their planes during the day. it is growing at about a 6% rate. we work with ups and fedex to deliver last mile with our letter carriers. that is growing in double digits. e-commerce is very strong in the united states. it continues to be strong and we play a vital role. host: next call from long island, new york, marylilyn. caller: the thing i am against very strongly is the note delivered on saturday.

every time there is a holiday on monday, you have three days with no mail delivery. you have the nerve to tell us to to the post office. a lot of people but get medications delivered to not drive. i think maybe you should take when state or another day during the week. there are too many monday holidays and three days without mail is too much. guest: let me respond to that question. we are proposed that one solution would be to have mail solution would be to have mail delivered on saturday -- that is in play and there is some discussion around that. from the standpoint the post of laws, the idea is that people need debt service and we want to make sure they know it is out

there. the key thing for us looking at saturday is by far the lightest day of the week. if you had no delivered on wednesday, it would have a disruptive effect on business. that is why we picked saturday. host: our people sensitive to any slight change in their mail delivery? for example, what time the markets delivered or if you switch a carrier? the carrier in my neighbor just got switched and i almost called. he knew the neighborhood. guest: people are sensitive. even though there has been a lot of change in this country with the internet and people paying bills on-line, we still play an important role in people's lives. and so the day the post office

is critical in the local community. we're trying to balance how you can provide that service and cost at the same time. we've had to reduce our letter carrier routes by about 16,000 over the course of the past four years. when you adjust one route, you have to adjust all of them. as you make these changes, it will affect everybody. we're trying to figure out what are the bigger things we can adjust and get back to a normal tone and make sure we're delivering for the american public. host: is christmas your biggest season and is a profitable? guest: you have the fall mailing season which is the end of august, september, october, and november. and then christmas. we generally have letter by the christmas because you have less

advertising in the mail, but we have more packages. host: liverpool, new york. gail is a postal worker. caller: i am concerned about the tea party republicans who have been elected to congress including one of my own from the 25th. i'm concerned about reducing retirees' pension funds. mr. any information you can provide for me? -- is there any information you can provide for me? guest: thank you for your service. what we've talked about as we work with congress is focusing on the resolution of the health benefit payment. that was not resolved in any changes to a person's retirement norther health benefit contributions.

and asking congress to goes back the overpayment were made into a federal employmee payment system. the key for us is to get the finances safe and get back to profitability. thank you. host: do you expect congress to act this fall on your wish list? guest: i'm going to do everything i can to encourage congress to act this fall. we have a deadline of september 30, when i am retired -- i'm required to make the payment. we have been working closely with the house and the senate'. there are bills out there. congressman conley has a bill. when people come back from recess, to try to hammer out what we can to get a very good,

effective, comprehensive bill to address the we need going forward. the health benefit issue has to be addressed. host: have the proposed closing about 3700 post offices? post: we're reviewing 3654 offices. these are very low-transaction post offices and will we're doing is seeing any employee we could provide service in a better manner. the idea is that many of these small towns have a store and the post office and both of them don't have much business. we think if you take the work of the post office and provided at the store, that is helping them from the standpoint to keep their lights on and it saves

money for us. as we work through this, we'll be taking plenty of the input from the local communities and making the decisions. in some cases, we may consolidate one office to another. next call is from georgia, rosemary. caller: your tracking system is a service that comes with a fee. itry time i've tried to use on line, it doesn't work. tracking works just fine on ups and fedex. i want it to work. what problems have you had? caller: it indicates that the

item never left from the originating place. five days later, i get the package. i go back online and it will say that it was delivered, but nothing in between the originating place and the actual delivery. guest: you bring up a point that we are working on right now. filling in gaps across the country are key for us. if you buy eight delivery confirmation with priority mail, we do have a scant at the origin point and we're working to fill those gaps -- we do have a scan. we have increased our tracking points by about 75%. by the end of september, will be at 100%. host: we have eight tweet from host: we have eight tweet from jim -- we have a tweet from jim.

guest: it would cut costs a bi t. this year will still deliver 167 billion pieces of mail. we still have a substantial volume of mail in our system. it plays havoc with people who use know from advertising standpoint. to be able to say monday to friday, you can still have that window of delivery. it is a lot more reasonable for people who use us for advertising. we think td import five days a week and plan -- we think it is important to have five days a week delivery. caller: i am assigned to a small

route. i am an rca. host: what is an rca? caller: i am a sub. route. assigned to a i would love to go down to write five a day workweek. route will have to be prefigured -- refigured. that will be more full-time routes. routes. where you are saying all these people are going to be out of work, some of them will go full- time. guest: nancy, thank you. i agree with you. there will be changes that we have to do from six to five. we will not have people

delivering mail on saturdays. most of the routes will have one fewer days and that is where we will have the savings. host: we have a couple of e- mails. guest: we're talking with congress right now. we think that we should change the way the new hire pensions are handled. there are currently two pension funds that are fully funded. we of $280 billion -- we have $280 billion in pension funds. $280 billion in pension funds. we would fund a 401(k) and social security.

host: how can you protect the pensions for current beneficiaries? guest: we are fully funded. we've had discussions with congress about taking over the pension funds and managing them ourselves. we know that those funds are in place right now and are confident we have enough going into the future. as volume drops, you reduce headcount and that takes care of the pension issues. host: patrick donahoe has been with the post office all of your career. guest: i was an afternoon clerk and was going to school in the morning at the university of pittsburgh and a worked after school for the first few years until i graduated. host: he has been the seventh

73rd post -- office in general. guest: you compete for the job, you were appointed to the job. i served at the pleasure. host: new york city, ken. caller: good morning. i live in a large city which could be any large city. there are these derelicts who are picking up trash, some put their containers in canisters. it says on the side, property of u.s. post office. how much they cost and why nobody doesn't do anything about

this tremendous waste. my second question -- the same with the little plastic grip buckets. sanitation picks them up and disintegrates them in the back of the trucks. in this day and age of electronic communication and all kinds of gadgets, why is the that will go to track, you have no communication with the driver? you would not have to attract if a package did not take five days to go from philadelphia to new york. i'll hang up. why do you let this practice continue? that is a tremendous waste. why can't you track?

