marc williams presented levels of flooding. they cause the damage their household businesses. i think these words of support. of thehe is a waraware local community to ensure no loss of life. can i ask the prime minister to ask them to back now with renewed speed so that we can get the community's back on their feet as quickly as possible? >> if certainly join my friend in joining these services. i spoke to the welsh first minister to pass on my ones. it was remarkable work. there is the recovery phase.

they make sure they get swift actions with help from their district council. i certainly well work with him to make sure that happens in this case . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you have been watching prime minister's questions. this airs every wednesday and again on sunday night. watch any time or you combine video at past prime ministers questions and other public affairs programs. >> on thursday, the inquiry heard testimony from david cameron. the panel is examining the ethics, cultures, and practices of the british press and relationships with pam

politicians. he was asked several questions about tax messages sent to him from rebekah brooks. this portion is 90 minutes. >> can we look at some individual entries? the 16th of december 2005, it says does one deduced this end? >> matt i must have known for 20 years. i am trying to find the page. at think it was a social indication. >> how long can see no merit? >> i cannot put a date on its.

>> the first meeting is january 2006. there was an earlier encounter before you were the leader. is it unfair to ask you? do you think that was a one on one? there? >> i do not remember. it was a long time ago. from mail." it was a mixture. >> he would have to look at one other on the 18th of december

2006. by the time the report came out, i understand it is difficult to search once this period has much been discussed? >> i do not recall. in my home. i do not know what we talked about. >> been the center rainy visit. can i just understand you. tuz idea was that? >> i think it was matthew's idea. i think it was his idea.

>> did you have a discussion rebecca weighed about did? >-- wade about it? >> i did not know. >> it was an opportunity to try to get to know rupert murdoch better. trying to win over his to papers and put across my opinions. was an opportunity to come to it came together quite quickly. i was on some toward day. i got a call or a tax. of is about to go up to georgia.

like an opportunity. >> we know that rebecca was declared. did you have a conversation about this before you flew out? >> i do not recall. >> in 2009, the third of may, you have lunch with james murdoch. i of these issues with james murdoch. he has very strong views on

them. had discussions about this. have discussed this. this was a few months before his lecture. it is delivered in late august. meetings were to get this. they were on interested in the long standing views. sometimes i am sure we would have discussed them. >> i can see the intensity of his feelings. himself quite

strongly. always belonged in a bbc. overdone this. but have an important role. there was 04228. the lines or unfair. do you think you have the for you or your party capped? >> i do not recall. i was making an argument that some readers were coming over as conservatives.

specifics of that conversation. are lots of fresh to matt robinson. >> can i go to the tens term of ? how long was the conversation? >> got particularly long.

it was a drink and a ketchup. he wanted to tell me that the support the conservatives. he said it was going to happen of the labor conference. i am pleased that the conservative party would get some support. i think we had a conversation about some other policy issues time. >> that is my memory. he gave you some inkling? think so. that is my memory on it. they were probably still debating it. there was this sometime in the labor conference. >> did he identify which aspects the reasons? on the

economy. middle -- a lot of the focus was on the economy. we were in the middle. we were setting out that it was important for britain to get on this. discussing economic issues. >> on that occasion, did you recall any mention of james murdoch of your policy in relation to the bbc? >> i do not recall. i think it is unlikely. i think this -- he was very keen was what to support the conservatives. that is what the conversation was. >> you said you had a about other policy

issues. memory is that it is all of these events. saying this. of the timing. my memory is that it is mostly about the basic economic injury. that is the key issue of the day. have a lecture before december 2009? had it been drawn to your attention? they have very strong views.

there's some things i did not agree with. >> he did this very forcibly. is more than political. might happen? >> i do not think so. being about economic policy. >> do you remember anything

about having political issues with them on that occasion? >> i do not produce yearly know what was discussed them. >> there is upcoming support that is likely to be mentioned. >> i am trying to member the exact date of the labor conference. >> i expect that would have been discussed. i remember the drink. i remember what he said. i do not particularly remember the addendum. >> it seems plausible again.

would you agree? >> i recall the drink. i do not recall the dinner. >> the announcement was the evening of the 28th of september 1979. can you look at 04229? there are a series of interactions with "dthe sun." they had breakfast with james murdoch. there is a quite a lot of activity with "news of the world". >> there is also dinner with the

telegraph, s scottish television, this was a conference. it was an incredibly busy media week. i was meeting all sorts of people from also is a media organizations to make that. the whole team on sunday. >> that is what they said. i did not mean to do that. >> 94 to the 15th of december 2009? -- can i move on to the 15th of december 2009? the support had changed. can you remember anything about this change?

they're very interested in global markets. in my dealings with rupert murdoch, most of the conversation has big political international issues. >> see you on the 28th of january. >> this is the bottom.

this is in davos. this is a dinner i have held every year i have been. i definitely met michele there and some of the parties. that is probably not his. >> you are aware of his role? >> i read a lot of texts, yes. >> in relation to your schedule when you where prime minister, what we see by way of summary.

there is a lesser degree, about 57. -- 50% and the same picture in terms of the individual's e meet. i do not think it is necessary to spend any care. point you want to draw attention to? lot been tense. -- it is intense. they're looking at the transcripts under the facts.

can you refer to the fact that he had frequent tax messages with the? this is in the afternoon. we know from one that there is one at the start of 25.

this is a reference to him. the campaign has not yet been launched. was think the daily call between the conservative party and tony gallagher. i think this was me wanting to make sure that the telegraph new this was what was about. later on may 2011.

basel 3. other banks would not go along with it anyway. you do reply to that. he has access to huge in a different way. >> we have met various times. i do not think there is anything improper about that. >> could you add in a particular weight to the view? >> this with the view of him. views about the financial situation.

