times, probably manager pressures. >> just wonder though, mr. murdoch, whether someone of your thinking that mr. brown had said we will declare war on your company that you interpreted that being the very least the possibility of obstacles been placed in a way of your bid for the many shares of bskyb. [inaudible] >> no. [inaudible] >> yes, certainly. >> i think he was digesting we just break, nothing more spent i

hope we can get through today. >> well, mr. murdoch, i'm concerned about -- >> it's up to you spend i'm concerned over all of out the lens of this evidence, and if we plowed through these to the afternoon, how cogently my questions will be and how your answers might be. i know how much i've got left. my preference would be to go just about 45 minutes in the afternoon, and then complete in about two or three hours in the morning. >> can i suggest that during the course of the next hour you have a word with those who are advising, have a word with them as well? i'm conscious that i do not want to put excessive pressure on you, and i don't want to put excessive pressure on the minister. >> thank you. >> all right. you can return to that. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] practices and his company, news corp. international. >> to give you my recollection of him, quince, maybe even twice. family picnics my weekends at my daughter's house in the grounds of land in council where he came

with his family. we were overrun by childr. i was extremely impressed that the kindness should to e children and particularly these -- i came away talking about what a good family. >> did you feel he was light weight? >> not then, certainly. hasn't had the opportunity to make that judgment. >> when you were a leader of the opposition we know from one of the documents you put in that you saw him on a number of occasions. it is exhibit k r m 29. that will be turned up for you. might be no. 28 in that bundle. page 01907.

>> thank you. we can see, mr. murdoch, that there are a number of meetings with him. in 2006 there were two, lunch and breakfast. [talking over each other] >> politics and policy. in 2007 it is less clear whether that breakfast played. in 2008 -- >> it is and clear -- don't have a memory of that. >> just the general flavor. the exact dates of service. in 2008, rebecca bob brooks

quite often nose and -- you atnded -- she attended the wedding of rebecca bob brooks to charlie brooks. >> together with mr. brown and mr. blair, cameron. >> if you turn the page to 01908. a breakfast meeting with mr. cameron when the day "the sun" endorsed him. do you see that? >> was that the endorsement? >> that is not possible. today we declared -- the time of the labor party conference. at the end of it. and american. >> nothing working on the basis

of the last two days, the right day--september of 2009. you are saying that incorrect? >> the day the labor party conference. >> september 30, 2009. [talking over each other] >> i wasn't here. >> you are sure about that? >> oh yes. >> when you referred to policy did you discuss with mr. cameron

is the use such as broadcasting regulation? >> no. you keep in furring that endorsements were motivated by business motive for. if that had been the case we would endorse -- every election was more prone. could have been like the telegraph or text them every day. but i didn't. >> it says here we probably discussed afghanistan. >> part of your thinking invoes an assessment of who is going to win the next election.

would not be supporting the same party this year. >> if that had been the case. it was not the case. >> do you remember discussing with mr. cameron the issue of bbc license fees? >> not at all. >> did you discuss the role of outcomes? >> no. >> did you discuss the context of his becing director of communication for the conservative party and the coalition government? >> no. i was just as surprised as anybody else. >> were you not interested to know what mr. cameron's position was on various matters i just put to you? >> no.

no. [talking over each other] >> and broadcast -- >> the bbc license fee. i had been rough that. it didn't matter what they said. they all hated the bbc and gave whatever they wanted. [laughter] >> did you just assume -- >> the idea of slicing and giving it to commotion and preparedness. a never heard of that before and it sounds crazy. >> mr. -- >> i don't believe in that policy. >> i will ask you to separate out in your mind the question whether you might be discussing some topicalssue for commercial advantage. you told mr. jay that you never did. on a separate question, whether

in fact these were topics were the -- that were worthy of discussion on which you had a review. dimension you talked about afghanistan. it would be reasonable. lots of people will. your view may be informed by your worldwide contacts through the businesses you operate. that is your view. so your view on for example the regulation of television would itself be of value and may be of intere to those who are formulating policy not because it would nessarily affect news corp. but because this is a business to which you have

devoted your life and therefore not surprising you he strong views. >> i understand. i just want to say i have long since become -- there is a time to talk to the bbc. that was all there was to it. i did not speak to them about that >> would have been asking for something. i didn't do that. >> if i may. if i had been interested in commercial interests i would have supported the tory party because they were

pro-business. [talking over each other] >> against my better interests but i don't think so. as justice leveson pointed out it was in my interest to reflect the views or talk to our readers. afghanistan, i felt very strongly about. that this was beyond going in there. i talked very strongly particularly when i came here, the great young british soldiers who had been wounded or killed.

i talked very strongly -- they were not prorly protected. i was dissatisfied with cameron's answer about a europeans. our argument was it should protect the americans. we kept relationship always with mr. cameron -- mr. brown. you will note in the letters between he and ibest wishes. >> in terms than of how your bid for the remaining shares with bskyb were treated, would work with other reasonable default position that the government

would be more favorable to the bid than a later company. >> it happens every day, the shareholders decide to take in shares. >> i understand -- >> didn't think there was any -- >> i was in america. what was worrying me was the independent directors were driving up the price, many billions of dollars. they didn't even settle for that. that is a lot of money to bring into this country. and a lot of money departed. >> you said you didn't believe it was a legitimate interest of government but surely your

experience over the gears would tell you that government for political reasons would be interested in bids of this sort? >> it didn't cnge anything. we controlled the -- we won't gained control. we are just going to continue. we did hope to maka stronger and greater course in europe. and where we were having plenty of difficulties but that is another story. >> the whole experience of what happened on the twenty-seventh

of january 1981, a heated debate in parliament over your acquisition of the times and "the sunday times" and what happened today in 1987 and what happened with thethe sunday times" -- bskyb merger. there was always a political freestyle around your mergers and acquisitions and -- [talking over each other] >> i welcome that question. i want to put it to bed once and for all. that is a complete myth. >> what is the myth? >> that i used the influence, suppose the political power to get favorable treatment. >> the reason we have what are called a political free start is there is a section about -- you use your influence politically.

you only repudiate the effect will basis of that, what we see in 1981 or 1990 and in 2010. don't you agree that is a recurring theme in the guardian? >> not everywhere. after a while if these lies are repeated again a again -- particularly if you are successful, people who are resentful and grab on to them. >> we don't have in this li will looking at, mr. cameron flying out to center ring the --santori

--santorini. your wife remembers but not you. you have no recollection at all of that? >> no. it is coming back to me. he was being flown by my son-in-law's plane on his way to holiday inn turkey and stopped and she says i met him on her both. but it doesn't matte . but it doesn't matter. >> mr. cameron taking quite significant steps to meet you.

why do you say that? >> politicians go out of their way to impress people in the press. i don't remember discussing things with him at all. there may hav been some issues discussed. wasn't a long meeting. i don't really remember the meeting. that is part of the democratic process. all politicians like to have their views known by the

editors. hoping they will come to pass. hoping they will succeed in in impressing people. that is the game. >> doesn't the game go further than that? not just dividing politician with a megaphone but also powerful institutions like "the sun" endorsing the politicians and therefore they might run the votes of btish people might be affected. do you see that? >> of course. they would like us to carry their views in a favorable way.

i think that is totally normal. both parties for all parties. and very lucky in this country that we have ten vibrant national newspapers to keep the national debate going. mr. cameron -- i don't know. he certainly didn't -- >> perhaps he -- >> i don't have anything on the tory party. or the labour party. i don' get invited to dinn. >> the importance of the

face-to-face meeting, iortance which you appreciate is when you invited yourself to checkers on january 4th, 1991. he was seeking access to you. >> let me be quite honest. i enjoyed meetings. our leaders. some impressed me more than others. i meet them around the world. one or two particularly impressed me. >> you've mentioned -- >> one looks at personalities, knowledge, policies. their principles. they're principles.

>> can i bring you back to these -- the democratic process. did you feel there is any validity to the perception that there is an implied trade-off? people think -- i have been thinking over 30 years that the support you give to politicians in "the sun" in particular. believe met with quid pro quo a the same time. wait for the end. if that is right than the democratic process -- i am not really interested -- we understand your evidence that there is no empirical basis to that. do you see a need for that? >> the perception is very

interesting. i think it is a myth. everything i do every day proves it to be such. how i treat mayor bloomberg in new york. simply crazy. we support him every time they run for reelection. >> shortly after the coalition government was set up, to number 10 of the eighteenth of may, 2010. on that occasn and possibly other occasions you go in the back door. is that right? >> yes. there are reasons for that.