guest: i don't know how much those cameras hampers cost -- canvas hampers. the flattops or buckets cost about 50 cents apiece. you find them somewhere and somebody uses them as a trash can. we have gone out and rounded these things up. we go and get that. you have people who unfortunately take our equipment. it is out there all over the place. we do our best to get it back. from the standpoint of tracking, we fill the gaps on the tracking. we will make sure that if you look at one of the apps to

attract on iphones is one of the most useful applications they have. that tracking information as you can follow your package through our system. host: have you thought about selling those plastic bins? guest: we should sell them. we have had roundups on those things over the years. there are companies that use them. you go in and they are using them. you probably have them in this room here. we find them. companies use them. the caller was 100% right. the problem is bringing them in every day is big because we are all over the country. people say this is part of the federal government and i will just use it. it costs us money.

host: charlottesville, virginia. caller: i like to know if there's an incentive to try to get some people using direct calls to save money. guest: thank you, walter. we're not going to be offering any incentives. we're running overtime in the system. we have done that in the past. we left off for some buyouts but right now we have no plans. host: we have an e-mail from james. guest: no. most of our people over the years have left through attrition. we did have a small incentive for a management reduction this year.

we reduced the head count of about 3500 people. we're still in the process with a number of people in the management ranks and we had a small buy out there. people have taken their retirement and gone on to something different. host: this is an e-mail from austin, texas.

guest: he is correct. there are two different models that we have. the where we pay our rural the where we pay our rural carriers -- the way we pay our rural carriers -- they serve in the volume. you are paid the same all year long. that model is great when you have a lot of volume. that's something that we've managed. you have the city carriers the you see here in the city. they are an hourly worker. you have it set wrote -- a set route. most letter carriers have much of their letters sorted for them in advance.

host: patrick donahoe is our guest. rock hill, maryland, ben. caller: i live near several post offices. they are never open before business hours. they want to get their mail before business hours, not after. every morning, there's always a line. i cannot take an hour or two hours set aside to go to the post office. maybe -- what can we do as far as our availability? a carrier who goes out and delivers, i bet they have lower health insurance cost than someone who works in an office all day. thank you. guest: we appreciate your

business. i'll look into the rockville hours. you may want to consider if your mailing packages usps.com, you can request a free carry a pickup. they will pick your mail at your business. we will look at that. we have changed hours in many cases. people have been asking about additional hours on the weekend. we pay uniform health care cost. we have never seen any real difference between people who work in the office verses out in the street. it would be harder to manage health-care payments based on the person's job. everyone has a pretty physical job whether you're working inside and outside. thank you for your business. host: there is a blogger --

what comment which you have for him? guest: i have read his blog. i read them all. give me a ring and i can give more detail and get some facts straight. i'm not so sure that sometimes the facts are straight. host: heavy posted comments on his blog? guest: one thing that is critical is for everyone to know what we're doing. we'll spend a lot of time over the past six or eight months on communications so that customers know what we're doing. from an employee standpoint, i do videos all the time. i have a video where try to

reach out to every employee in the organization. taine minutes and -- 10 minutes and i have six of them lined up right now. our employees need to know that because that will help them better serve the american public. host: we have a tweet from james. what is stamps.com? guest: they are a private company that works with us. you can get your picture on a postage and go to stamps.com to do wit. host: really? so you could do any kind of stamp you wanted? guest: almost. there is a list of pictures you cannot put on. they are a good partner. we have a great working

relationship with them. host: pennsylvania, our last call for postmasters donahoe general. caller: i wanted to say thank you for the carriers and the staff at our post office. i am the elected tax collector and i do several large mailings a year. we have a great post office. we have great carriers and i want to say thank you. guest: let me say it thank you to you. i appreciate your business. we have great people in this organization. they do a great job >> the postal service is considering cutting 120,000 jobs. they had a second year of losses

totaling $8 billion or more. they want to pull workers out of the retirement and health benefit plans -- plans and set up its own benefit system. congressional approval would be needed for either step. tomorrow, we will hear from florida government -- florida governor rick scott. and connecticut rep jim himes looks at the deficit committee. robert groves discusses the demographics of working men and women in america and the affect of motherhood on working men and women. "washington journal" live tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. tonight, we will show you mitt romney's comments.

next up, british prime minister david cameron and other members of parliament debates the recent wave of riots in london and elsewhere in the u.k. more than 460 arrests have been made. they have tripled the number of police on the ground. parliament was on the summer recess, but reconvenes today to hold the debate. this is a one hour long portion. >> i would like to make a statement. first of all, let me thank you, mr. speaker, and right honorable members our returning. it is right that parliament is recalled and that we show a united front. i am grateful for the content of approach taken over the past few days. i have spoken to many of the members whose constituencies have been affected. there have been powerful words

and actions over recent days. what we have seen on the streets of london and in other cities is unacceptable. the whole house will join in condemning it. keeping people say it is the first duty of government. the whole country has been shocked by the most appalling scenes of people looting, violence, vandalizing, and even. it is calamity -- criminality pure and simple. there is no excuse for it. we have seen police officers assaulted and fire crews attacked as they try to put out fires. we have seen people dropping others as they like bleeding and injured in the streets and innocent people run over and killed. mr. speaker, we will not put up with this in our country. we will not allow a culture of fear to exist on our streets. we will do whatever it takes to restore law and order and to rebuild our communities.