>> i get a lot of exposure on the sort of points. >> are we to understand that you are almost bombarded? get you to look to things.

contacts with a lot of different people. away in eme -- from e-mail and some ways. these are my official papers. but i do get text from the business friends and what have you. >> we go back to the issue now. we agree it is not of a massive importance but there is some importance. >> this is where it goes.

build support. "the sun" might be won over? >> i would not put it like that. the approaches we believe in. that as far as we could. sun" you want to talk about the policies that would particularly apply to "the sun" readers. of the important. that is something people feel strongly about. know the pressure their finances are under. basel iii and

the issues that apply to their readers. >> you had him on board since may urging. upertre aware that mr. repor murdoch had a relationship with brown were you? >> yes. >> did they explain to you that it was likely to be an impediment to "the sun" shifting sides? strong relationship. a strong brown. that some readers were coming toward us.

to a center-right, conservative newspaper back into the fold. >> could be made by rupert murdoch or at the very least be made about his consent? >> i did not know. i assumed he would have a big say in it. show the readers we're moving in a conservative direction we would have a good chance of winning their support. this is one of many things we were trying to do. >> did he give you advise as to how best to proceed? >> of course. he was my director. taking our policies and working out the

best way of provoke -- promoting our values, what we can do for the country to all of these things. >> union that t -- union that he was -- you knew that he was familiar with rebekah brooks? she was friendly with tony blair. strong arguments. pretty vigorously for gordon brown. >> when did you sense that mrs. brooks would be disposed to supporting you? when? >> i think it was a growing picture of disenchantment. the conservative party was

getting its act together. like a credible government. was a process. we have some strong allies. i felt he was someone who thought the government was getting it wrong. the government party was getting its act together. i was felt he was a potential ally for pointing out rebekah brooks "the sun -- "the sun" readers are moving in our direction. >> approximately when did you think mrs. burks was on the -- the side? about six months before this it does support? >> i do not know. go through my diary. give you a date.

>> not even a sense of when it might have been? was it months of? was it weeks? was it years? to get it wrong. it was certainly not weeks. it was more than that. i cannot give you any more than that. >> were you given any surprise -- advice of importance of james murdoch that he would have this over his father? >> i think they're all important. i did not understand. it was like the white smoke coming out after a papal election. >> i do not understand how the decision would be made. they were all important interest in making that decision. rebekah brooks, dominic mohan, all of

them. i had to focus on reading them back to the conservative fold. >> how important were they and all of this/ ? -- in all of this? >> the politics and not quite sure about. role he plays. facilitating a meeting. he was a friend. politically he sort -- supported various sides. >> it may not be possible to identify.

would you have counted them among your good friends by 2008? >> yes. we got to know each other. her role in the media and my role in politics. we struck up a friendship. that friend trip grew even though she was, at that stage, still focusing gordon brown -- still supporting goverdon brown. >> she gave the testimony of the quantity and the tone of text messages. do you agree with the evidence on that matter? >> yes. swer phone calls, i'm not asking you to count them up,

but approximate how often did you speak to her by >> as for her phone calls, approximately how often did you speak to her by phone? >> in opposition, particularly 2006 or 2007, not a huge amount. i always felt when i did during her i always felt like i was telephoning a lot less than gordon brown. which is very interesting. i was in contact a lot less. but i cannot put numbers on it. certainly in 2006, 2007, not every weekend. >> looked for it to 2008 or 2009. were it they contacted by phone on a weekly basis? >> as you get closer to the election in the decision of "the sun" and the wedding and she has moved into charlie

brook's house, which is near where i live, then the level of contact went up. we saw each other socially. frequently?w just to get an idea. contact by telephone and the social contact. >> it is very difficult. i do not have a record. i do not want to give you an answer that is not right. sometimes he would have been talking to each other quite a bit perhaps around the time of the wedding or when we were both there.

we would have had more frequent contact. >> when you are at your consistency on weekends, did you see her every weekend or most weekends? >> not every weekend. >> most weekends? >> i would have to check. i did not think every weekend. i do not think most weekends. it would depend. >> i do not think it is necessary to ask you to check. >> lenses are to going out, -- once we going out, i was seeing her most often because of her friendship with charlie and as a neighbor. charlie and i play tennis together.

so that was why i was seeing more of fur. -- of her. >> there is one text message. i invite you to look at it now. the seventh of october, 2009,>> i am not sure what number is being given. 35 is the addendum. then i will read it out. before i do i am going to say something about it. i should make it clear "news international" gave other text messages.

that is an order under the statute requiring people to disclose information. they are irrelevant to the terms of reference. "news international" has explained why text messages and other mines are not available. it is on grounds of relevance. it is within eight or nine days or so. then she says the first line

might contain something of a joking that nature. -- jocular nature. let's discuss over country supper soon. it asked them to pose the endorsement. they were disappointed not to see you. i am rooting for you tomorrow and not just a personal friend. we are in this together. you bring giving a speech at the conference. >> i think it was a party conference speech. i cannot explain the e-mails. the issue at the time was i had not been to the times party. the major newspaper groups tend

to have big parties. they expect people to go. that would be the normal thing to do. i had not gone and i think that was what this was about. i was apologizing for that. if that helps. >> we were definitely in this together. what was your understanding of that? >> there was a decision to thbak the conservatives. to part company with labor. "the sun" wanted to make sure is helping the conservative party put its best foot forward. the policies and all the rest of it. >> they were bound together to some extent.

>> we are friends. professionally, we're going to be pushing the same political agenda. >> the country suffers. there are looking at this sort of interaction. >> yes. we're both neighbors. >> moving forward to may 2011. >> this relates to the mccanns. were you asked by mrs. brooks to support or cause to take place a review of the mccann case?

>> but i do not remember the exact providence. anyone who has met them all at the story. you cannot help but feel moved by them in what they have tried to do to get money back. i brought this up to the prime minister. i cannot remember who called who and when and what have you. the police have played a role and the government was helping them. that. >> entrance of any interaction between you and mrs. brooks, was a draw

i do not recall the exact conversations. i can see my life behind the question. are you treating different investigations and campaigns fairly. they are consulting about this. providing extra funding for the investigation. it was drawn to my attention that there is a professional office procedure. it was going to be used in this case and he was satisfied, i believe it was done properly. it is an example of making sure these things have -- or done properly. i believe it was.

>> are you aware of any pressure being put on you directly or indirectly by mrs. brooks to cause this to take place? >> pressured? no. i was not aware of any pressure. >> was their influence imposed? >> this is a very high-profile case. it is the case a number of newspapers wanted to champion. their readers wanted to champion it. obviously, you have to think are we helping with this because there is media pressure or is a genuine public pressure? is there a genuine case? are we treating them fairly? i think we've made inappropriate -- an appropriate response. but i do not remember any specific pressure being put on me.

a i'm going to move to different topic related to earlier topics. it's sort of ties in to the implied point. the mayor may not be doing this. he made a specific point against you and your party's. you have the opportunity to deal with it. he said it was an express deal. he made it with either rupert are james murdoch. to, follow the line and trim back the bbc in exchange for news international supporting your party. that is the allegation. it was is strange. we will look at the details. i

will ask you to respond to a generally. >> it is absolutely nonsense. where it comes from, obviously gordon brown was very angry and disappointed that "the sun" has point disappointed him. he is cooking up a conspiracy theory. i have taken the time to look through the individual parts of policy that he points to. and almost every case it is complete nonsense. he makes the point about these sporting events. it is actually his government that delisted it. he talks about product placement. it was the labour government that change the rules. on the bcc, my position is not the same as the james murdoch's.