>> they don't want me to be photographed going out the front door. >> to the apartment. >> why do you think -- >> the car park is usually parked behind downing street. >> do you deal with it in a ort encounter ert team. the statement, mr murdoch -- and -- >> can't tell you everything from memory. >> page 03015. >> i got 110.

most of the way through that paragraph. go to the beginning, i do recall that. do you see that? shortly after his election mr. cameron invited me to tea. he backed me to the support of his papers. i congratulated him and told him i was sure we would watch carefully and report whether he kept his campaign policies. is that the extent of its? >> yes. >> i have to leadd mr. thompson

was present. >> at this stage the bid was

why was the bid announced one month after the election? >> i do not know. i would have to go and look at my records. there was no way weekend of directors, which take place, i think in june. the question had been raised with the outside directors that we would like to find a way to move forward.

i do not think there was ever a formal bid it as such. >> what interests me, mr. murdoch, it is the acquisition would need very careful planning. you need to get all of your finances in place. it probably takes years to concede in one sense, and then serious consideration is given to this bid in 2009. surely in strategic terms, you are also being advised as to when best to announce the bid. is that not right? >> i do not think we gave any thought of when to do it except it would be good to talk to them when they were together. >> pure coincidence, a month

after the general election. is that right? >> yes. >> i will deal with one more topic. then we may seem to get on. mr. alex sammond. can we just deal with some history? they will pro in 1992, but they were anti- 2007. to put it in the news. do you remember that? >> no. i do know that in 2007, --

>> yes. your relationship with him, one might suggest it improved. if you look at your exhibit krm- 28. 27. >> yes. >> can you see, mr. murdoch, that between november 17, 2000,

and october 12, 2007, there was no contact between you? >> november 17, 2000, and there was a telephone call possibly, and the same is set for october 12, 2007, some seven years apart for two perhaps telephone calls. >> i think the point is that there was absolutely no contact between you, but from october 30, 2007, there is, i will not say frequent content -- content, but there is more conte. as you can see. >> well, you can see here that on october 30, there is a very large and modern printing plant

in scotland. he along with many other notables went by to be present. >> and then there is a breakfast meeting on april 4, 2008. it is enough to be either one to one or more intimate, where you discussed your families and scottish -- do you see that? >> it does not say where that was held. >> no. >> he might have been visiting new york or something. >> much more in new york man here. >> and the telephone calls, on june 20, 2011, you discussed his interest in scottish independence. do you see that? >> yes. >> and then there is another

meeting in december 2011. this time, you discuss the news core investments in scotland. do you see that? >> i do not know who wrote this. but -- it might have been to apologize because we reduced the employment numbers quite dramatically in scotland. we decided to break up our call center. many, many thousands of people, three different ones around the united kingdom. for security risks. >> having in your eyes, perhaps unexpectedly -- >> we still remain a very large employer in scotland through

that and through the scottish son. -- sun, and the lesser activities, like the distribution of films and books and so on. >> how would you describe your relationship with him? is it warm, or is it something different? >> today? >> yes. >> i would describe it as warm. >> and in this period, it is the general impression we might derive that your relationship is continuing to improve your route. that is the. of 2007 to the present day. >> yes. i do not know him well, but three meetings here, and he is an amusing guy. i enjoy his company and enjoy talking with him, listening to him.

>> to look at some correspondence from his office, 1993, the second file. the first page says he releases rupert murdoch papers, and unfortunately, this is not -- on october 24, 2007, which is a number of pages through this, mr. murdoch, mr. sammond rights to you in new york. i would like to see if you can find that, please.

>> the bbc news. >> the bbc news announcing that his office has released the papers which we are about to look at. i wonder if he might give some assistance on this to find this letter from october 24, 2007. it is about six pages into this. >> yes. is this the october 2007? >> that is right. >> yes. >> he met you in new york in early 2007. we can see that, can we? >> yes. >> he found your views both inside and and stimulating, and

there was a reference to a booked which you gave him to read, and then he is telling you about global -- and then on october 31, 2007, which is the next -- >> that is a book by now senator webb. he wrote several years ago, talking about the irish scots and their persecution. it was very fascinating about how they went and settled in virginia and tennessee, so on, but if you go through the names of casualties in american wars, you see a disproportionate number of them there.

>> he writes to you again on october 31, which is the next page. he is writing to youtube go to see a play in new york, warning you that this is quite challenging, a rough cut production. you did not see that play? >> i am afraid not. >> and then there are other letters which passed between new -- you. i am not going to go over all of them. in february 2009, and then in 2000 -- >> excuse me. i am not with you. >> it does not really matter,

mr. murdoch, i am just passing over. and then the scottish sun supports the snp in the election, although they are neutral on the issue of independence. do you follow me? >> i do not see that in this letter. >> no, you do not, because i am moving. it is a matter of public record that they supported the snp in discuss election -- in the scottish election, although they were neutral and independence. was that a conversation you

contributed to? >> i do not remember, but probably yes. >> why did you support that party? do you recall? >> well, it is a little emotional, but i am attracted by the idea, but i am not convinced, so i thought we should stay neutral. let's see how he performs. >> but your emotions were taking you to a different place previously. as we can see, in 2007, we did not support the snp.

>> i think we decided to support labour throughout. >> but the emotional attraction to the snp was not manifest in any way by your choice of endorsements in 2007, was it? >> i do not know much about them. i had just met him a few times. and fined him an attractive person. and as i say, as i said to you,

it is a nice idea. >> there is only one further point arising out of this, and i do not think is necessary to turn up the letter, mr. murdoch, but the general manager of the international newspaper of scotland rights to him on may 9, 2011, congratulating him on last friday's quite astonishing victory. it points out that it was born out of the desire to change, and he says, i look forward to news international played its part to help make the country a place where former thinking and risk- taking are the norm. >> when was that? >> may, 2011.

>> yes. >> it might be said that you had an ally in mr. sammond now, and you are pointing out, or rather, mr. dunsmore was pointing this out in scotland for the future. would you agree with that? >> well, mr. dunsmore may have gone a little too far in his enthusiasm. i can only tell you, as a matter of interest, that we did not continue to support mr. sa mmond at this stage, i really would have had an insurrection there. >> i think it is probably right,

mr. murder, it is my decision, and i am sorry to have to inconvenience you tomorrow as well, but i think it is important that we take these measures without getting too tired, so thank you very much indeed, and 10:00 tomorrow morning. >> thank you, sir. >> that was rupert murdoch of news corp. testified yesterday. he will be back before this immediate inquiry commission in just a few hours, and we will have live eastern coverage on our companion network c-span2. >> the national public radio table. you guys are still here. that is good. i cannot remember where we

landed on that. >> this weekend on c-span, the 98th annual white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and the talk- show host jimmy campbell before an audience of celebrities, journalists, and the white house press corps. coverage begins with the red carpet arrival, and watch the entire dinner only on c-span. you can also think up your experience on line. find the celebrity guest list, highlights of past dinners, plus blogs and media posts. the white house correspondents' dinner, live saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the arizona governor said she was very encouraged by the supreme court argument on the constitutionality of the arizona immigration law. she and the leading attorneys spoke with reporters shortly

after the supreme court heard the case. the court is expected to decide on the end of the term in june. you can listen to the argument friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> governor. >> let's do it. >> governor, you must be encouraged by how it went? >> i am. i am very, very encouraged. while we were all able to view today and here. i think the hearing went very, very well. i feel very confident as i walked out of there that we will get a favorable ruling in late june. it was impressive that they gave us extra time, something that we all know is very unusual, and that gave the significance of

how important this ruling will be, not only to the state of arizona but certainly to the united states of america. >> why? >> i think the questions and responses, it just as far as federal rights, the arizona sovereignty, that we do have a responsibility to do what we can, i feel they gave, in the comments they made, that arizona has a right and that i, as governor, i felt was somewhat insured that i had a right to protect the citizens of arizona. >> what is you are protecting? much of what is in the arizona law, why is arizona it active? >> i think the bill basically mirrors federal law.

at the question is is can law enforcement be part of that, and we all know that law-enforcement interacts on numerous occasions with the federal government in regards to lots of different laws, those being drug laws, robbery at banks, and all we are asking is that they work collectively with us to montforts the laws. we believe in the rule of law, which brings to mind, i might say, part of the questioning was why was the federal government not wanting to enforce the law. i thought that was very striking. why do they not want to enforce the federal law at all prince did they want to selectively take a portion of the log that they want to enforce? so it is very, very revealing today. i think that we will succeed,

and i am looking forward to june. thank you. >> one of the comments made by the government? the government decided they did not want to. arizona. >> i would assume that there would be incarcerations. if they had broken the law on the first offense. some of the federal administration discredits the fact that there are that many illegals in arizona. >> the policy. arizona. what is the comment? the responsibility?

>> if they are breaking the law, there is that possibility. >> president obama and his justice department, to appeal to the latino voters in the november election. >> i did not hear the first part of your question. the last part of what i think i heard, or maybe you want to repeat it. >> president obama and the democrats and the justice department, not so much revealing what they say is a problem, but, in fact, with an eye to the november election with the latino voters. >> this is an election year, and i believe it was staged at a time when they knew this was coming up, and they are playing up to the latino community, and

they are trying to use that scare card, if you will, to generate support for the election. >> some say that you signed the law as an election ploy. there are people who say you signed the bill for your election. >> i doubt that very seriously. i signed the bill after reading it and amending it after it went through the legislature to make sure that it absolutely did what we wanted it to do, and that was to address the perilous situation that arizona was facing, making sure all the while knowing that it would be a lightning rod and that the race card would be thrown out there. racial profiling is wrong. it is against the law. we amended it to make sure that would not happen, and now, exactly what we thought would happen has been exasperated.

it was because we needed protection for the citizens of arizona, and what arizona was experiencing as far as the cost element in education and health care and incarceration. >> let me ask you the question that was passed by chuck schumer yesterday. >> i just want to take the opportunity to recognize the counsel, paul clements and his staff. they have worked hard and diligent, and i just know with the council we have had that they did the very best job that we can do for the people of arizona, and in an effort to support the rule of law. >> mr. clement? >> sure.