let's be clear about the sequence of the bands. one week ago today, a 29-year- old man was shot dead by the police. clearly, there are questions that need to be answered. this is being investigated the early and independently by the ipcc. we must get to the bottom of what happened and we will. there were some peaceful demonstrations calling the death. understandably and appropriately, the police were cautious about how they dealt with this. however, this was used by an excuse -- as an excuse by gangs. it is completely wrong to say there is any justifiable cause al link. it is preposterous to say that people luting over the weekend were -- looting over the weekend

were doing so because of the debt. people were stealing televisions and burning shops. it was not about politics of protest. it was about that. in recent days, police of a sense have shown incredible bravery and have worked around the clock without a -- the police have shown incredible bravery and have worked around the clock without a break. earlier this week, there were far too few police deployed on our streets. the tactics they were using were not working. police chiefs have been frank with me about why this happened. police treated the situation as a public order issue rather than one of crime. the truth is, the truth have -- the police have been facing a new and unique challenge. different people doing the same thing in different places, but all at the same time. to respond to this situation, we are acting decisively to restore order on our streets, to

support the victims of this violence, and to look at the deeper problems that have led young people to carry out such an appalling criminality. let me take it in turn. first, restoring order. following meetings that i chaired on tuesday and wednesday and this morning, we have taken decisive action to ensure more effective policing. because of decisions made by police chiefs up and down the country, there are more police on the streets, more people being arrested, and war criminals being prosecuted. the metropolitan -- and more criminals being prosecuted. the police have been increased to 6000 officers. leave in affected forces have been canceled. police have been bused to areas of greatest need.

there are special constables to help and they have performed magnificently. more than 1200 people have been arrested across the country. we are making technology work for us by capturing the images of the perpetrators so that even if they have not been arrested, their faces are known and they will not escape the law. as i said yesterday, there are no human rights concerns of publishing these photographs and that will not get in the way of bringing these photographs public. anyone involved should be expected to be remanded in custody. anyone convicted should expecting go to jail -- should expect to go to jail. magistrate courts have proved effective. the crime courts are starting to deal with the most serious cases. we are keeping our -- under constant review whether the

courts have the proper and sentencing powers. good progress is being made in restoring order to the streets of london and other cities around our country. nothing should be off of the table. every contingency should be looked at. the police are authorized to use baton rounds. we have in place contingency plans for water cannons to be available at 24 hours notice. some people have raised the issue of the army. the acting commissioner of the metropolitan police said to me he would rather be the last man left in scotland yard before he asked for armor support. that is the right attitude and one i share. it is the government's responsibility to make sure at the future contingency is look at, including whether there are tasks the army could undertake to free up more police on the front line. everyone watching these horrific

actions will be struck by how they are organized by social media. the animation can be used for good and it can be used for ill. we are working with police and -- the information can be used for good and it can be used for a bill -- for ill. i have asked the police if they need any of the new powers. currently, they can only ask for things to be removed in a specific geographical location and for a limited time. we are going to give the police the discretion to require the removal of face covering and under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity. we are looking at the use of the existing dispersal powers and if a curfew is necessary. whatever the police face a new threat, they must have the freedom and the confidence to

change tactics as necessary. this government will always make sure they have the backing and the political support to do so. the fight that has begun. there will be no complacency. we will not stop until this- violence is defeated an order is restored on all our streets. let me turn to the innocent victims. no one will forget the images of the woman jumping from a burning building or the furniture shop that has survived the blitz and out it has been tragically burned to the ground. everyone will be impressed by the words of a thought in birmingham, list father -- whose son was run over and killed. shops, businesses, and homes. too many have been vandalized and destroyed. we will help you repair the damage and get your business is back up and running in and support your communities. on repairing the damage is, i can confirm that any individual, horner, or of business that has

suffered -- home owner or business can seek compensation under the right damages act even if the uninsured. the government will make sure they have been funds they need. claims must be received within 14 days. we beast -- we have extended the period to 42 days. 200 million pounds will be paid out. on supporting business, we are setting up a 20 million pound support scheme to help affected businesses get back up and running quickly. and to minimize the costs facing businesses, the government will refund 3/4 of their costs. for houses and businesses that have been most badly damaged, we

have instructed evaluation office to stop liability for cancel taxes. planning regulations make it difficult for saw to put out protective -- we will make sure businesses can feel secure on our streets as soon as possible. to ensure funding is immediately available, we are establishing a recovery scheme to provide additional support. the government would meet the immediate cost of the emergency accommodations by families made homeless by disturbances. the situation continues to evolve and we will keep any

additional support under close review. let me turn to the deeper problems. response ability for a crime always lies with the criminal. these people were all volunteers. they did not have to do what they did, and they must suffer the consequences. crime has the context and we must not shy away from its. there is a major problem in our society with children not knowing the difference between right and wrong. this is not about poverty, it is about a culture. a culture that glorified violence and shows disrespect for authority. in too many cases, the parents of these children do not care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing. the potential consequences of the morality have been cleared for too long without enough action being taken.

we need a benefit system that rewards worked and more discipline in our schools, we need action to deal with the most disrupted families and we need a criminal justice system that scores they have a line between right and wrong. all action necessary to amend our broken society. at the heart of the violence, the issue of street gangs. territorial, hierarchical, and incredibly violent, they're mostly confirm -- composed of young boys from dysfunctional homes. they earn money through crime and are bound together by an imposed loyalty to a leader. in the last few days, there have been some evidence that they are behind the attacks on police. i want us to use the record of success against gangs from cities like boston and

scotland, and the web done this by engaging the police and local government. i want this to be a national policy. we've already introduced a gang injunctions. we're going to use them across the whole country for children and adults. there are further sanctions available beyond the criminal justice system. local authorities have tough powers to evict the perpetrators from social housing. some authorities already doing this. i want to see others follow their lead. we will consider whether these powers should be strengthened further. i believe we should go beyond our shores to learn lessons from others to the faced similar problems. the problem is not just to gangs. there were people who sell shop

windows smashed, who thought it would be ok just to go in and steal. it is not the case. these people, too, will have to face the full consequences of their actions. in the past few days, we have seen a range of emotions sweep this country. anger, fear, frustration, despair, sadness, and a determined resolved but we will not lead a violent few be us. we saw this results in the people who gathered in manchester with brooms to clean up our streets. we saw it in those who patrolled the roads to deter the rioters. this is a time for our country to pull together. to the law-abiding people who play by the rules and you are the overwhelming majority of our country, i say, the fight has begun. we will protect you. if you've had your property damaged, we will compensate you.