i support the bbc and they support the license fee. -- i support the license fee. the conservative party will be submitting a piece by piece response to this because it is complete nonsense. there was no overt deal for support, there was no covert deal, there was no and nods and winks. me trying to win over a television, but not trading policy for that support. it is complete nonsense. >> may we focus on two matters? take the highlights -- the bbc issue. the easiest way to deal with this is to look at paragraph 105. you have taken time to refer to

relevant parts of iterations of your policies. i think we can look at paragraph 107, first of all. this is -- we were fans of the bbc. on the next page, "we believe the level of the license fee is at the top end of what is acceptable to the public." hinting that the fee may have to be frozen. >> that is what we did, we froze the license fee, much to the anger of james murdoch. we had our own policy.

trying to be fair and reasonable to the bbc. again, this part of the conspiracy theory has absolutely no weight at all. >> some might say you were not prepared to go as far as mr. murdoch to cut the fee, but you were prepared to meet him along the way. >> it is difficult to argue at a time when you get into government, you will have to be making spending reductions. you were going to see the license fee go up and up and up. we had a long-term argument, the bbc needed to be strong. i do think the bbc had gone into areas it should not have done. i mention that in some of my evidence, but i think it was a fair settlement. not one that james murdoch

supported. >> in march 2009, you made an announcement which was to the effect that a license fee would be frozen. did that represent your policy? between march 2009 and the election? >> it i made that announcement in march 2009. we have delivered more than that policy and in government, yes. i just caught paragraph 110. if there was this great conspiracy to hand over the bbc policy to the murdoch's, it would be a strange point -- a strange choice. if you wanted a sort of murdoch

conspiracy, you would not ask a prominent labor supporter to carry out the policy for you. another reason why this whole idea -- >> that is true. that is a pretty balanced list of people from different parts of broadcasting, media, and technology. he is hardly a shrinking violet. you would not put him in charge if you have some hidden agenda. >> if you have some secret >> no shrinking violet from this task force. is it your position that you would have a range of views coming from these individuals? >> we're trying to assemble a group of people that included radio, music, new media, itv, a

pretty good mix. >> you gave a speech, it is paragraph 113. you did make some points. >> i think it is important to stress this was a big speech. there was a sense that after 13 years of the labor government, they have become very powerful. the people have become extraordinarily well paid. this was a serious speech that i worked on with people to try to come up with, instead of a normal decision, we are trying to find a set of rules to apply to -- to see whether they

needed to exist or parts of them could be folded back into government. the series of questions are in paragraph 113. one of their reasons i picked it was because of my own experience in television of remembering what the independent television commission had done. remembering the levels of pay that there were in the itc. the pay levels were pretty excess of. -- excessive. at this time, it was being randomly attacked by the bbc. and also by commentators on the left.

this was an agenda that was very linked -- not in any way proposed or dictated by others. >> the upshot was that it would cease to exist as we know it. this is the end of paragraph 113. that covered roles under the enterprise act. it would no longer play a role in making policy. >> policy-making should be done by departments and be accountable to parliament. it was not just about cutting costs, it was about accountability. policy's being made that should be accountable to parliament. decisions that have to be

impartial, where they are concerned, they should be carried out by non-governmental bodies. it was a serious attempt to look at the more broadly. >> at the more broadly. >> to take the story forward, the reason this policy was not enacted was the pragmatic reaction of the coalition government, it was not possible. >> i was not involved in the details of the coalition agreement. some policies made it through, and some did not. we have taken action on pay levels and we have tried to restrict them. >> you have denied that there was -- they feel, looking back

at this, there is a perception. we have the coincidence of two things. at least in terms of time. policies which do not match what we seek in a lecture, but not a million miles from them. the public thinks there is some link between the two. that is the perception. do you accept that much? >> i do not. if the argument goes, there is no evidence of that. nonetheless, it looks like there was a nod and a wink. how do you possibly prove that you are innocent?

the best i can do is point to all of these policies, explain where they came from. there is really good evidence they were born out of proper conservative thinking about the media. whether or not -- there is very good explanations for the positions that we hold. >> the matter is investigated at a public inquiry. it either happened or it did not happened. if you do not have a public inquiry, that perception -- >> absolutely. it is very important. the appalling things that happen to entirely innocent people. the huge problem we have in terms of police related to the

media. exactly right that we get to the bottom of the relationship. there was no covert deal, there was no overt deal. there wasn't nods and winks. policies that i produce that i am very proud of came from my history, my beliefs, and they were not dictated by anybody else. >> i think i have covered it. let's move onto another point. [laughter] the third area of evidence is specific inherited examples. the first one is andy coulson. you start that in your witness statement at paragraph 219. >> right.

>> in terms of your wish list in early 2007, mr. cameron, were you looking for someone with tabloid experience? looking for someone who was a big hitter. i was looking for someone who could really cope with the huge media pressure that we are under. tabloid editors and executives do have, they bring something that others would not. there was not a particular wish get the right person with the right skills. too much, and tending to look at people -- intending to look at people who are not going to blink under pressure. >> i think that is right and there is a reason for that.

when you are running a political party, the media pressures, in a typical weekend, you might have a policy problem over here, mp scandal over there, and marriage breakdown over there, some chancellor enmeshed in some scandal, it comes in on on top of your head. it is very fast and very furious. you need someone who is good at handling it. that, to me, was one of the key qualifications. if i was going to bring someone in about him, i wanted someone who would be able to materially improve the way we did things. looking at to the example of alistair campbell? in terms of temperament. >> alistair campbell, she was

much more political and then -- he was much more political than andy coulson. there were occasions when he overstepped the role of what he should have been doing. >> we have heard from a number of names were considered. aside from the ones broadcast, can you remember how many names were considered? >> there were two or three others. i do not want to delight their careers by naming them. -- blight their careers by naming them. there were a couple of others we were looking at. >> were any from a broadsheet? >> yes.