of course, the court has heard this, and we were gratified. they kept both lawyers up at the podium and a longer than scheduled. i think that underscores the seriousness of the issues, and i will say from the lawyer's perspective, this is really an issue about federalism. in particular, the focus on the arizona law as it should be, with some respects with the justices, the federal statutes are just as important as arizona statute, and what you saw is a real understanding on the justice's part that what arizona has done is accept the invitation of the federal statutes themselves separate premium on trying to get communication between state and local law enforcement and federal officials, so even though a lot has been on arizona, i think you saw the

justices equally focused on what congress has done, and this is to show that there is a conflict between what the federal government has done in its congressional approach and what arizona has done in its own approach, so we are certainly grateful to represent the governor and the state. it is a great working relationship, starting at the process of getting the court interested in the case after the ninth circuit decided it. we are very gratified the court heard it today and that gave us a little bonus time. >> it was pointed out by several -- that tells the federal government to do anything more. is that what you found? >> i thought it was certainly very encouraging that all the justices poorly understood the way these operate. they understood what was at

issue in this case and what was not at issue in this case, and very early in the federal government's argument, the chief justice started off by making it clear if this was not a case about profiling. that this was a case about the preemption and relationship between the federal law and the state law, and i think one of the things that is a misconception that a lot of people have, but the state law does not really authorize officers to do something they cannot do otherwise. it simply makes its systematic, and it does have the effect of overriding some local policies that, contrary to federal statutes, actually prohibited offices -- officers from communicating with the federal government, and i think that is what makes the federal government's argument difficult, because they have to argue that this interferes not with the federal statute but with their enforcement posture, and, of course, i think as a number of justices pointed out, they maintain the ultimate decision on who to prosecute federally

and hutu removed from this country. the arizona law discussed today, it puts federal officials in the position to know who they have in the country and then decide as a matter of law. , and i think, certainly, an issue that is attributed, i think a lot of the justices were of the view that that is not something they can really take into account in this challenge, so i think in that case, the justices for the most part refocused on a specific issue with the federal statute and the state law. thank you. >> over here.

every year. >> i am an attorney with the american civil liberties union. we are the amicus in this case, along with others, and they filed an action even before the department of justice did. i think there are three telling things about today's argument. >> can i ask you guys? we are doing this? or wait? ok. >> so there are three telling things about today's arguments. first, of the box, several justices expressed serious concerns about the civil liberties impact, and as a result of those, and the state of arizona has had to narrow its position substantially and is now defending this, but this is

not what 1070 does, and i think that is what is clear what the statute as well as from everything we have heard today. it became clear that the justices are concerned, beaver there for an hour more while they are proving their right to be in the country. >> i in the executive director

center.si we are the council in the class action lawsuit that we filed against arizona which in addition to raising the pension plan, it violates the first and fourth amendments. these claims are not before the supreme court today. it is very clear that they were concerned about the impact this would have on u.s. citizens, whether there any databases and whether there would not be able to clear a u.s. system. there were very concerns about what this would have on a citizen from mexico who is striving with driver's license and traveling through arizona. they understood the complexity

for a person who is there about an id. the decision will come out when the supreme quarto be nearly focus decision and will allow us to continue our case. this is spent on american statute. it is a fact that is today in racial profiling. thank you. >> this was the result of a very bad decision from the justice

department. when the decision was made to sue arizona, the federal government didn't unprecedented thing. never before has the department of justice sued a state for trying to assist the federal government. in making that ill-fated decision comment they ran into what we saw today. they're on the ropes for most of the argument. the reason was he was backed by the justices. can you give me an example where they can pre-empted by coercing federal law? they had no answer. this is unprecedented. the answers today were very inadequate. they fell back the the last argument that is iif they did nt

like a comet that could be pre- emptive. i think this is appropriate. they took actions and never said that taken. in merit precisely the terms of federal law. that is important. conflict pre-emption has a conflict. the state law here is the exact phrase of federal law in nearly mayoress a federal law. there is no way that the provisions are going to be pre- empted after this oral arguments. it is a good day for arizona. it is a good date for the u.s. constitution. >> thank you so much. i want to applaud governor jan

brewer. wher this is a team effort in terms of finding a solution. i think america resonates that. two out of every three americans endorse arizonas immigration law. we saw that today. we also see bad behavior from the department of justice. i hope america wholesome accountable. i would like to introduce to my colleagues. then we will take your questions. >> having actually been in the state legislature, this is not a new battle for arizona. what is new is the absurdity of many of those opposing it and what they're willing to say.

you have someone opposition standing behind these microphones to claims to be a lawyer making up a scenario that could not happen under this law. one of my great frustrations is the political theater hoping ctst the court hears the fa and reality. i believe the court will uphold arizona and therefore uphold the constitution and the citizen's right to arizona. >> thank you very much. i know the supreme court will read the law before passing it. it's a sign into law by the governor. secretary in the pull a ton of came out against it.

there has been a lot of misinformation that has been put forth on this law. it allows the local authorities to enforce federal law. the federal government should be embracing that cooperation. we should all be working in tandem to enforce federal law. that is what this allows us to do. i think the supreme court will uphold the law. thank you very much. >> i wanted to take a second. 1070 is a codification of the united states constitution. i am the guy that wrote it. i have filed a grievance with the court also. i am gratified with the court today and their responses. clearly had ay yearl

hand on the issues. arizona has a direct response whether the federal government likes it or not. >i thought they said a lot of things. but that it was over reaching. but that it was very clever. i thought it was a clear victory. this of be the minimum. it can be greater.

this is not true. they know that. thank you for coming. the weather is right. >> he is a former state senate president. they have legislators for 20 states. they're hearing that very well. a looks like they were up holding key provisions. the administration has run away with an earlier rhetoric. some said this is about racial profiling.

the administration thinks this law complex with the political priorities and needs to be thrown out by the courts. it is that the way our constitution works. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the supreme court will decide the arizona case later. for more information, go to c- span.org. >> we will hear from congressman joe courtney of connecticut on an increase to change interest

rates. the delicate one of the student cam first prize winners. we take your calls starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. one of the winners of our student cam winners. this is 40 minutes. >> it is time to meet our first prize winner. he is a student at the middle school. welcome. >> thank you for joining us where to get the idea for this ta

>> i was thinking about which amendment and loans is my daily life the most. i think it was the first amendment and freedom of the press. specifically have is that affect you in your daily life? it gives power to ideas. and a documentary just came from that. host: so, from the time you first got the idea, who did you go to and what did you have to do to make it a reality? guest: i really just sent e- mails out to as many people as i could to get interviews. you would really be surprised as who will e-mail you back. you just have to be persistent enough. host: give us an example of some of the surprises you had along the way in putting this together? guest: interviewing dan merck from the onion. i got an email couple of days

later seeing if they can set up an of you. host: from the time you started to the time you finished it, what did you learn about free- speech and the first amendment that you did not know before? guest: i really learned how much influence our country and how our country relies on it. and i also learned about the issues that it is facing, especially from our perception in the modern era. host: such as? what do you mean by that? guest: that we are not really willing to see all the different viewpoint. like we did in past times. that we are just willing to plug into what ever we want to watch. host: who helped you put this together? did you from this and added this yourself? guest: yes, i did it all by myself. i was pretty independent.

host: did you get help from school or your parents or anything along that line? guest: not really. host: james duff from the newseum, you heard the winner talk about the first amendment and perceptions and even at the young age -- what would you like to add about the concept, particularly as it deals with the younger generation growing up in the new age? guest: first, let me congratulate -- congratulate leo for the wonderful romney put together, very inspiring and well thought through and gives us a lot to think about. it is very encouraging for me to see young people take such an interest in it. i firmly believe it is the only way we are going to preserve our freedom is is if our citizens -- if we understand the importance of the first amendment on our freedoms and how we protect and preserve them. host: both of our guests joining us for the remainder of our time this morning to talk about issues of free speech and first

amendment. if you want to ask questions -- james duff, you are the ceo of the newseum. for those who do not know, what is it? guest: very interactive museum on pennsylvania avenue. at the front of the building there is a tablet of the first amendment of the constitution of the united states. it is full of artifacts and interactive exhibits that demonstrate value of the basic freedoms of our first amendment.

a real history not only of news but a history of the country. we believe it was -- it is a real civic educational experience to walk through the museum and we encourage all of the visitors to washington and those 11 the area to come by and experience it. host: do you realize students at an early age like leo pfeifer getting interested in these issues? guest: we do. we have a number of school groups visit here every single day of the year. very pleased about that. we encourage it. for all walks of life and age groups, but we are particularly interested in bringing in younger people and school groups to help educate them about important freedoms and first amendments. host: pour leo pfeifer, what sources discontinue putting the final product together?

guest: for a topic like this there were some of different sources. i really talked to as many experts as i could and i went through a lot of the c-span footage. i got from as many places i could. host: started with a longer list and ended up with a smaller amount of people and and the documentary? guest: at most of people i interviewed and up in the documentary -- i think most of the people like interview ended up in the documentary. host: when you started this project, did you have a certain theme in mind, the general theme of the very beginning, but it developed as you working? tella said little but about the process. guest: that was an interesting thing for me. the main theme and even the topic really evolved as i was talking to people, looking at the c-span footage. so, it was really interesting. so i really did not have a clear set of what i was going to do at the very beginning.