you're on your side. if you are the criminals to of taking what they can get, i say this. we will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. you'll pay for what you have done. we need to show the world, who has looked on appalled that the perpetrators of the violence on our streets are not in any way representative of our country, nor our young people. we need to show that we will address our broken society. we will restore a sense of strong morality and responsibility in every town, in every street. a year away from the olympics, we need to show them that britain that does not give up, but stands out. does not look back, but always looks forward. >> mr. speaker, i think the prime minister for his statement? can i thank him for his decision to suggest that parliament?

whatever we disagree on, week by week, month by month, today, we stand shoulder to a shoulder united against the violence we have seen on our streets. the victims are the innocent people who live in many of our cities. they have seen their homes and businesses destroyed. their communities damaged. there can be no excuses. no justification. this behavior has disgusted and it cannot stand. i want to mourn the loss of lives that we have seen, including those killed in london. our thoughts are with the family and friends of those who have died. we stand with them because he is the true face of britain.

i also want to thank our brave police men and women. for the work they have been doing on our behalf. and all of our emergency services. we salute them for their courage, dedication, and their willingness yet again to put themselves in harm's way for all of us and for all of our community. thanks to them, at a degree of order has been established on our streets. on all sides of this house, we know what the public wants. and are entitled to a return to normality as well as order. normality does not mean rushing home because you are scared to be on the street. normality does not mean being fearful in your own home. the ability to go about their business and lead their lives with security and without fear. they have a right to expect it

and we have a responsibility to make it happen. mr. speaker, to do this, parliament needs to do its job. being the place for we examine and debate all of the things involved. i agree with what the prime minister said, this is a job for the police. can he confirm that the additional operational cost that the police are facing will be funded from the treasury reserve and not place additional pressure on already stressed budget? can he also confirmed that the increased presence in our streets will remain in place beyond the weekend until the police have been confident that the trouble will not return?

the events of the last few days have been a reminder to us all that police on our streets make our communities safer and the public feels safer. given the absolute -- does the prime minister understand why it is not right that he goes ahead to cut the police numbers? will he now think again about this? on criminal justice, the public are clear they want to see swift, effective, and tough action to send a message about the penalties and punishment calls from the violence we have seen. we must see swift progress. can the prime minister confirm that there is a capacity within the court's among our prosecutors? it is bright that the service -- it is right there taking into account the aggravating

circumstances. does the prime minister agree with me that the magistrates and judges need to have those circumstances at the front of their minds so that those found guilty of this disgraceful behavior received the top sentences they deserve it and the public expects? we have also been reminded about the importance of cctv in catching those responsible? be absolutely sure that they no way hinder bringing criminals to justice. we need all of our cities back on their feet and operating as normal. i pay tribute to the heroism of the thousands of volunteers to reclaim our streets and show the true spirit of our country. i welcome what the prime minister said on all the different elements of help that he announced. can he give reassurance that the help that is provided will meet

the need and there will not be an arbitrary cap if it turns out for their resources are required? can he assure us that these funds will go straight away to the people can get on with rebuilding their lives? the prime minister said in 2006, understanding the background, the reasons, it does not mean excuse in crime. it would help to tackle it. mr. speaker, to seek to explain is not to seek to excuse. we all have a duty to ask ourselves, why are there people who feel they have nothing to lose from vandalism? we cannot afford to do this comment to let this pass, to calm the the cut -- the situation down and find ourselves in the same position and the future? these issues cannot be laid at the door of a single court or

government. simplistic solutions will not provide the answer. we can only tackled these solutions by hearing from our communities. they want their voice to be heard. they want us to go out and listen to them about the solutions necessary. we should all do so. can the prime minister explain how those in areas affected will have their voice heard as the government 60 find solutions to the issues we have seen? -- seeks to find solutions to the issues that we have seen? not an inquiry hearing evidence from academic experts, but reaching out and listening to those affected, the decent law-

abiding majority. they deserve and need to be heard. mr. speaker, we need to look on and act on all the issues. the responsibility we need from top to bottom in our society, including parental responsibility. an end to take what you pass and culture. the prime minister is right. we need to tackle the gains in our cities, something we did know about before these riots. will he look urgently at the justice board report published last june that had a whole series of recommendations about what the government should be doing to tackle gang culture? as we look at the solutions we need, questions of hope and aspirations are relevant. when we talk about responsibility, we must not forget ours.

the vast majority cobble law abiding gun people. -- the vast majority all law- abiding young people. we cannot afford to fail them. we cannot afford to have the next generation -- they should be able to do better. that is the promise of britain said they had a right to expect. successful societies are billed on an ethic of hard work, compassion, solidarity, and looking after each other. we all bear a share of responsibility for what happened within it. it is right that we came back to debate these issues. it is right that the public order must be paramount. it is imperative that even after order and morality -- morality are restored, we cannot forget the lessons that we have learned. for all the people in lebanon. this week, for those who've lost loved ones, homes and

businesses, we owe a duty to ensure no repeat of what we have seen. that is our responsibility. it is our responsibility to the country. we will play our part in making it happen. >> thank you, mr. speaker. he made a number of points. he is absolutely right. it is remarkable about despite the fact that fires had been started in many cities across our country, there have been no casualties from the spires. that speaks volumes about the professionalism and brilliance of firefighters nationwide. it is important that it as soon as possible, we kicked our cities, our towns back to a real sense of normality. that has to start with an increased in police presence of

people feel the companies to go out and enjoy their cities. i believe that will happen so that our cities become the great bustling place is we want them to be. on the police, what i said about the army, i chose my words carefully. none of us want to see a break away from the great british model. i do think that the government have the responsibility to look ahead and start asking in advance. in terms of asking if there were tasks that could be done that would free up police, this is not for today or tomorrow. it is just so you have contingency plans. he asked about operational costs.