>> was andy coulson the only one from news international? >> there was someone from a tabloid i talked to earlier in the process. i cannot remember the exact date. at the time in which we made the appointment, i think he was the only tabloid editor available. >> the initial interviews, if that is a correct description, work carried out by others -- were carried out by others. how many did you see? >> how many people did i see? i did have conversations with him.

there was summoned senior from a broadsheet newspaper. there was someone very senior and the bbc. there was this tabloid journalist. a guessing game going on with our friends in the media. i think there were four people. there may have been others suggested. we had a very effective communicator. clearly, we wanted to strengthen the operation. people were being proposed all the time, but those for i can remember talking to personally. were obtained for mr. andy coulson, is that correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> was that something that was

communicated to you in about march 2007? they had specifically asked for assurances? >> he was my chief of staff. he was trying to hire someone, you have to keep matters very tight. you do not want a leak. it did leak eventually. >> mr. osborn's evidence was that he also obtained assurances. breyer aware of that? >> i do not -- were you aware of that? >> i do not recall. i suspect george did the same thing.

osborn's advice in relation to this process? were you reliant on him? >> it was important. george and i worked for a -- very closely together. he thought this was a good idea. but this was my decision. i take full responsibility. i dont' try to shuffle it off on anybody else. >> in paragraph 237 of your statement, mr. cameron, you say that you are sure that -- his appointment with rebekah wade. would you have accounted -- counted her as a months your friends? -- as amongst your friends?

>> yes, i think i would. i cannot recall when i disgusted with her. -- when i discussed it with her. would hvave had a conversation about it. >> can you remember how many conversations? >> no. >> more than one? >> i do not think so. we both met him before. we both formed the impression that he was effective. george met him after he had resigned as editor of "the news of the world." i made the decision to employ him. >> in your discussions with mrs. brooks, were you taking

some sort of reference from her? or was a far more informal? >> i was not seeking a reference. when you are employing someone like this, you cannot seek formal references. i am sure i would have passed how effective he would be. this conversation may well have taken place after making the decision. i cannot recall exactly when the conversation took place. in the end, it was my decision. i was satisfied that this was the right thing to have a formal -- former tabloid editor to help us with our media and communications. it was my decision. >> sometimes the discussions going to people's integrity. did you had any discussions along those lines about andy coulson? >> i do not recall. the most important thing i would have wanted to know, would

he be good at the job? i was convinced he would be because the massive pressures you face, you need someone with those sorts of skills. i am sure that is what i would have been thinking of. >> its effectiveness is gone to be a key attribute, character and integrity might also be relevant? >> you are going to be working with this person and credibly closely. you have to have a relationship of trust. >> what was mrs. brooks's reaction to andy coulson? was she favorable? >> she thought it was a good decision because she thought he was an effective operator. >> your evidence is that there was a meeting -- probably in march 2007. andy coulson places the meeting

as being in your office, that is paragraph 29. might that be correct? >> my recollection is that the meeting took place in my office. for me, that was the key meeting about deciding whether or not to employ him. i lived in back over the records and has been difficult to piece together -- i have been back over the records and it has been difficult to piece together, but that is my recollection. >> there was a later discussion, this time by telephone, in late may of 2007, paragraph 31. on that second occasion, you raised the issue of phone hacking. >> my recollection is that i raise the issue a phone hacking and saw the assurance in the face to face meeting we had in

my office. that is my recollection. i vaguely remember the telephone call. it was very important that i needed to ask him that question. >> in your witness statement, paragraph 223, you state that in particular in 2007, in a month after he resigned, various people separately had conversations with them. -- with him. it is that the conversation -- the further conversation is paragraph 227, which must have

been the phone conversation in late may. it is on that occasion where you stayed you ask him for assurances. do you see that? >> a further conversation with andy coulson. that is what i remember. >> he has then the other way round. maybe we should see his account. my recollection is that he was on holiday and that you spoke by phone. bear with me on this. it is tab 58 of the second bundle.

which paragraph is it? >> it is paragraph 29. after the meeting with mr. osborn, march 2007, he says he believes that you called him later that night and would like to meet. we had a discussion about the job. i have linked that one up with paragraph 223. paragraph 31, a hiring process was completed on the phone conversation with mr. cameron all i was on holiday. i believe he told me the

background security checks would be made. that links up with your paragraph 227. it was only during the second conversation that the issue was raised. >> that is not my recollection. my recollection is that the assurances were in a face-to- face meeting. it may be that there was a specific question i needed to ask. that assurance and getting that assurance. there do seem to be some differences, but they may well be compatible. i am certain i saw the assurances. -- sought the assurances. the

assurances. he just has a different time. that was the basis on which i employed him. >> to be fair to him, and we need to be fair to everyone, paragraph 227 links the assurance to the further conversation. that was your recollection in your written statement, wasn't it? >> yes, my recollection is that assurance was at this face to face meeting. >> there may have been further conversations with you. if you go back to paragraph 30, he says discussions towards the end of may, they were restarted after further conversations with mr. cameron. i was offered the job, the hiring process was completed in a phone conversation. >> there were lots of different

ways of describing a director of communications. quite a lot of different potential, they are all similar. i do not see any fundamental inconsistency. we both agreed that i asked for assurances and got them. the exact timing, i am clear in my mind i remember the conversation. i remember the importance of the interview. >> when you accepted the assurances, did you assess there to be any risk? >> this was clearly a controversial appointment. controversial for two reasons. bad thing had happened at the news of the world while he was editor, and he resigned. i was giving him a second

chance. the second reason is this was a tabloid editor. some people would say, you know, i do not have a tabloid editor. my answer would be, it is a very tough job dealing with the press for a major political party. you need someone who has the skills, has the knowledge, and can help you do what can be an absolute storm. i thought it was the right thing to do. this is a controversial appointment, this has come back to haunt both him and me. in doing the job, as director of communications, and then director of communications, he

did the job very effectively. there were not any complaints about how he conducted himself. he behaved in a proper way. of course, if that was not the case, we would have a stronger argument to say you took a risk and look what happened. he did his job very well and that is important to point out. >> can i ask you about the risks of a tabloid editor? can you be more precise about those? some might think they might not be the most unscrupulous people. >> it was not so much that. some people did not approve of what "the news of the world to" had done and what tabloids do.