host: how did you come up with the title, "who owns free- speech?" guest: somebody in the document came up with something similar and it really inspired me because it is kind of in that -- mainstream free-speech today. host: james duff, tell us in a modern-day issues free-speech faces in washington, d.c., in politics? guest: i think it is critical that we as a people and every american citizen understands what it means to have the first amendment and how we can preserve it and protected. there is a very interesting story i would tell, pedro, about one of the visitors at the newseum. he was from russia and he was walking through the museum with a friend of mine and he was observing it all and he said,

you know, we have a free speech and free press in russia, too. but the difference here in america is you are free after you speak and you are free after you published in the press. somewhat humorous comment but also a profound observation. i think what is important to us as americans is to understand why it is that we remain free after we speak in the united states, what is it that protect us and protect our first amendment. there are many countries around the world that have a bill of rights and have first amendment protections written to the constitution but no mechanism or means to protect and preserve it. we have then independent judiciary, so if congress did pass a law that would abridge the freedom of speech and press, we have an independent judiciary we are free to go to and challenge the laws of congress.

that might interfere with our freedoms. the role the free press plays and as leo's documentary reveals, by some he has interviewed, as watchdogs over the government. i think it is crucial the public understand that interaction -- as a mechanism for preserving our freedoms. host: first amendment of the constitution -- short hills, new jersey. caller: two things. i wanted to know whether his documentary addressed issues in the citizens united case, the whole notion of corporate

speech, that was one thing. and the second thing i wanted to know is whether he addressed at all is the corollary to the first amendment which is the right to hefar -- right to hear people's speech. in connection to prosecutions of prisoners at guantanamo or but many other issues that involve communications that would be emanating from speech, emanating from the middle east, on subjects that might not be politically popular here, whether we have a right to actually hear that speech so we can come to understand the point of view of people who have a different opinion. host: leo pfeifer, did you take on any of those topics? guest: i really wish i could

have explored some of those in my documentary but i do have an eight minute time limit. because, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is just such a big issue that encompasses so many things. host: you reference that a caller's point of other points of you and your ability to do so. guest: we certainly enjoy those freedoms in the united states. there are, of course, limitations to the freedoms that you can enjoy for -- being free simply to yell fire in a crowded theater could cause public disruption and a concern there. but as far as political speech we enjoy much greater freedoms here in the united states than anywhere throughout the world and through what world history. we certainly encourage opportunities to hear different points of view, even when we disagree with them.

host: long island, new york. cecilia, independent line. caller: congratulations to leo -- great job. i want to know if you were ever -- ever able to ask them -- the reporters on tv or in newspapers, radio, if they feel conflict about telling the truth versus what the owner wants them to say. host: did you tackle any of that kind of thing? guest: that was actually kind of what i started out doing for the documentary. it kind of advertising that affect on the news.

i did kind of going to that but really for me, the eight-minute documentary really evolved into more about us and what kind of media we want. host: you have a tweet from 8 viewer watching it -- guest: that is interesting because the internet is blending freedom of speech and freedom of the press. it is a tool that has helped with a lot of different things. host: the blending of free- speech and free press on the internet and how it is affecting organizations like yours. guest: we actually have a brand new exhibit opening up here at the newseum the end of this week on new media and social media and the impact it is having on news gathering.

it is very much a part of our freedoms now and our and our press and the information gathering that we have and we encourage people to come visit and take a look at how we incorporate it that an experience here. host: bakersfield, california. caller: i am a journalism major myself. the story develops itself. he might have an idea what you're going after. the reason i am calling is in my research, what i discovered is that george washington during the revolutionary war wrote a letter to his troops admonishing them for their profanity and bold heard

language. he wrote specifically no man of principle would speak in such way and it would lead them to help. i find it interesting our first president would say or write such a thing and the first thing they put in the constitution is freedom of speech. host: did you do it -- or did you do this documentary for other interest? guest: in my career i want to be a filmmaker but journalism is interesting. i learned a lot about it in the course of making this documentary. host: vermont. republican line. caller: i want to congratulate this young gentleman for his efforts and looking into this material. my concern -- and i would like to raise the question -- how do

we deal with the bias in the press that refuses to print letters of the editor when people have raised questions about what is going on in this country? secondly -- if you read the constitution and the first amendment, it says congress should make no law to establish religion or restrictw 3eir expressiond thereof -- or restrict the free expression thereof and yet we have a court that restricts religious faith and a country. where we can do, when we can do it, how we can do it. mrs. o'hare, in her lawsuit against the government, established religion at the religion of the country. atheism. her belief was atheism. host: the first point about the

ability about public response to the press, whether letters to the editor or a parent means to respond to that. guest: there are various means to publish views and opinions. many of us have written letters to the editor that through space limitations or of the reasons the editors of the newspaper publication chose not to publish. i think it may be a function of space availability. and number of letters that when newspapers received -- that the newspaper received. there are various outlets for expressing views, in addition to writing a letter to editor. so, i don't perceive a widespread problem in that regard, with regard to newspaper and letters to the editor.

you can choose another publication or issue your own published comments for that matter. i have a sense we are suffering too much in america for lack of expression or bank vehicles to express ourselves in. -- we are not suffering too much in america for lack of expression or vehicles. caller: i like to congratulate leo pfeifer for his prize. i would like to expound more about diversity of opinion and viewpoints and listening to people talk and everything. do you have any opinion about the recent status of forces agreement with afghanistan? thank you. host: listening to other viewpoints and how this documentary change that. guest: that is really what emerged from it, which i think is really interesting. because that is what we need.

the power is in us to change the news media in this country and to start, we need to talk to each other and just communicate. host: when you told i begin parent or teacher that you wanted to enter the documentary contest, what was your response? guest: well, i did it last year and i won second place. and i decided i would enter it -- i was really happy when i found out. this year i worked really hard and took all of the things i learned. when you make a film you learned some many things. not necessarily just about the issue. but you make different little mistakes and from them and can improve and build from it. host: what did you learn this time around than you did last time around? guest: this time around i think i learned more about doing interviews and i think expend a

lot more time writing the questions that kind of lead to different things. host: clinton township, michigan. good morning. david on independent line. caller: i think diversity of opinion is necessary and it is constructive and stuff, but my thing is, how does that reconcile with people who, with an opinion that is completely contrary to fact and reality? we have seen in a previous segment about the polls full- service, just got done singing that the postal service is funded by the sale of its products only. maybe get a hundred thousand dollars to deliver stuff from voting in -- but then you hear a guy calling and saying he is tired of little guy funding the postal service. she just said it is funded by the sale of the province but there are a lot of people out there who feel and think the postal service is sucking money out of people.

host: to the larger topic of free-speech and the first amendment? what would you add to it? caller: how do you reconcile inaccurate statements that are accepted by people and promoted by certain people against their ability to exercise their free speech? free-speech said not include inaccurate -- completely inaccurate statements like what we just witnessed in the last bateman? host: james duff, a lot of information being put out there. how the huge rouse -- tell? guest: i think an educated public is the best misspent -- defense. people can express all sorts of views and some of them are wrong factually. but we can't prevent people from expressing those views and opinions. i think the solution really is

to seek all sources of information to get an accurate picture of things. but the first amendment certainly includes and incorporates a right to speak your views even if they may not be factually well rooted. but the freedoms we enjoy in the united states enable us, i think, to make those determinations as opposed to just getting one point of view. host: venice, florida. jane, democrat line. caller: i wanted to make a comment that a previous caller had mentioned. the supreme court case where prayer was banned in public schools. i remember when that happened and hired to that we always said the lord's prayer. -- prior to that, we always said lord's prayer. in manatee county, the prayer time got changed to a moment of silent meditation which, you know, completely neutralized whatever religion anybody supports but it addressed the spiritual needs that i think

people have, and that is not addressed today at school. so, i don't think that supreme court decision necessarily established atheism as the religion in this country. that is my comment on that. host: leo pfeifer, here is a tweet you can answer -- guest: you really just have to check all the different sources to see if it compares. just get it from credible sources. i got a lot of my video from the c-span video library, which was really helpful. host: how did you determine how

much of each guest you were going to put or each interview you were going to put in the documentary? guest: for the c-span footage, i went through hours and hours of it and just found quick little segments that i wanted. getting what you want -- or putting in what you want for the interviews you do is one of the hardest parts. you just have to watch them and find the right parts of the documentary. host: did you have dealt with that? guest: i did the editing by myself. one of the most helpful things was getting feedback from people after i had a rough cut. guest: i would just add, pedro, leo this superb job asking questions to elicit a variety of responses. and also a superb job of editing and including those in the film. his questions included the challenges we face until the first amendment today and whether the media is doing a good job, and if you could change anything in the media today, what would it be. i thought those all excellent questions.

host: oklahoma, democrats' line. lisa. you are on. caller: yes. my comment is, the first amendment is one of our most coveted -- host: just keep going, lisa. you are listening to the tv. ago when it with your question or comment. caller: one of our most coveted amendments. why would we want to get rid of that now? host: what think you may want to get rid of it? caller: it is about the first amendment and the free-speech. host: it is a larger discussion about it. caller: ok. my concern is, i don't want to see that the way.