the treasury reserve is being used. he asked about policing numbers beyond the weekend. deployment must be an issue as a matter for police chiefs. they will want to assess the intelligence and the situation before making the decisions. as far as the government is concerned, they should feel free to deploy as many police as they need for as long as they need. what matters most of all is restoring order on our streets. he raised the issue of police budgets and i'm sure this will be debated. but we make a couple of points. what we are seeing, over the next four years, there ought to be cashed reductions in police budgets. 6% reductions over the next four years. i believe that is totally achievable. a growing number of police chiefs are making that point. but we make two additional points. we still have 7000 trained police officers in office jobs.

part of our program is about freeing the police for from my duties. that is why i can make this clear pledge to the house. at the end of the process, making sure our police budgets are affordable, we will still be able to serve as many police onto the streets as we have in recent days in london and manchester. i do think this is important that people understand that. he asked about the courts. whether we are able to surge capacity in our magistrates. that is exactly what we have been asking for in recent days. on sentencing, i chose my words carefully. it is a matter for courts to sentence. if you look at what sentencing, those people found guilty should expect to have a custodial sentence. we've police support cctv. we want to regulate it to make sure that it is used properly.

it has been immensely valuable up and down the country. he asked about it in terms of communities, whether there would be any cap on the money that is available for communities. of course, the right damages act does not had any cap at all. people will be able to apply to the police and the government will stand behind police. it is explaining -- explaining does not mean excusing. the causes are complex. i hope that in the debates we have, the causes do not immediately fall into a discussion about resources. the key word that he used and i used is the issue of responsibility. people must be responsible for their actions. about how we will listen to

communities and what sort of inquiry is necessary. i think in the first instance, i found this from talking to members of parliament on both sides of the house of commons. one of the first things we can do is properly bring to bear all the information that we are hearing from our communities. i am stand that the home affairs select committee is going to hold that inquiry. i think him for the general tone of what he says. >> white of our police -- why have our police been disbursing these pokes so they can write and other facilities? -- what are police spent disbursing these so they can

write in other facilities? the u.s. government bought 16,000 troops into washington in addition to the police. they rounded up the rioters, they arrested them, and they but 40,000 of them into the d.c. stadium in one morning. has he any plans to make the wembley stadium for similar use? >> i want the wembley stadium to be available for great sporting events. he does ask an important point. all of us should think carefully before we start criticizing police tactics when they are the ones in the front lines.

they spent too much time concentrating on the public order auspex and not enough on the criminality aspect. meant a greater police presence on the streets. the police know it is time to carry out some of the manual about public order. we have done this many times before. we will do it again and we will get it right. >> i want to accommodate members. >> >> what the prime minister said about the death of mark duggan and, indeed, about compensation 45 people have lost their homes. ground, run out of their homes during their children in their arms. and their crime is rare with the

police. we can have this debate today, but it is no replacement for hearing from people themselves. will the prime minister, and speak to those victims? ended the to the independent shopkeeper, hairdressers, jewelers whose businesses are lying in centers? and what he also commit to a public inquiry that looked at why initial skirmishes were allowed to lead to a situation in which the great roman road now is in centers? >> prime minister? >> i will certainly take up the honorable gentleman's invitation to go and hear for myself. i found in a visit i made real anger on the streets about what happened, about how it can be allowed to happen. and just a lot of questioning of the police tactics and police presence. as i said in my statement, to be

fair to the police i think to begin with the cost of the situation with mark duggan they were hanging backward very good reason. they could understand that they accept that went on for too long. the police presence need to be greater and it needed to be more robust and it needed to be protecting peoples homes, people's shops and people's houses. we will now do everything we possibly can to get those people we house quickly, to make sure that money is available. i know my right honorable friend has been in touch. i think all of the local government leaders affected and will keep that up. entrance of the inquiry, and what it was honestly i think we should start with a home of of ursula committee inquiry. let them do their work and let's take it from there. >> mr. john leech. >> thank you, mr. speaker. was a prime minister media organizations to immediately release all footage of criminal behavior and assist the police in bringing criminals to justice? >> i will certainly do that.

i was impressed in the control room of the west midlands police yesterday how amateur photographers have been sitting -- seen in footage to help the police arrest those who are guilty. as has been said today, everyone has a responsibility media has responsibility and i hope they will act on it. >> mr. jack straw. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, no one disputes were second the prime minister's determination to meet what he describes as a duty of government to keep the streets say. but will he not understand that his repetition amounts to treasure lines, about police numbers, and police budget, and also -- [inaudible] put a big of him to recognize the reality that these cuts will lead to fewer police on the streets? but also that he must reverse the softer sentencing plans his justice secretary and stop the looting of this plan the justice

sector has to close britain when there is no presently an urgent need? >> prime minister? >> first of all i don't accept what he says about police numbers. and, indeed, neither do chief constable. many chief constables, if i take the chief constable of the thames valley convoy she said is what i haven't done at all is reduce number of officers who did a control selection, so the author you see in vehicles, on foot, bicycles, we haven't got those numbers at all. let me make this point i think one of the things demonstrated by the last three days where we have 32000 officers is they could take the action to surge from 3000 on the streets to 16,000 on the street. i think that is a demonstration of using what you have to maximum effect. >> while metropolitan police officers showed great courage and determination of a high degree, over the last few days, whether prime minister agree

with my concerned, that there were boards that police officer on several occasions were instructed to stand and observe, rising -- rioting and looting that would take place? would he agree with you that is not an except obese or? if the police are concerned because of the province after the g20 some that he might be criticized for overreacting, there is an urgent need for fresh guidelines so that there is no ambiguity that it is the police and not looters and rioters who control our street? >> we will be looking again at the guidance. let me be clear, there was no instruction to police officers to stand back. but as i've said anything police chiefs have been very frank about this, that the balance between what is right or public order in what is right for stopping criminality, looting and feeding, that balance wasn't got right to start with.