>> what aspects of what tabloids do or in focus? >> obviously, aggressive articles sometimes. there was a story about george osborne. andy coulson came up with the most destructive headline about me anyone could manage. the. i am making is that there were some people and the conservative party who did not want a tabloid editor. my view was that it was necessary to have somebody tough and robust. i think he did his job very well and was somebody who had a good code of behavior in how to do his job. >> with the inquiry and the ethics of the press, tabloids

have featured in that. they are associated with some of the worst aspects. that was the rescue were taking, it might be said. >> the risks i set out was what i considered and i made the decision. >> talking about the controversial aspect, he resigned in january 2007, did you assess at all there was a risk or not? and he said he had resigned because he did not -- i have to be careful what i say -- and these were undertakings given and accepted by the police,

the commission, given to a court in a trial, they were undertaking quarter and around so he called andy coulson wishing him well for the future. i accepted his undertaking but so did a lot of other people. if i have been lied to, so has the chief of police and the rest of them. >> without making a judgment one where the other. >> of course. >> but you obtained, i have to be careful where i put the question, there was no independent verification of the oral undertaking he gave you. this issue had been

investigated by others. it was not just that i did an undertaking, others had had an undertaking. if you look at the period, it was an insurance given again and again. they found and the police found there was not the evidence he knew what was happening. >> why did you feel he deserved a second chance? >> i think he had done the honorable thing. something bad had happened and he was right. the assurances he me, he deserved a second chance. is it your in evidence that his news international background was irrelevant? >> obviously his knowledge of

the industry, his contacts, or all important, but the most important thing was, is this person going to be good at doing the job of managing the press for the conservative party? i was not after any old person from news international or from the "the daily mail." i wanted somebody who was going to be able to stand up under the pressure. that was the key consideration. >> i am sure the most important and -- considerations you have identified. the question is -- is it your evidence that his news international background was irrelevant? >> it was not relevant. his contacts, his knowledge, all of that mattered. the hind a question, -- behind

the question, but was not a calculation. who is going to be good enough, tough enough, to deal with what is a difficult job. something he did well. 20/20 hindsight, may i ask you this, do you believe that you made an error of judgment, and it may have been clouded by the fact was close to news international? what i meant when i said that, if i knew then all of the things that would happen in all of the consequences, that is 20/20 hindsight. but i will say again, you do not make decisions with 20/20 hindsight. i set out the reasons why i made it. i will be held accountable.

i do not try to run away from it. i explain why i made it. >> let me move forward in time to july 2009. >> before you do, could i ask, you made the point mr. coulson had been responsible for a headline using words you had never uttered. i wonder whether you felt it was a concern that he could misrepresent the policy that you were concerned about. >> and the speech i made was a radical departure for a conservative leader to say that we needed to understand why young people can go author rails and we need to recognize that it

is not just you need tough punishment but you need strong families, and you need love. to talk about love in that context, some right-wing commentators thought it was soft. i think it is nonsense. it has to be important. it was frustrating that he had come up with this headline that linked three words i had not used. can i put my hand on my heart and say it was unfair? that is what newspapers do. they make a point. they have a go. if you are worried about headlines, do not make statements about love. anyway, -- >> all right. >> july 2009, moving forward to the guardian peace, -- piece, it

is clear that these are your words. >> yes, i think so. i was probably more aware of this committee that a referred to inparagraph 257. that was an event that was going to affect the running of my office and everything that was happening. they were linked. >> the gist of what it said was drawn to your attention one way or another? >> i am sure it was. i am sure it was. >> what was your reaction at the time to that which was contained? >> the wrap this process, is there new information that shows

that the undertaking i was given was wrong? i do not see evidence that the undertakings i were given was wrong. at the time and in front of the committee, gave the assurance all over again. i never condone the use of it. nor do i have any recollection that a phone hacking took place. >> the spoke in paragraph 257 that in the like of the stories, i asked andy coulson to report it purity must have been concerned? >> it was also linked to another occurrence. my memory is that he was going to make that appearance. by had a conversation.

>> given the assurances and that they were repeated and that the committee found there was not evidence that he needed. i thought it was right that he carried it on. >> i am not going any way. you relied on the word. >> i do not really except that. the select committee was there. accepted hisad expecte word. it was not me just talking about anything. it was all series of the institutions.

you have to try to get on with this. i would not have employs him. i did not take that step. >> >> to be fair, i should say that it does not sit there. no instances should be there. he had been here for at least two years. he felt he had been an effective operator. is that correct? >> absolutely. not just that. he has done the job in not just way that he was accosted by the people who worked with them.

he did the job in a proper way. >> it was because of this. it was in this context that i think we had this discussion. at: into your office. >> i do not remember this. i am moving on in time.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> then the davison jackson dinner and north carolina. then senator mitch mcconnell at the faith in freedom coalition conference. >> african-american leaders will discuss ways to help small businesses and the african- american community. they discussed this to encourage entrepreneurship in economic growth. correct c-span interview with mitt romney saturday. he talked about america's role

in the world, how to deal with the deficits and his experiences and what it is like to run for president. >> i would like to begin by asking about the future of the country and our role in the war. where do you see america four or five years from now? >> i see the strength resuming, the direction of our economy towards the private sector, creating good jobs. i see us being a source of strength globally. we have interest, we have values and we want to share those with like-minded people. we want to keep the world free and open and peaceful. >> i know you were reading a

book about the next century. what about america's role in the world over the next hundred years? >> i hope some of the things that he predicted come true. i do believe that america, as a place where the concept of freedom, individual freedom, political freedom, economic freedom, change the world from the very beginning. i believe over the coming century, america will continue to play a leading role on the world stage. by virtue of our commitment to those exceptional principles.

>> what worries you the most? >> if we continue going down the road we are on, and if for some reason, i were not to get elected, we would become more and more like europe. higher deficits, debt that could put us in a greece or spain- like situation. low wage growth, and with a military that gets hollowed out so that we can pay for various programs. >> some have questioned whether the austerity programs have gone too far. are there lessons? what is working and what is not working? >> what we would never do would be to dramatically slash spending by $2 trillion as i came into the white house. we would like to eliminate programs, which over time, will be taking up a larger and larger share of our economy. get rid of some of those programs, like obamacare. balance our budget, but do not

cut it all in the first year. i do not know that i will tell you why each country got into trouble in europe, but over time, it has been massive overspending. >> in order to bring down a $16 trillion debt, you need more revenue. where does the money come from? >> to begin by taking action that slows down and reduces the growth of government. you eliminate programs. you take some programs that are growing at a very fast rate and you send them back to states and you say they will grow at the rate of inflation, or inflation plus 1%. take medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers, go back to the states. you do those two things, plus you make sure that government does not continue to grow, and you did america down by about $5 billion a year in spending within four years.