host: jim duff, the other's share that concern? guest: i think we all have that concern. i think what is so heartening about leo's project and this competition frankly is it is encouraging all americans to give thought about this and it is encouraging an increase in civic education. one of the danger is i think we face today in and preserving our first amendment right is the alarming statistics we see in the decline in civic education levels throughout our schools. i think something like 12% of high-school seniors today for our position in u.s. history. i don't see how we can preserve our freedoms is those kinds of statistics continued. and i think this project that leo has participated in in such a very substantial way,

wonderful way, these projects are very encouraging to me. and we here at the newseum are going to take on the challenge as well. we want to get involved in civic education and getting programs out to the schools that educate people about our history and freedoms and separation of powers and the importance of a free and independent press and these role it plays. host: asking you -- whether free-speech is as free as when you talk in your school studies, and also congratulate you on first place. guest: free-speech is there, it is available. but mainstream america -- the most people just want to hear it or do they just want to hear what the press is telling them. host: columbus, ohio. janine, independent line. caller: ok, well, first of all i think because we have such a

heterogeneous society, we are not like japan or china or some of these other places, we have people coming from all over and right now they seem to have different ideas of what free- speech is. remember the supreme court judge that says i cannot define pornography but i know what -- when i see it? i think we should still have the fcc -- so if somebody sees something on there that they did not want their child to see, they have a category license. saying this is what they are going to transmit. if it is retail sales or this or that. they want to cheat and lie and do things on the internet and they could easily put the technology today have transmission like coming into your home -- i only one family licenses to come into my home.

host: the internet and then free speech and regulations in was referring to. we do try to make determinations and discoveries as to how to protect young people within the family structure from materials that we don't think are appropriate. there is a balance the fact in preserving first amendment rights and privileges with the needs that we should recognize of families to raise their children the way they see fit. so, i think one of the encouraging things about our system of government and way of life in the united states is that we have mechanisms in place to make those

determinations. we don't always gets its rights, but we have freedoms, i think, to determine the right balance. host: leo pfeifer is our studentcam winner. tell us about your school? guest: it is a really great school. host: what are some of your teachers there and is there a particular teacher you like especially when it comes to topics like the first amendment and stuff like that? guest: i think my favorite class and geography and social studies because you learn so much about history and how it affects us today.

host: when you are not at school and not doing studentcam documentaries, what are you doing? guest: i like to hang out and i snowboard. film is one of my big passions. host: chicago, illinois. thanks for waiting. caller: i would like to talk about the consolidation of media. about six major corporations now own most of the mainstream press, which includes cable and television and book publishing and newspapers -- and there are stories that will simply never gets out to the general population because it is not in the best interests of some of the people who sit on the board of some of these large corporations to expose some of the truth about these stories. i can give you a couple perfect examples of you want -- the exact -- disaster at japan, fukushima explosion, is not considered worse than chernobyl and now we continue to promote

nuclear radiation in this country, notwithstanding that several of the nuclear plants are designed just like the one that exploded in japan. there is now great serious problems with people living miles and miles away from this particular explosion site. host: from what you just told us, how did you learn that? caller: how that i learned that? because of organizations i belong to that get this information and then spread it out. partly the internet. you have to know what particular listerve to go to. you cannot begin to think you will get everything you need to know from the corporate press anymore. it is not possible.

host: james duff, the consolidation of media and what kind of information comes out. guest: pedro, your question really exposes a great solution to it, and that is there are various outlets and sources of material, more so at the touch of a finger today than we have ever had and our history. so, there is a proliferation of avenues for getting news. while there may be corporate concentration in some avenues of news dissemination, there is a growth industry in other news as well. host: manchester, connecticut. frank, democrats' line but caller: hello. i want to commend c-span and the young man on now, leo. when we talk about free speech, it just doesn't seem that bolivia -- controlled by a

select group of people. the young woman called in here recently about the concentration of media. in my town or my state, hartford, connecticut, the main paper is owned by a group from chicago who also owns a radio station and also owns a secretary sheet. it is just unbelievable. and also, as an individual, i would like to get a point across. it is almost impossible -- it seems the only way a normal human being is to get a megaphone and go out and fun of their house and yell what their problem is. there is so much more -- we have televisions in almost every home in america but yet it is all

commercials. where is the tool for education? everything is so controlled by so few corporations. host: leo pfeifer, tell us a little bit about the machines used to make the documentary, how you ended did it, what kind of computers used -- a little of the technical side of how you put these things together. guest: i shot with a still camera that takes a video and i edited it on final cut pro. host: how many hours of editing did it take? the guest: well, it was about three days and i probably spent 8-10 hours each day. it was one long weekend. host: why did it take so long? guest: it really takes time to figure out -- especially for documentaries, because it is almost like you are writing a screenplay when you are editing. you are structuring the story,

whereas for a narrative film, you've already done that. host: west virginia is next for our best. a few more minutes before the house of representatives comes in. caller: congratulations to the young man. i would like to know both the opinions about -- journalism. i very much ms. investigative journalism. maybe i should not have been surprised but i was one i heard chris wallace of fox news say that fox news exists to give the other side. he said that the other networks are liberal and so they are there to represent, well, the conservative point of view. i just thought that media should be balanced. they claim to be fair and balanced. but i -- i fear that it is a little bit dangerous that we have so many networks, fox for

presenting its views, msnbc its views -- i just feel like we are not really -- we are missing major, major stories. and except for "front line" on pbs i just feel like we are losing that level of journalism. host: the role of advocacy journalism. guest: i thought leo's documentary exposed those concerns both from academics and those involved in the media and the general public as well, which has been expressed through some of the questions on this program this morning. i thought leo's last question was a very good one, which is, if you could change anything in the media today, what would it be? i think if you look back historically, we have had these periods of time early in the history of this country where me and newspapers in a

particular were controlled by one political party or the other for advancing their points of view. so historically, we have had some periods of time where this has occurred. it has also been independent media outlets. and as you have identified it -- investigate media as opposed to advocacy media. one of the things, if i were answering leo's final question in his documentary about what would you change, and i would encourage more of the civil discourse and sort of the independent viewpoint that would be exposed and programming -- deprogramming as opposed to one particular point of view. and i think a lot of americans are ready for that. i think there is a market for it. host: we will have to leave the conversation there. james duff, ceo of the newseum, and leo pfeifer, winner of the studentcam competition, first prize for middle school. thank you for joining us.

guest: thank you, pedro. and congratulations, leo, a wonderful job. , the 2013 defense budget and threats to the u.s. with chairman of the armed services committee. then we hear from from connecticut. later of that one of the first .rize winners on the topic o >> marco rubio calls for stronger u.s. leadership. this is mentioned as a possible running mate for romney. he is introduced by joe

lieberman. >> good afternoon to all of you. it is my great pleasure to welcome all of you to brookings today and a particular welcome to all of us who will be viewing this event on our web cast. we have a lot of other media here as well, which is a great complement to our two guests of honor. we are especially pleased to have five distinguished members of the diplomatic corps here today as well as for brookings trustees. it is always an honor to have a member of the senate come down from the hill to think-tank wrote. it is a double honor we get two senators. the fact that they represent different parties testifies to their bipartisanship, which is a rare, if not endangered commodity in this city today, one that we here in brookings do our best to foster and protect. senator marco rubio is a member

of the senate foreign relations committee, the committee on intelligence, and has shown himself to be a vigorous advocate of u.s. engagement and leadership in the world. from that perspective, he is going to be talking to us today about american foreign policy and the challenges facing american leadership. he will be introduced by joe lieberman, who is a long- standing friend of this institution and i might add, a very good friend to a number of us here today. joe, we will miss you when you leave the senate, but i have no doubt you will be a forceful voice in the national and the international arena.

when senator rubio finishes his remarks, marvin is going to moderate a discussion here on the podium and then engage as many members of the audience as he can for the remainder of the program. joe, over to you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thanks to brookings. a special thanks to bob kagan for orchestrating this event today. i am honored to have been asked to introduce senator marco rubio, a rising star in the next generation of america's foreign-policy leaders. he came to the senate at a moment in our history when america was looking inward, focusing on our economic woes.

it would have been very easy for him in the political climate to have given attention only to domestic issues. i would guess that many people advised him to do exactly that, including probably a media consultant or two. but instead, he has served on the foreign intelligence committees and has devoted time and energy to foreign policy and national security. he has not done so because there are votes to be gained, but because of his belief in the importance of american leadership in the world and his understanding of how much that leadership determines our security and well-being here at home. his foreign policy is principled, patriotic, and practical. it comes from his dedicated study of history and

contemporary challenges. his foreign-policy, as i have come to know, puts him in a proud, bipartisan tradition that links together our greatest republican presidents, like ronald reagan, and our greatest democratic presidents, like harry s. truman it recognizes that america is defined, not by the land under our feet or even the blood in our veins, but by our founding values, first among them being of freedom and equality of opportunity. his promotion and protection will always be our first national purpose. it is a foreign policy tradition that is bipartisan and idealistic and recognizes that there is evil in the world, that we should not be afraid to call it by its name. we have enemies that cannot be negotiated into peace, but must be confronted with our strength.