they admit that. except that. but they were to be fair to the police who do this for difficult job on all of our behalf. they were facing a new set of circumstances. yes, they have had rights before. is david looting before. yes there's been violence and vandalism before. but we have and the country before had the same thing happening in different places with different people all doing at the same time. that was a challenge for them. challenge i believe that are now meeting actually but they didn't get everything right to start with. they are the first to admit that. >> i'm grateful for his telephone call yesterday. what happened on tuesday night was not about protests. it was about delivered organize violent criminality. will the prime minister give his full backing to the police to intervene in the circumstances? because it was the case of some officers had instruction where they didn't have riot gear, where they were not trained, they had to stand by and watch what happened. the effect on public confidence is devastating. will he ensure the police have the backing and that confidence,

review the guidance so it never again do we see the police fall back in the face of a violent mob as we saw? >> she speaks all the authority of a former police minister who knows this issue well, and i know discussed with the police. could what happened was unacceptable. tragically it reverse very many good years of excellent work, breaking up games, take on organized criminals. i suspect what happened is those gangs and criminal sought as an opportunity to reassert themselves. all these lessons must be learned that i know the great manchester police chief i've spoken to wants to learn the lessons, is not right ever to seize control of our streets to haul against -- two hooligans. the time to learn the lessons is now. >> david davis. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i commend the prime minister for his decision on action on gangs, but i would like to raise

another issue. he quite rightly raised or told the house, in fact the whole country was moved by the words of the father yesterday. when the father made those comments come he did so against the background of some ethnic tension to try to calm the circumstance there. there's a risk at least that evil people try to use these complex to raise for the ethnic tension in the future is a government going to take action to lives of the need to make sure that is not done? >> the government will certainly do that. i was in birmingham yesterday joined a meeting of committee leaders who came from all religions, all creeds, all races, who came together to make sure that the communities did not respond in an inappropriate way to the dreadful events that happen having. i patriot do chief of the west force them to leader of the city

council and to all those people who form that meeting and went out and spoke to the committees and appealed for calm. i think this seems we all saw last night of communities coming together in birmingham to try to stop the violence was a model of how these things should be done. >> what justification can there be, bearing in mind what the prime minister has just said, for very experienced police officers who serve 30 years or more are so been forced to retire? and isn't it, where there is no adequate police presence as has been the case once or twice during the last few days? >> i think the honorable gentleman is entirely right. yesterday when it was the number of police officers or something like doubling overnight compared to the previous night. i suspect this is happening in other parts of the westminster. the fact is that one of the

lessons we need to learn is the ability to search the number of police officers very rapidly into our community when there are problems arising like this. let me just say again, the place to the difficult and dangerous job on our behalf. they learn from extreme. they don't always get it right. we must praise them when they get it right and we must i think here say that some of the tactics need to change. but not try to subsidy our own judgment for this. that would be a sensible approach. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents and i witnessed some shocking events sunday and monday. but what was particularly shocking was the age of the number of culprits that were in the instance that night. with the prime minister assure me that he could ask the police authorities to work with the education authorities in an attempt to identify many of these secondary school children who are out there causing these

crimes because i certainly think that is a sensible suggestion but i think over and above that we have to recognize that the responsibility for the fact that some of these children, and i use the word children advisedly, rests with opinions but what we do need to have is a sense that parents will take more responsibility for their children and teach them the difference between right and wrong and point out this behavior is unacceptable. >> it is undeniably that these criminals who looted, stole, rioted, cause intolerable damage to the people who are the victims of this, must be dealt with by the police and by the justice system. what i want to ask the prime minister is, do we regard these people, however abject terror acts, is only cleanable to society and great cost to the

police, to the justice system into the prison system, or will we have positive policies to try if at all possible to reclaim them to society? >> i agree with the right honorable gentleman. it was we must never write people off. however, bad are we must try and build a strong society where you can turn people's lives around it but i think one of the lessons from this is too many people have been left for too long and we need much earlier interventions if something were members on all sides of the house have spoken about. much earlier interventions than when we see children going wrong, we intervene earlier rather than leaving them to fall at school and lapse into life of criminality. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if these riots have broken up in other countries the police would've had at their disposal water cans, plastic bullets and teargas. mr. speaker, across the u.k. british people watched on television while police were

instructed stanback -- stand back. so the premise of a 24 hours notice of use of water cannon is enough? and this is not about police numbers but about police being given the tools to do the job. >> let me say to the honorable lady is that the pleased to have access to battering rams and they are able to make the decision to use them. and in london they came quite close to making that decision. that must be operated decision for the police. on issue of water cannons, the first on advice from the police is the cause on the whole they were not deal with very large crowds but very mobile crowds or people who were intent on criminal behavior. water cannons would not have been appropriate in these circumstances. that is the police do get the point i've made is we should be ready for every possible contingency in the future so we should know how we would enter future questions which is why

they are now available at 24 hours notice. that i don't agree with her about this, the greatest possible to sort of lawlessness we saw is the people to know that if they do that living, they do that violent, they will be pulled out an an arrest in the late and be in front of a court that night. that is the answer. they key to that is more police on the street so they're able to be more robust in a way they intervene. >> can i welcome all the steps taken by the prime minister from the start of these and join with him and others in condemning the criminality, and also praising the police. i, like he, without on the streets of london yesterday. they key issue was the police ability. does he say if a police force has to dip into the contingencies, in order to pay for what has been going on over the last six days, that the government will reimburse all the money? >> can i think the right honorable gentleman for what he said and for the work i know his