that allows us to stimulate growth at the same time. tax policies that encourage small businesses to hire and grow again. and we finally get to a balanced budget. >> let me ask you about how mitt romney makes a decision. whether you are a businessman or a governor or the o of the olympics, what is the process? >> you have to make decisions immediately. there is almost no time for deliberation or for input from others. that happens rarely. most of the time, you have the

occasion to go through a process that is more normal. my normal process is if it is an important decision, i ask a number of people close to the area of subject to present their views. i like having debate. i like having two sides. i did go to law school. i like the idea of arguing points back and forth. in some cases, you need to go get more information. i like gathering data. you have numbers and facts and figures and people to look to and to find out what is really happening. and then you make the decision. i do not mind whether i am all alone or whether the people in the room agree with me, you make the decision based on what you feel is best. >> are there people you go to or places to search out to get these kinds of ideas? >> it depends on the topic area. if we are dealing with the middle east, there would be a number of people who have experience in the middle east i

respect. people with whom i might have disagreement. former members of the republican and democratic administration, i would seek their opinion. i would love them to be in a room where we could debate different alternatives. you want to understand all the possible downside. if you have the time to make that type of process. i would also look to some of those who understand the region and gather that input and gather that information. military information, diplomatic information, and economic information. and then you make the decision and develop a strategy. i've been able to do that in industries like energy. we have an enormous opportunity in this country to take advantage of natural gas, coal, oil. america can be a powerhouse. >> we hear from our viewers, people think washington is broken. how do you fix it? >> i think it is broken.

i think it is impossible for a group of 535 men and women to be able to make decisions. i think you have to have a leader. you have to have a president who will be actively engaged in the legislative process, putting forward his or her views, fighting for them, finding coalitions that support those views, working with people on both sides of the aisle. i was elected governor of a state with the legislature that was 87% democrat. i could not have gotten anything done had i not been willing to work with the leaders of the democratic party on a collaborative basis and find some common ground. we could not agree everywhere, but in a number of important areas. that has to happen in washington. that will not happen if you do not have someone who has the experience of being a leader.

president obama is a very nice fellow, but he has never served as a leader before. he has not run a state or a city or a business. he is learning this leadership thing on the job. >> do you think you could work with a nancy pelosi and harry reid? >> i could find members of the democratic party, both house and senate, who feel this is a critical time, that the nation is close to a precipice, and we have to work together to find common solutions. you are seeing that. that happens more often than is given credit inside the house, inside the senate. the white house drops the ball. there republicans and democrats who came together with health care proposals and put them forward. they were swept aside. the president had his view. it was that the view or no one's view.

it was passed on a partisan basis. that is not the way to get the job done. >> let me ask you about the olympics. what did you learn about the winter games in 2002? >> i spent 25 years in the business world before the olympics. working as a consultant, had experience working with enterprises that were trying to change and improve. ultimately, i began my own business, a venture capital and private equity business. i learned something about how you get organizations to change and make tough decisions. the olympics allowed me to use some of those skills. it was a different type of environment because my board of directors consisted of 53 people, including the governor and mayor and a number of public officials. it was a quasi-private-public opportunity to work together.

i had a lot of bosses. you have to take the time to meet with all the people who have interest and concerns, all the constituencies around something as big as the olympics. you cannot just have a few people go sit in a room and come up what they think is smart. and impose it on the country. that is not the way to make major changes. >> what would your mom and dad think about your race for the presidency? >> they would be absolutely overjoyed and delighted. it breaks my heart they cannot be here. when i ran for senate a long time ago, my dad moved into the house for almost six months. he would write speeches and ideas. he went to parades -- he was 86, 87, 88 years old. they would be over 100 this year. >> what about you personally? what is it like to run for president physically? >> a lot of work, a lot of endurance. early mornings, late nights. meeting with audiences like here, it is exhilarating. it is exciting to have people support you like they do and grab on to you, give you

encouragement. you come away with more energy, not less. at the end of the day, you have a hard time falling asleep. not because i am worried, but because i am so energized by the people i met. >> thank you for your time.

♪ >> what a great turnout. rain or shine, we are here to wish the next president of the united states a happy father's day.

we cannot wait to try some of these pancakes. anything with northeast ohio maple syrup on it is delicious, right? we are here because we are concerned about the direction of our country. we are concerned for our families, for our state and country. we are concerned because we have a president who does not know how to turn things around. we heard last week, he told us, don't worry, the private sector is doing just fine. he needs to get out more. he needs to spend less time at hollywood fund-raisers and more time with small businesses in the state of ohio. he says things are fine, all we need is more government. is that what you believe?

ohio can make a huge difference this year. in two of the last three presidential elections, ohio decided he would be the next leader of the free world. we cannot afford four more years of barack obama. let's decide this one for mitt romney. we are fortunate that we have a candidate who gets it. he has the experience and the record and the policies that turn things around. mitt romney understands how to create jobs. he took the olympics and turned it around. isn't that what we need in washington, d.c.?

[applause] ladies and gentlemen, he has a lot of great attributes. his greatest attribute is his partner in the whole thing. she is a star herself. join me in welcoming the next first lady of the united states. [applause] >> hello, ohio. we are so thrilled to be in a state that is going to make a huge difference to the future of this nation. we are here for one reason and that is because we love america. there is another reason we are here, we do not like the direction it is going. i feel very strongly about this. i already know there is somebody here that is going to make a big difference to your future. the thing i am hearing from so many mothers, we always thought our future could be better.

this is the first time that we think our children are not going to be better off. we are worried about that as mothers, dads, and we know that we have to have economic solutions. understand what it is like to balance a checkbook. we cannot keep spending more money that we do not have. we do not want to turn out like europe and what they are facing right now. we have got to face our problems head on. we need someone with courage and conviction and a belief in america. we love america and we believe in america and we are going to keep it strong. thank you so much. >> i am here to introduce a couple of my boys. i do not always have my kids with me. i have my youngest son and my second oldest son and i will have them introduce their kids. it is a privilege to have a couple of my boys and some of my

grandkids with me. i love them like they are my own, and they are. >> let's wish a happy father's day to my dad. this is a family affair. we are out campaigning, including parker here. >> hi. >> parker went to 34 states before he turned to years old. he was out in the trail so much, when we got home, i caught him in his room. he was on his bed and he had his stuffed animals lined up and he was giving a stump speech. when my dad first got us together and asked us if he

should run for president, and this was in 2006, all of us were very anxious for him to do it. we thought he was the right man for the job. when he asked us again, it was a little bit tougher. we had been through it once and it was not an easy decision. in the end, we decided it was something that we had to do. he has been prepared through his experience in business and government. with your support, i know he can do it. thank you. [applause] >> my name is matt. i have four of my kids here. we are really happy to be here. thank you. we love to help my dad and my

mom. any chance we get to fly and meet up with them, we love to do it. on father's day, i thought i would share a quick story. my wife was pregnant with our twins, and she was put on bed rest. i was working full-time and i packed her a cooler -- she was not able to get up for anything. have a good day, hope you are all right. in retrospect, i will feel really bad about this. my dad came over and he saw that my wife was reading novels and not having much to do. he felt bad for her. he built a tv cabinets, puts a tv upstairs. found someone that could help her do errands during the day. that he arranged in a matter of