it is a bipartisan foreign policy tradition that recognizes that the survival of liberty and prosperity in our country ultimately depends on the expansion of liberty and prosperity throughout the world. in word and deed, marco rubio has been a colleague of freedom fighters and dissidents around the world. you can regularly find him on the floor of the senate speaking out for those from whom the dictators seek to silence. at a moment when america faces

many serious challenges, both here at home and throughout the world, and when it has become fashionable to suggest that our best days are behind us and we ought to pull back, senator rubio brings to the public arena a contagious personal optimism and a abiding and patriotic faith in america's destiny. ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce to you senator marco rubio of a florida. [applause] >> thank you very much. one of the best things about working in the senate is the opportunity to learn from my colleagues. in my brief time in the senate, i have gotten to know joe lieberman. he represents a view of america's role in the world and a position -- it is evident that joe lieberman is a

statesman. he takes positions on every important national issue because he believes the best serve our country's interest and values. thank you, joe, preproduction. i am a privileged to serve it with you. i want to thank brookings for this opportunity. i wanted to contribute a few thoughts and concern over america's role of around the globe and the 21st century. i wanted to share with you my observations of someone who finds themselves in foreign policy. until very recently, the general perception was that american conservatism belize in robust and muscular foreign policy. that was the hallmark of the foreign policies of both private bush and president reagan. when i arrived in the senate

last year, i found some of the traditional sides had shifted. on the one hand, i felt liberal democrats and conservative republicans working together to abdicate our withdrawal from afghanistan or staying out of libya. on the other hand, i found myself partnering with democrats like senator casey on a more forceful foreign policy. the resolution i co-authored with senator casey on syria and the resolution i co-sponsored with senator mendez condemning fraudulent votes in nicaragua were held up by republicans. today in the u.s. senate on foreign-policy, the further you move to the right, the likelier you are to wind up on the left. i found this to be true not just in the senate, but back home as well. many of my supporters were highly critical of my decision to call for a more active u.s.

role in syria. the easiest thing for me to do today is to give a speech on my disagreements with this administration on foreign policy, and i do have many, but i want to address another trend in our foreign policy, one that increasingly says it is time to focus less on the world and more on ourselves.

we appreciate discussion to the well-being and living out of work our nation's veterans. integral to the overall well- being by and physical health of a veteran. it is important, if there is underlying depression, problems drinking, substance abuse, or other medical mental element, that this be diagnosed to make sure that those who have served our country of the full treatment of something this court to their well-being and their ability to also implement the physical health aspects of medication management, staying employed and the rest, which is so important to the quality of

life of a veteran who has served this country. it is the secret mission of the va to make sure that this integra part of our care is well delivered. i appreciate, so much, your comments regarding the 25,000 providers who work every day to serve our nation's veterans in this important mission. in a written statement, i have outlined three areas of improvement and concern that i would like to make. first, mentioned that we appreciate so much your leadership, the committee review, and inspector general's review. this is an important aspect of care and we appreciate all of the assistance. we will be working closely with the inspector general as they go forward with their report as relates to the first

recommendation, which is that we agree with the inspector general, our appointment measurement system should be revised to include a combination of measures that better capture the overall inference throughout the course of treatment for veterans while maintaining flexibility to accommodate the unique condition and phase of treatment. it must continue our efforts to strengthen mental health integration into our primary care to make sure that in primary care settings we are assessing the mental health needs of our nation's veterans and be able to address the statement often associated with this the can be discussed in a primary care setting. the second point would like to make it was announced by secretary sean secchi last week. we are increasing staff to

enhance the access to and quality of mental health care by hiring 1900 additional staff, more than 1600 of those are mental health conditions. this will augment the current complement of mental health employees in our system. it is designed to provide additional staff in our facilities and also designed to increase the staffing of the crisis line, which it -- which is so integral to the identification and treatment of people in crisis, as the ranking member brown spoke of so eloquently. it is also an important aspect of increase in that we will be adding additional examiners for compensation and pension examinations, which is an important transition for those currently on active duty and

those who present with new conditions. we have a solemn responsibility to make sure that we increase our staff to make sure that we handle this volume in a timely fashion, doing this in a way that does not erode our capacity to serve existing patients. i want to emphasize that this additional staffing will be continued to be evaluating the assessed data and staffing model. we are currently piloting this in three visits. this is a work in progress that will be continuing improved as part of our comprehensive approach making sure that our facilities have the resources to make sure that we accomplish this mission. deploying evidence based therapies to make sure that veterans have access to the most effective methods for psd and

other mental health ailments, we are making more widespread in improving the training for those who are receiving the care and delivering the care of evidence based treatments, shifting to one with -- an approach with newer treatments. we will acknowledge that we have not always indicated these changes as clearly as they might learn nation's veterans, so we are improving communication, not only to providers, but veterans, to make sure that these evidence based therapies are implemented in a way that can be supported by the veteran and the fully and educated trained personnel in making sure the fed is delivered. the summary, we thank you again for your encouragement and support. this is an important part of the

care that is fundamental to the well-being of our nation's veterans. we look forward to answering your questions, and those of the committee. >> thank you very much. miss holliday? >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the results of our recent report. we conducted the review at the request of the committee, the v.a. secretary, and house veterans' affairs committee. today i will discuss our efforts to determine how accurately we waive the times for these new and established patient. the assistant health care general for -- the assistant health care inspector general will assess access to those services. we are accompanied today by dr. michael shepherd, and mr. larry

wrinklemeyere. our review found that in consistent scheduling practices to manage the usability of the information needed to fully assess current capacity, resources' tradition, and productivity across the system in the va. in 2011, the vha reported 95% of first-time patients received a full mental health evaluation within 14 days, but we concluded that the 14 day reported measure has no real value as access to care measures, because we measured how long it took to conduct the evaluation, not how long the patient waited to receive it. we calculated the number of days between the first time patients

had initial contact and the completion of the evaluation. we projected that vha provided only 184,000 of these evaluations within 14 days. upon the request of the veteran or referral for mental health care. on average, it took us about 60 days to provide the remaining patients with their full evaluation. once we provide the patient with the valuation, vha schedules an appointment for treatment. in fiscal year 2011, we determined that vha completed approximately 168,000, or 64% new treatment appointments. thus, approximately 94,000, or 36% of the appointments nationwide exceeded 16 days. by comparison, data shows that

95% received timely care. we also projected that this included approximately 88% of the follow-up appointments for treatment in 14 days. thus, approximately 1.2 million, or 12% of the appointments nationwide, exceeded 14 days. by contrast, vha exceeded 98% timely care for treatment. we have concerns regarding the integrity of the dated information, because providers told us they used the desired date of care based on the scheduled availability. i want to point out that we've reported concerns in our audits about patient scheduling procedures in 2005, wait times in 2007. during both audits, we found

schedulers were entering an incorrect desired date and our current review showed these practices continuing. the new patient appointments, a schedule as frequently stated the use the next available slot for the desired date available for new patients, i practiced it really distorts the actual waiting time. to illustrate, vha showed approximately 48% of new patients receive their appointments on their desire appointment date. become the veteran could still have waited two months to three months for an appointment and data would show a zero day wait time. based on discussions with medical center staff and our review of the data, we contend it is not plausible to have that many appointments scheduled on that day, as the patient desires. the doctor day -- dr. day will

provide the logical conclusion. >> dr. dave? >> madam chairman, members of the committee, i already testified before you today. on a daily basis we deal with clinical care issues in the va. we know that the employees and leadership at the va strive to provide the highest quality of care to its veterans. with respect to quality metrics, i think the va leave the nation regarding use of data and publication of data on the web site. with respect to access to care, i believe it is a different story. i think those metrics are flawed. as the report indicates, he has put together a group to try to resolve the issue so that they do accurately reflect the

business process at the va. a plan to address the access to care metrics in the private sector, but i think what i would like to make are two different statements after hearing the opening statement. the first would be that i think that the va has a number of missions. a mission to provide health care. the mission to do research. a mission to treat individuals who will work in the united states and elsewhere in health care industry. the other mission is to be available in times of natural disaster. i think that as individuals out there decide how they will spend their time, those missions are generally accepted as being equal. there's nothing that says the primary mission is the delivery of health care and we will address those assets first as

professionals allocate their time. i think that when we have a crisis like we have, the prioritization of the mission, stated clearly from top to bottom, would allow individuals to rethink how they spend their time. the second issue that i think is important is setting the standard for productivity. i realize that health care cubby numbers written. i realize that personal interaction between patient and provider is important, but at the same time, there has to be some method to determine that you are getting enough work and productivity from the people working for you. so, although i think the va has worked on these issues for a while, i think that there just has to be a clear, able to be measured, and in my view a productivity standard that is easily relatable to the work done in the private sector by a

similar provider, so that one can decide if the money is being effectively used. i think that the other issues that i have brought forward in terms of the kinds of access to care standards we could use, i think that the doctor and others well understand those and we can work with them to understand the standards currently in place. with that i will end my comments and be happy to answer questions. >> thank you very much. mr. [unintelligible] >> i am honored to appear here today to address the concerns over the health care system. my testimony is based and my experience as an administrative health care of a search and experience on the committee, as well as the background of management that led to an m.b.a.

degree. these concerns about the manchester, new hampshire, medical center led to my resignation last september. i want to commend this committee for your vigilant oversight of the committee. let me also add and emphasize that additional staff alone will not remedy the systemic problems in va national management of health care. let me be clear, i do not wish to discredit the va or mental help staff. while it does try to help, the system is deeply flawed. they have put numerical performance goals ahead of the needs of veterans. practices aimed at making these facilities look good.

these systemic problems compromise the work of the dedicated mental health staff. like many v.a. medical centers, the overriding objective at our facility was to meet our numbers. meaning to beat performance measures. the goal was to see as many veterans as possible, but not necessarily to provide them with treatment that they needed. performance measures are well intended, but they are linked to executive pay and bonuses, allowing the numbers to inflate without actually providing services. a higher priority would be to meet the measure, rather than the needs of the veterans. administrators to not feel they can acknowledge this, instead as soon as new performance management program manuals were pro -- were published each year, a plan began for how to meet those measures.