can and will be doing in the coming weeks. the fact is treasure is standing ready to assist police forces. clearly the bill for the metropolitan police force for these last few days is going to be large. and if they continue to deploy in these numbers it will get larger and the treasury will stand behind them. >> mr. simon his. >> those of us in the commands affected,. [inaudible] the place of the minority other officers trained and able to use right headgear and right equipment. can he look with home secretary at that thing reversed some of police officers have the presumption so they can act and intervene? will he make sure the full force of the law doesn't just go to the 50 committees of through communities but the adults with children who are also going into the shops and taking stuff, not just the children? setting an example. >> on the first point, of course there will be a proper review in

terms of what is the right balance between riot police and normal burro policing so we meet the source of emergencies better in future. of course, that will happen. in terms of prosecuting the guilty, the police should go after everybody. they have the cct images. there are people all over the country ringing up in explaining their neighbors just acquired a new 42-inch plasma screen. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the people of liverpool are united in the absolute criminal acts that wreak so much havoc caused so much fear in parts of liverpool over the last few days. but what specific things has the prime minister made to assist, to be able to be assisted in the future coming? >> liverpool will be able to

apply, not onto the scheme that existed through this new special scheme that doesn't have a threshold you need to cross in order to claim payments under. also the riot damages act is effectively unlimited in the claims you can make. as i said the home office will stand and police forces so there's a series of measures and of the written statements and house today so she can see full details and share them with her council leaders. >> i know the prime minister will agree with me that we in principle have the best police force in the world. however, will he agree with me it is time to please will refocus back to being crimefighters instead of social workers? >> i think the police have the clearest possible message that we want them to be a police force. we want them to be focused on crime. we don't want them fighting paper behind a desk, and i think they've been very clear message from the whole country this week that people visible policing but they want very robust policing spent david miliband.

>> the prime minister will be pleased as i'm that we know rioting or looting in south shields turkey has rightly praised the indie pendant, the professionalism of the chief constable. why didn't we want to get rid of them all and make them stand for election? >> we are not proposing to make chief constables stand for election. what we are proposing is to police commissioners stand for election, replacing police authorities. and the point i would make, the point i would make is this, that actually in recent days, in recent days i think these arguments that yes, you have independent police chief constables, yes, they have to be responsible for the judgment, but it's important they are accountable politically. there is a discussion that can take place between politicians and between police chief is a thoroughly good one. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it was badly smashed up on monday night. and man is critically ill in hospital having been attacked

when he tried to put out a fire in elizabeth. people are devastated. we heard the prime minister say those who are big enough to take part in the riots are big enough to take part in -- they will feel the full force of the law including prison sentences speak with yes, i can give her that assure that our to thank her for the briefing she gave me of what had been happening, particularly on monday night. i can give her that ushered. the cincy must be a matter for the courts. the guidelines council is clear that people taking part in violent disorder should expect to go to prison. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i invite the prime minister to join with me, not only put on the record our gratitude to the place of work so hard the call to our streets, but also the outreach and committee workers who have been at everest single night talking to people, to reduce tension and restore order

in our streets in partnership with the police? can i invite him to meet with those people so he understands it is not a tiresome debate, but we must learn from the experience and restore order, not just in these next few days but everyday and are committed, across the country. >> i certainly happy to meet with the honorable lady. the point she makes that reclaiming the streets is not just an issue for the police, but it's an issue for everybody. i think it's absolutely right and we've seen fantastic examples of the right across our country. the point i was trying to make about resources is i hope we can have an, of course, i hope also we can have a debate about some of the culture, about some of the upbringing, some of the parenting, some of the deeper point that lie behind these problems. >> david tc davies. >> mr. speaker, frontline officers were telling me last night they had been afraid to use measure of fiscal sorts because concerns about

criticism. five minutes of power which have seen, so when the prime minister, i welcome this, we will be robust and do whatever it takes. kenya shows that members of the south will support the police if they have to strike people with battens? because force has to be met with greater force. >> i know the honorable gentleman speaks with great expertise as he serves as a special constable himself. the point is this. people do what robust policing. of course, the police have to be sensitive to things that happen in the past. sometimes the pendulum can swing too far one way and into for the other what i'm sure the message has been received loud and clear that went this sort of violent criminal behavior people what robust response. >> heidi alexander. >> the prime minister has talked about the wrong play by gangs and technology in the disorder that has taken place over the last week. does he share my concern about the popularity and accessibility

of internet footage glorifying gangs and knives? what we do to ensure these despicable videos are taken down? >> i think the honorable lady speaks very powerful. but also on this issue where frankly everyone has responsibilities, not just minutes of parliament, police, parents. media companies and social media companies who are displaying these images, and all of them should think about their responsibilities and taking down those images. that's why don't sector is going to a meeting with those organizations to see what more can be done. >> thank you, mr. speaker. two of the shocking images the prime minister virtue in his statement took place in my constituency. can i thank them for coming here on tuesday quick yesterday and today before my constituents finally got to see the kind of policing in terms of visibility and robustness that they want to see every night. came here issue to me and my constituents that we're not just going to see a temporary change

of police tactics, but a permanent one? >> i thank the honorable gentleman for what he did to introduce me to some of the shopkeepers affected homeowners in his constituency, some of them have been made homeless. i can given that assurance because i think one of the things that has been demonstrated the last few days as i said is the importance of searching police numbers quickly. there are 30,000 officers in the met. having just 3000 on the streets on monday, on sunday wasn't enough. that's what action was taken to increase a bit unsure lessons will be learned in that regard. [inaudible] with resources to support the police and what they're doing here, can ask the prime minister the context every doing the action of the police over the last few days, and using their lengthy experience of right controls and inviting the police to handle the situation in the future speak with of course it's

enormously helpful having -- who serve so well in northern ireland but it is an issue i raised myself and cobra about accessing their expertise in the police service in northern ireland. i would just make the point that i think one of the issues that we need to grip quickly was the fact that this was not a political protest. it was actually looting gangs. so every case is different. that's i think one of the difficulties police have to fa face. >> when the authority of parents and teachers and police have been eroded, consistently for so many years, and hopefully the prime minister will reverse the process but he himself has said again and again, it's the stability of families that can't. he's made tremendous progress. but before the election he said part of thi his marriage was thu bring in a marriage tax allows but it still hasn't happened. will he now do it? >> as the honorable member