30 minutes. looking back, he taught me how to be a father and husband. he taught me so many steps along the way. [applause] there are countless stories like that when he just takes matters into his own hands. he is compassionate and knows how to fix problems. i look up to him as a father. today, i want to wish him a very happy father's day. thank you. >> there are chairs down there for you. we missed one person on the

stage. it is good to have senator rob portman here. this is courage. this is really something. i guess you did not know the rain was going to come. you are fabulous to be here. give us this kind of a warm welcome. it looks like the sun is coming out and that is a metaphor for the country. [applause] 3.5 years of dark clouds are about to part. it has been a thrill to be here today. i see signs all over here, you guys have made some signs. we have the president go out and speak this last week. it was a very long speech. 54 minutes, i think it was. out speaking to the american people. he did not say very much, but he said long. it is clear he wants to change his campaign theme.

last time, it was hope and change. now, with the economy, he is hoping to change the subject. he made it real clear that he thinks things are getting better. he said that things are fine in the private sector. and then came the human cry from 23 million americans. things are not fine in the private sector. the average income -- the median income in this country has dropped by 10% in the last four years. people are having a harder time making ends meet. home values have been down, foreclosures have been up. he went out and borrowed $787 billion and he said, if you let him borrow all the money, he would keep unemployment below 8%. it has not been below 8% since then. this president is out of ideas and out of excuses. in november, we will put him out of office.

[applause] he wants you to think that he has made things better he is an eloquent speaker and he described all the things he is doing and how other people are to blame for the problems. there is a way for you to find out he was telling the truth. look at the record of the last 3.5 years. see whether he has made the kind of changes -- a lot of things he said he would do, he never got around to. all those things, just give me a chance. remember when he was elected, he went on the "today" show and when he was interviewed, he said, if i cannot turn this economy around in three years, i am looking at a one-term proposition. by what he is saying, you would

think he wants to return that one-term proposition into an eight-year proposition. we will not let that happen. he tells us all the things that he thinks will make things better. there is a way for you to find out whether they will make things better. and whether they have helped. you can go to the corner store and ask the person who runs that store, or a manufacturing business, or any kind of business. ask the person behind the counter or if you can find a person who owns the business, did president obama's policy make things better or worse for your business? did it make it easier to hire people or not to hire people? i saw a survey done on obamacare. 75% of the businesses in this country said that law made it harder for them to hire people. he was surprised, he said. he said he did not know that obamacare hurt small business. go out and talk to some people. we're going to get rid of it.

[applause] ask those business people whether the regulatory reforms made it easier for small banks to grow and higher and to make loans? ask folks whether it is energy policies make things easier for businesses in this country. the ones that said we're going to try to clamp down on natural gas, new regulations at the federal level. make it harder to mine coal. ask whether that has made it easier for american enterprise. this president has failed the american people because he does not understand how the private economy works. he has not had the kind of jobs that you have died. he has not had the kind of experience you live had. i think it is time to have a president to has had a job. in this speech, he also said, every american deserves a fair shot.

i could not agree more. every american deserves a fair shot. if they work hard and get an education and live by the right values, they should have a fair shot. and also to be able to provide for their family and have a brighter future. we deserve that. let me ask a couple of questions. do you think when the president borrowed trillion of dollars more for this country and passes that on to our kids, do you think our kids are getting a fair shot? how about when the president closes down the scholarship program in washington, d.c., that allowed kids at risk to go to charter schools of their choice?

how about when he bows to the teachers' unions and puts the interests of the unions ahead of the interest of our kids? is he giving our kids a fair shot? by the way, when he takes your money, tens of billions of dollars collected from taxpayers, and uses it to bail out or invest in the businesses of his campaign contributors? is that giving you a fair shot? if there has ever been a president that has not given a fair shot to the middle class, it is this president. it is one reason he will get defeated in november. [applause] that sun feels good. things are drying out. it feels great. the sun is coming out on this country. our brightest days are ahead. things are getting better for america.

as long as we get off the course he has put us on. he wants to see a bigger and bigger government with a health care system run by the government. he wants to see people pay more in taxes. their massive debts can cause fiscal calamity. do you know how many people are unemployed in spain? 25% of the population. i do not want to transform the american into europe. i want to restore america to the principles that made america the hope of the earth. [applause]

we recognize that when the founders wrote the declaration of independence that our rights came from the creator. that changed everything. we have right to life and to the pursuit of happiness. americans have felt a stronger america. i want to keep america strong by knowing we are a unique nation and restoring those values. we are on the very edge. we're at the corner. this is going to be a time when america is line to take off and economic vitality. if we stay on the road we're on we are in trouble. if we take a different turn you are going to see our economy

come back in a way that will shock the world and convince every family that their future will be brighter. we finally have to get a balanced budget. i will get us on the road to do that. we have got to get rid of that one piece of legislation that is like a great cloud that has been raining over small business. we have got to get rid of obamacare. i will. [applause] we have got to take advantage of our energy resources. we have more coal than any other people on earth. we have natural gas in an enormous abundance. we have oil as well. the president says he is for all of the above. i tried to figure out what he

meant. he made it harder for oil and natural gas. he is for all the energy that comes from above the ground. that is the energy -- i am for the energy that comes from all of it. i want is independent from the cartels. this is going to be a great time. people of when to say that as a turning point that america was headed to decline. other nations are becoming stronger and more competitive. we were about to take off. we reignited our economy based upon the power and. of the american people and their dreams. i love america. i love the principles upon which this nation was founded. i love our heroes. i love our veterans. on memorial day i was in san diego. it was hot. i know you like a bit of that. it was really hot.