even with brainstorming across the country, loopholes were being found so the requirements could be met. several performance measures mandate that veteran health treatment be seen within certain time frames. in manchester, where the demand was great, the facility director demanded a plan to give veterans seen at any cost. the order focused only on the veterans immediate problem. treat quickly with medication and do not ask for the questions about needs because "we do not want to know, or we will have to treat it." people who are suicidal or at high risk for suicide should be seen once per week for four weeks after new patient discharge, to make sure that they reduce the risk of admission and increase the

success of treatment. instead of providing these high risk patients individual therapy, a group was created for them. a step that was contrary to the intent of the director. anyone refusing to join the group was labeled resistant to treatment. the idea that group therapy could be substituted for individual psychotherapy spread throughout the network. the committee spread this idea as a so-called rest practice, though it was not a good clinical practice. it was seen as a good way to meet performance measures. i believe that most va facilities haven't understaffed service, as they lack the methodology to determine what is needed by an individual facilities. in a misguided attempt to justify more mental health staff, the head of our service was looking for quantity instead

of quality. "cut have contact with as many as we can, -- "have contact with as many as we can, even if we cannot help them." as a result, veterans fell through the cracks. there was no effective oversight, even to detect the problems we face. every year we assessed facility compliance for uniformed services, but each year we never answered the services provided. many of our answers were changed to say that required services were being provided and there were not. during my years at manchester, other members of the mental health staff and i repeatedly raised concerns with leadership regarding practices that we believe were unethical or violated the a policy. those concerns fell largely on

the effort -- on deaf ears. to our great frustration, the ethics committee consistently declined to take up these issues because they felt there were clinical matters. for me, the final straw was their failure to take meaningful action upon discovery that a mental health clinician was visibly intoxicated while providing care to a veteran. well not working in a facility where well-being was secondary to making numbers look good, i hope the va will make real changes to address the problems i've described. i calmly offer these suggestions. first, the va should stop monitoring leadership for meeting requirements that are not real measures of effective health-care. second, the va should institute a more extensive oversight into how care is being provided and how funding is being deployed to the programs they are intended

to supplement. finally, i would urge the committee how to support and mental health staffing methodology so that it is no longer necessary to guess whether 19 mental-health staff will be enough. in closing, i am honored to a share my experience and assessment of problems, which i hope you can help to resolve. >> thank you very much. major-general jones? >> [inaudible] can you hear me now? >> move the microphone up to your -- thank you. >> jones, retired marine. founder and director of the eldorado camp for at risk youth.

i do not have any expertise in meant all. i do have expertise in dealing with those who have mental health issues. i have been visiting walter reed in bethesda every week since the start of the war in afghanistan, 2001. i have been privileged to be on the board to deal with the families of the wounded. i also started some work by odyssey -- semper fi odyssey. i met a captain who was previously wounded and, while in their feet, he asked me to [unintelligible] as i have already done so. it was started as a normal transition course, but after

awhile we discovered that the mental health issues were such that we got into the whole issue of dealing with mental health. because of my legal background, i was able to bring in a lot of folks from the outside, like a navy psychiatrist, who was so moved by the experience, he had knee be involved in a number of gatherings of mental health professionals. as an adjunct for clinical analysis, but i was able to start a project looking at the best practices of mental health. we have had 30 weeklong sessions now. we use outdoor odyssey because i have the facilities. we have built on the volunteer strategy. the team leaders and almost everyone involved are in the volunteer category. what has transpired is bonding,

which works in the military, it works when you're dealing with veterans. 30 sessions, 35 or so average, we have dealt with over 1000, not only veterans, but those soon to be discharged from the working in conjunction with work -- wounded warriors and what is happening in the veteran community. " we have found is that many, if not most, of the people undergoing clinical care, they have not divulged the source of the problem. adding mental health coordinators' will not solve the problem alone. and mental health coordinator needs to have a better

understanding. if there is one thing we have learned through our experience with bringing mental health professionals to these experiences, many of them can get a better perspective of what these individuals are facing through interaction with them. so, i would encourage other folks here, my panel members, to be involved. i think of the insights that it provides you are absolutely illuminating. we can see the same things that you get in normal transition through breakthrough where people come forward to talk about doing it, which they hear about but have never talked about before. we build a network of trust that lasts, not just in that work in a sense of a transition course, but a network that will follow them after they leave the experience.

most importantly, we learned that a growing percentage of folks are having mental health issues. fairly well founded, the numbers will be growing in the future. we need experiences where folks who do deal in these settings have a better understanding of what the issues are that they are dealing with. i am very honored to be here. thank you very much. i will answer any question and i encourage members of your staff to visit. we have plenty of shall and a place to which down. and a place toowerchow push down. >> thank you very much. [unintelligible] >> first, i am happy that there

is an indication that there's a problem. it is a failure of leadership that no one was looking into this. when you see that that table before this committee, we expect you to take these issues seriously. it should not take multiple hearings, surveys, letters, and an investigation, to get action. the reality on the ground is so far off from what the central office what was happening, you have to take a hard look at the other areas of care where there are some other disconnects. we have heard is very troubling. for months, we have been questioning whether the central office had a full understanding of the situation in the field. i believe the report has shown clearly that you do not. i want to start by asking you today, after hearing from this

committee and outside experts, why you were not proactive about this problem months ago. >> chairman murray, we have been looking a mental health for many years with kent -- for many years. with the support of the congress, we have hired 8000 new riders between 2007 and 2011. we rely primarily on the mental health handbook as the source of how we would deliver care to our nation's veterans. it has been the focus of the department to make sure that we are giving evidence based therapies and a staffing model based largely on the handbook that was put out in 2009. i think that what we have learned in this journey, we have

been wanting to work very closely with providers on a number of things. as i mentioned in my opening statement, the way in which we measure the performance measures is not a good measure of weight time. we want to work closely with the ig and any other resources available to assist us in making sure that we provide veteran- centered performance missions. >> with all due respect, back in 2005, the ig said this information was there. that is a long time, with a lot of veterans in between. how are you going to address the growing gap that we have seen? >> as the doctor describe in my response to the report, -- described the in my response to the report -- described in my

response to the report, we can improve the providers on the ground by assisting and ensuring the provision of measures with support from the aig that is a veteran-centered, centered around the individual condition, one in which we can revamp and go forward. we have fully embraced it performance system that needs to be revised, which we are doing with those on the front lines to assist us. we have the benefit of these mental health site visits. we are learning, as we go, on other issues having to do with scheduling. all of this effort is assisting us, not just having people in the central office developing proposed solutions, but to engage the field in a way that we need to in making sure that

we are able to support our providers. >> i appreciate that, but this is troubling to me that it did not happen five years, 10 years ago, that it is just happening now, but we will go back to that. i appreciate your willingness to come forward today, mr. toland chino -- tolentino. in your testimony, you suggested that more extensive oversight's be implemented in how mental health care is implemented. given how adept so many facilitators are at getting around the system, how can the va must effectively perform that oversight? >> to be perfectly honest, i do not have a good answer for you, to be frank the gaming is so

prevalent. as soon as something is put out, it is torn apart to see what the work around is. i feel that the reporting that is done, it is very redundant. it feels like it goes nowhere. there is no feedback loop. telling you they're where you want to hear in those facilities, even at the network, but there is no coming back to check again, where you said you spend money on services, but there is no workload to verify that. nothing concrete to be able to speak to what you say you have done. in the short time that i worked there, often we got vast amounts of financial monies for different programs, but seldom

the did we ever get requests to verify what we had done regarding workload and or any kind of feedback report, or anything like that. opening the lines of communication and developing a feedback loop would be helpful and transparent. >> my time is up and want to turn this over to address a very important issue. the department has announced 1600 new mental health care providers, which i think is needed, but i am concerned that hospitals across the country will run into the same hurdle that spokane has run into in not being able to hire mental health staff. i hope that centers are doing what they can to fill those vacancies. by the way, i am sure that that is the next question that this committee will look at.

specifically, how are you going to make sure that 1600 new mental health care providers do not become 1600 new vacancies? >> chairman murray, that is a very important question. we have stood up in our human resources group two task forces to assist us with this. one is recruitment and retention of mental health providers, with a ticker focused on psychiatry, where the greatest need and problem is i and retaining their recruitment of mental health providers. the second task force is a hiring task force. what can we be doing to expedite and make sure we are having a process of recruitment that is as speedy as possible? the group has put together a number of code recommendations that we will be implementing. part of what the doctor spoke of

earlier in terms of an four part mission, one of the great assets, having been in the private sector for years, many mental health providers, including hundreds been trained to day, get part of their training in the va and have the opportunity to experience what is happening going forward. we need to better link with these employees. >> that is one issue, but how you arrived at your staffing plan is really unclear to meet. the mental health providers allocated, the information we got yesterday on where that would go, it is not supported by concrete facts or evidence. yesterday the director told us that she learned about these new positions only a couple of days ago and did not know how the

department even reached those numbers. i want to ask you, how did you arrive with that number? what makes you confident that it will be placed effectively across the country? >> i am sorry, i misunderstood the question. the doctor may want to embellish on this, but we use the model that looked up the volume of services. i would be happy to the answer further. >> the heart of our response to the committee in november, we planned to develop a staffing model. >> you planned to develop a plan? there is not one in place? >> no, we did develop one, we submitted it as part of the action plan in november.

we are in the process of implementing the plan to understand how to implement it. we do not want to simply say that this is a number of staff without a plan. that this is the right number of staff to evaluate how well and effective this methodology is. our plan, however, was not to wait for a full valuation, but to staff up so that we would be fully ready to implement this plan throughout the country by the end of the fiscal year. so, the plan itself was based on identification of existing staff facilities, a veteran population, the range of services offered in facilities. our plan is to protect it so that we will have a standard model in the future that is

empirically validated that you will all know. >> i want to come back to this, as it is critically important. >> thank you. secretary, last week he announced the va will hire 1900 additional mental health staff, 1600 mental health providers, and 300 support staff. responding to the question for the record that was submitted, the poll in september revealed 1500 open mental health positions. my question is, are these 1900 positions in addition to those already identified as open? >> senator, the 1900 additional positions are based on what we believe are the needed complement. >> it is in addition to the 15?