knows, i support, i think we should support families and marriage in every way we can. i think we should set a simple test for all government policies which is this. is what we're about to do going to enhance responsibility, whether parental responsibly or the responsibility of the teacher in the school come the response a police officer on the street it is is going to earn have the response that we should do it. if it isn't we shouldn't. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister realize that in times of economic downturn, inquisitive crime increases always? the difference this week was it was backed up by extreme violence and perpetrated by mobs. can i ask him to reconsider the cuts to the police budgets? you will be seen not to be getting into mob violence by giving into commonsense. >> i simply don't accept this determined that when you get change in the economy there are automatic change in the levels of criminality. and, indeed, the figures over

the last recession disprove that. we should be clear in this house that it is criminals that are responsible for crime. it is an individual act and we should hold people responsible for those acts. let me take this opportunity for paying tribute to the welsh police officers, that gave great support to police forces across england. >> mark pritchard spent can i congratulate on the leadership is shown and the initiatives that he has announced today? isn't not the case though that those local authorities that attempted to close down youth services should think again? and perhaps consider shutting off and closing down some of the more lavish firms enjoyed by some local authority workers? >> the point i would make to the honorable gentleman is every organization, whether it is a local authority, central government, a police force, at a time whatever is having to make budget reductions has got to

focus on the front end on the things that matter most. we're doing that at central government. police forces are doing that and local authorities should do the same. >> i was on the streets at the height of the rioting on monday night. and i know how frightened people are, and remained at and i believe most important thing is to regain control of our street. but on the question of the army, let me say this. when we are attracted, to further militarization of the situation to some members of this house, even to some of my own constituents, but let me say this. he will be aware that he who has ordered battering rams and water cannons is against the use of these things in the current situation. and i say to this house, whether it is a popular thing to say or

not, that the further militarization of the situation we face will not help and may bring things to and even worse level. >> first of all let me agree with what the honorable lady said. i think very private about the fact this was criminality on the streets and about how frightened people were. i agree with others who say now is not the time to take these steps to the point i would make is government has a responsibility to ask about contingencies, to work out what next, what if it got worse? those are responsibility we take seriously. let's take this opportunity to pay tribute to what the armed >> we are going to show you this session from the house of commons again tonight at 10:05 on c-span.

while in washington, house and senate republican leaders have named the members of the new committee that will come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter about details on the committee. >> now that the picks are finalized, tell us a bit more about who was selected. starting with the democrats to finalize their picks today. >> nancy pelosi picked three members of leadership circle. ,

he is close to the obama administration. he has close ties across the very diverse caucus. xavier becerra. he is the only hispanic that will be on this committee. he served last year on the joint fiscal commission that the president set up. he served on that commission and voted against the recommendation. none of these picks are surprising. >> did the democratic senatorial picks surprise you at all? >> she will be the only woman on the panel. it is an interesting take because she also heads the

party's political operations. she has been very critical of the thames by house republicans to remake medicare and other programs. she is respected on both sides of the aisle. it was interesting to see her pets. more of an unusual pact is john kerry agreed he has national stature as a presidential nominee. he has not really been a leading figure on budget issues. he has been more focused on his foreign relations champ -- chairmanship. it is an interesting pick to see him on their rather than one of the party's more budget c'mon keep type of people -- budgets type of people.

max baucus has been on these committees before. he has not really been offering a huge plan of his own. it is -- none of these people on either -- none that you would look at and say, that is somebody who is going to be a rogue. these are people who are trusted within the democratic caucus to negotiate for their interests. >> let's go over the republicans. starting with jeb henserling of texas. >> he is probably the most conservative member. he notably opposed the tarp package. even though that was supported by the other members of the leadership team.

it was supported by the president. to the extent that there is somebody that will be associated with a key party sensibilities, it will be hensarling. i have heard from democrats who are nervous about him being the cochair. they do not see him as somebody who has any real history of compromising and reaching deals. the other two people that were picked, dave camp and fred upton, our standard republican leadership types. upton has been a little bit moderate over the years. both of those committees handle entitlement issues. dave camp has been the lead

spokesman for tax reform. that is going to be the key for this question. >> relative newcomers in rob portman and pat toomey. jon kyl is retiring. portman is an interesting take -- pick. he has really foster ties on both sides of the aisle and talked a lot about doing something on tax rent -- tax reform that could generate revenue. he also is seen as somebody as a potential pick for vice president next year. he is one to watch.

he was a former budget director under george bush for a couple of years. pat toomey is also interesting. he was the former president -- which was very conservative. he has had a break in recent months with the anti-tax advocate. he disagreed with the contention that ending tax breaks for things like ethanol or a tax increase. he said, some of these things are indefensible. something like the ethanol tax break really should be considered a spending program, not a tax cut. there is some sense that you could get some wiggle room on taxes and that could free up democrats to do something on entitlements. that is what they have to all decide, this group of 12.

they have to decide pretty early on do they go for a really big package? or do they just basically try to get to that $1.20 trillion figure that is the bare minimum of what they are supposed to produced by cobbling together things that are less controversial. things like agriculture programs instead of taking on the big issues. >> when will the groups start their work? have you heard in these meetings will be open or close to the public? >> we do not know the answer to either yet. we think it will probably be fairly soon. this is obviously an urgent issue that has a lot of ground to cover. they have to have something done by thanksgiving. there have been calls by leaders on both parties for this group

to do things in the open. it would be good for c-span cameras and viewers. what my guess is that they will probably be a combination of open meetings and not-so-open meeting. to a large extent, that happens behind closed doors, that is where the real negotiations take place. all these people are very close to the leaders themselves. in order to get a real deal, and you will have to -- that means the leaders will be involved. the president is going to be involved. to some degree, this will happen in public, but i would not be surprised