>> these are additional positions. >> 3400 positions? >> no, sir. these are additional on top of what we are currently -- >> you are saying 1500, now 1900? >> you may want to comment. >> who is in charge? is at her, or what? >> for the committee, let me prioritize, these are not related to the number of vacancies, room -- vacancies, rather they are related to the number of facilities available. clerical provider support in addition to those that we are currently recruiting for.

>> how long do you think it will take to recruit for these positions? >> it depends on the level of provider we are searching for. >> give me an idea. one week? >> four months, to five months. >> have you make that determination? >> we are allocating the fte for its distribution to the facilities. we will be working with facilities in the business. part of what we have not described here that is in place now is a robust system by which the doctor is working with mental health leads and with a new management information system that we have in place, where we have greater visibility to division management.

>> this is for months the five months? >> we have been planning to identify this by the middle of may. we want to do that in conjunction with leadership. >> in the antrim, you have soldiers killing themselves and people who are hurt and need services. i know that the mental health services and book says that you can, on a fee basis, refer out people that need help. i am curious, when you read about these things, where there is such a breakdown, why is it you are involving 2% per year of the total unique mental health population? the network says that you should and could do it. >> we do that where we can. where we have shortages. >> it seems that based on what

was heard and the testimony we have received, there is clearly a shortage. in the interim, why not -- before you upload these people, why not get them out the door and get them care and coverage right away? >> let me clarify. for those that need urgent care, we do in fact ensure that those at rest are well treated, referred to as suicide prevention coordinators for immediate treatment. >> jack benning needed care and killed himself. what is the definition of critical care and immediate care? immediate means that the guy calls and he gets help right there. >> anyone who presents with that risk factors should be treated right away. >> but they're not. >> they should be. >> but they are not.

>> we should make sure they are. >> but they're not, correct? i know the answer. you can just say that you have had people slip through the cracks. if it is the case that we need to resources -- use these outsourced resources, do you agree or disagree? do you agree or disagree? >> they should be taken on within the system, because we can best serve their urgent needs. >> with all due respect, that is not happening. that is why we are here. that is why the report said that there was a breakdown in performance standards, we were not handling the individual needs of the soldiers who were killing themselves. do you think we should be sending out more people or not, yes or no, to these outside the

v.a. system? >> for those who are most at risk and need urgent care, we should make sure that they receive treatment within the va. >> but you're not, correct? i am not saying every time, but there are instances where there have been problems, correct? >> where we do that, we need to make sure -- >> listen, is simple. are there instances in which we, the v.a., collectively, everyone here, people have fallen through the cracks? yes or no? >> there are instances where veterans -- >> ok, we are not perfect. we should make sure that we do not do that again and if there is a problem, we should refer them to agencies that can help right away. we are doing only 2%.

only 2% of those folks are referred out words. it is clear that there may be sectors where there are problems. not the people who work their tails off each day, i get it, they are overloaded and overworked, i get it. >> the doctors may want to comment on that. >> i will last them. i just want to say, if you can comment on the testimony you have heard, your experiences in manchester, what do you think of the testimonies -- the testimony from the secretary, first of all. no. 2, am i missing something? is there an appropriate way to refer people out like that? is it being done? if not, should it be done? >> listening to the testimony so far, the first thing is hiring practices. it is hard to improve these positions. barriers on the front line that are not being heard, such as

when these special funds come in, for a certain number of years, whenever it may be, many facilities, not just manchester, those positions were not to exceed two years or one year. to be able to go along with special funding. they were instead given the option to opt out. so that i am a psychiatrist or mental health clinician, why would i leave a full-time position to work for the va if it is not guaranteed that that position will be there in two years. that is the reality. just one of many examples the front line is encountering in trying to get people in there. it felt, where i was that, requalify that, that the

service was saying that our system was not adequate. so, we will not send out people if we cannot deliver the care the we are so very proud of offering. when it was given out, in the handbook it said that the va was responsible for ensuring the care management of the people in the community. which was not evident, either. thank you. i was also wondering -- i will stay all day, madam chair, this is an important issue. in terms of getting bonuses on performance, i want to talk

about that in the next round of questioning. if someone gets a salary to do their job and they're just getting numbers to get a bonus, i find this surprising. i would like to talk about the. >> we will have as many rounds is needed. >> thank you. i want to thank everyone who has testified today. i want to tell you that one of the reasons that the va cannot contract out in rural areas, the private sector does not have any more mental health professionals in the private sector. i just wanted to point that out. getting to these folks is a big problem. i very much appreciate no one going to work for a year or two years in the va when in the private sector they have much more predictability in their jobs. we need to take that into consideration before we start allocating dollars to the va,

making sure that they have the advantage to compete. i appreciate the perspective. along the same lines, i want to ask, senator brown was right, in the area of 1500 positions open, there is about 4400 physicians. how you're going to fill those in an area where the private sector is filled up, the va, it is interesting to me. you have an allocation from the 1600's folks and, if you do, do you? could we get a list of those and how they will be allocated? he talked about metrics and the number of veterans, could you list the metrics on how many are

there? how many will be psychiatrists or nurses in? even psychologists. >> sir, we are leaving to the discussion in the facilities. it could be a psychologist or -- >> thank you. when it comes to contracting out, do you typically only use psychiatrists? or psychologists as well? >> we can contract with others. wexler is some accessibility. major -- >> there is some accessibility. >> major jones, thank you for what you're doing. it was said that it was common for someone to come in with a problem and not to ask if there was another issue.

if it is right, it could be a problem, but if it is combined with what major jones said, the folks he is working with, the major stretcher it is unknown. we have a problem in the system here. the only way we will find out to get out to bid to root of the problem, and i am not a mental health professional, you have to find out what that stressor is it. does that kind of -- let me just ask you, if you had a professional in one of the c box or hospitals telling the people not to ask questions because they did not want to know, i hope to hell it doesn't come from your end. why would they do that.

>> that if that is being done, it is unacceptable. >> i think they should do it in every division day you have. we are not going to get arms around this. you have been dealt this hand with multiple deployments. honestly, if we do not get arms around it, know there will be more people fall into the cracks. that is the way it is. our use in the private sector is important. no one wants to dismantle the va, but when it comes to mental health issues, it is all hands on deck.

lastly, and i have a bunch of questions here that were written out, the metrics that refused, and i know the access to care metrics were the ones where one of you might of said that they were flawed, i do not know if this is the same. >> i think that the schedulers were not consistently operating by business rules regarding the dates desired. the desired date, what is the desired date? the one that the patient wants? the doctor wants?

in the back and forth of scheduling, va created a metric for which the rules for not supportable in a systematic way. looking at the data set, it is not usable, from my point of view. that is part of the problem with the access measure across the system. we also hear reports of people trying to game the system, but i have no evidence that i can give to you of that. we do not think that it accurately reflect. >> there is a stigma on this country and the world, definitely in the united states, attached to mental health injuries. folks who do not try to get

treatment because they are afraid it will impact the job they do have. does the v.a. have a program to let people know that this is, as the major general said, increasing, present, growing, not uncommon. is there some kind of educational outreach going on? >> there is an initiative to be taken. if it back to the primary care integration of mental health where we are able to screen for pst. the other aspect of care we have not mentioned today are the veterans centers, which are ways that veterans can approach health, if they have, for

whatever reason, they are reluctant to access the system. >> i agree. before i go, i would like to thank the chairman. look, you put yourself on the line for the va every day. you have a big job to do. it actually gets to the ground. we're hearing that things are not going so well in some areas. mental-health is a huge challenge. let's figure out how to fix that. let's figure out, also, different numbers, to dovetail on what mr. jones is doing.

whether your fishing or riding a horse, i do not care. thank you very much. >> thank you. secretary, i was pleased to hear the va announced 19 other -- 1900 other health workers. i have a history with those professions. in 2006, the healthcare information technology act, some of that was legislation that i introduced where i insisted the to hire professionals.

i encourage you to hire those people and put them to work as rapidly as possible. coming from a state as rural as kansas in which our access to mental health festivals is more limited on the suburban states, i am here to encourage you after this announcement. thank you for reaching this conclusion and getting us to that point. i want to direct my question to general jones. thank you very much for your odyssey camps.

organizing a program that is modeled after what you're doing in the same efforts, it is somewhat related to the conversation and questions of the senator about stigma or lack of willingness to it that the world needs help, perhaps lack of knowledge on the programs available. how to connect better with what is there. a wanted to give you the opportunity to engage with me and others of what you might need to do, for veterans one of familiar with programs like yours. what is available, such as your program? >> first off, i think