about the chance to introduce some of veterans and acknowledge them as members of the armed forces. one of the veterans at that point it out with a gentle man that bought in the second world war. he stood and was recognized. he was a lookout on the uss tennessee on pearl harbor day. his eyes locked on the eyes of the pilot that would hit his ship. he was injured. he went on to serve for 33 years in the u.s. navy. we recognizehim and cheered

him. please raise your hands and be recognized for those that are in the armed services. i am honored to have your service. as i looked at the second world war, i realize that are not as many and the audience as there were. our was a boy in recall seeing events. they cannot hold the torch as high as they used to. they're getting pretty old. the tour said they hold aloft is a torch of freedom. it is opportunity intel. it is america is a duty and honor to hold the torch for the world to see. it is our turn to grasp that torch and held it aloft for them for all they have sacrificed, for all that has been sacrificed by ancestors before them. the world depends on a strong america was strong families and a strong economy and a strong military second to none. it is the best allied peace and the world has ever known. the world need a strong america. this is about our prosperity our well-being are jobs and

incomes. it is also about our freedom. this is a defining point for america. this has been getting larger. i believe in the american people. we're going to bring back the dreams and the dreamers. we'll get america working again. we will ensure that we are the shining city on the here. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

>> smart he discusses his views on syria. you have that live beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> biden the keynote speaker. he talked about the economic process a president obama. he spoke in north carolina at the jefferson-jackson dinner. he's a member of the delaware national guard. he is heading the veterans for obama.

this is about half an hour. >> thank you. >> governor, that has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? gov.. i look forward to calling you governor now and governor in november, governor. i see why you're going to get elected. it is an honor to be here in north carolina, an honor to be hosted by your state, an honor to sit next to your incredibly effective and truly one of the real leaders of the united states senate, senator hagan, who my dad knows well or did not have the privilege of serving with.

i think they just passed in the night. they worked hard together to make sure that he was elected. i know why he worked so hard. your lucky to have the senator. it's good to be with you. congressman price did not remember me. a lot of people do not. who the heck is bo biden? when he was first elected in 1986, my dad came down for him in chapel hill and he brought his eldest son to look at chapel hill and a few other institutions, that i won't mention, duke, davidson. it's good

to see you and spend time with you. i did not have the good sense to apply to chapel hill and there probably would not have gotten in, but it's good to be with you. i'm sorry that your attorney general is not here. i know he is out campaigning. i guess he does not have an opponent, does he? he is one of the great attorney- general is and a good friend of mine. i appreciate the party for inviting me and i want to thank you, congressman miller, for your services in this country. i'm sad to see you leave the congress, but i know your voice will continue to be heard. you have been a strong advocate for so many important things in american and it's an honor to be with you tonight. [applause] it's also an honor to meet young democrats.

i have met young democrats, all democrats -- well, not old. rufus, you are not old. works with a lot of a.g.'s and he took my dad under his wing in 1972, and he was kind these senior democrats in the room. mrs. goolege? it's an honor to be with you, here from union county. 91 years old. [applause] there is even a woman here from miami home town that had the good sense to move down here. good to see you. i want to start by thanking you, not just for inviting me, but what you did for the president of the united states in 2008 and for the vice-president.

you let the the first democrat this state has seen in a long, long time. i know you will do it again in 2012. it is not just because i think we have the best candidate both the president and vice president, but we have the best ground game i have seen. you have field offices all across this state in a way that is incredible. that is why this campaign is going to win, because of the people in this room, the ground game you brought here, unlike anything i have seen at least in my lifetime and you're going to repeat that effort here in 2012. i was in fayette bill last month for a great event he had a headquarters there in a shopping center. i know they're scattered all across the state, registering voters, making phone calls, talking to neighbors, knocking

on doors. this is a grassroots campaign, the governors as well as the president and that is why we're going to do so well and win this state again, because of you. let me get right to it. i want to talk to you tonight, not surprisingly, about this election, not just as an attorney general or a veteran, like many of you in this room. let's take a moment to think the veterans. thank you for what you do and thank you for what you do on their behalf in the senate. i'm here to talk to you as a parent. , as a father of two young kids that i'm going to race home to celebrate father's day with. i want to talk to you as a parent and the choice of all americans facing at the polls in november about the consequences of the choice that we have in front of us.

one can keep us moving forward, as the governor mentioned, or one moving backward. ladies and gentleman, as president obama said, this election, and i think he is dead on, is a make or break moment for the american middle- class. i've said in a front of the table that made me attorney general. unions made the middle class what it is. ament is right. as the president said on thursday, we need an economy

that is not built from the top down, but from growing the middle class to provide letters of opportunity for people who are not yet in the middle class. that stake is not simply a choice between two candidates and two parties but between two paths for our country. that is what the president said on thursday. i hope you all heard it. you should check it out on youtube. i have seen firsthand, ladies and gentlemen, from the perch i have as the son of the vice- president. the ladders of opportunity that they are building and the path they're putting this country on. for example, as a veteran, i talk to the senator about this briefly earlier this evening.

i am often asked about president obama as record as it relates to veterans. i know this is something that affects some money. i messed about what this president has done for veterans. this is why i was in fayetteville for a great event for veterans and their families for obama and biden. three things about this president. he understands what it means to be commander in chief. he understands when it comes out where, and how to deploy our forces. when, where, and how to deploy our forces. look at what he has accomplished as commander in chief. he has toppled a libyan leader without shedding 1 an ounce of united states blood. [applause] he has crippled al qa and aeda

years of a lot of talk we finally got osama bin laden because of this president's leadership. [applause] second, this president understands what it means to be commander in chief because he knows when, where, and how to redeploy those members of this audience for those who know what that means. that means when to bring our troops home and where to send them. he understands this. that is exactly what he's done. he ended the war in iraq and brought our troops home. like he said he was going to do. that is what leaders do. that is when your senator does. he went to washington and did exactly what she said she was

going to do. he began the process to hand over authority to the afghans and he knows what you're senator knows, that our nation's need to focus on building our own nation, our own nation. third, president obama knows that his obligation just does not end with sending warriors to bottle or bringing them home. in understands the words of george washington and what he meant when he said, quoting washington, "the willingness with which are then people are likely to serve in any war no matter how justified shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country." that is what george washington said. that is what this president understands. president obama understands the obligation we have to go through to them especially when they come home and to the families of those who have not come home. those fallen angels come home from my state, dover air force base. i check every day and i'm going

to make public remarks, i make sure i know how many fallen angels have come through. 6407, as of today, of our best and brightest have lost their lives in the battlefield. most of home come through my state. thousands of amputees and i know a congressman here to die as visited walter reed in bethesda here in this state. thousands more with traumatic brain injuries. tens of thousands with post- traumatic stress disorder. this president understands what it means to take care of this generation of veterans as they come home. he has put his money where his mouth is. that is why, along with the

senator and the congressional delegation of the democratic party, from 2009 to this day to day, this president is a supporter of your congressional delegation and has increased benefits for veterans more than any administration has in 30 years. [applause] he made veterans benefits available to people who otherwise would not qualify, and this is in support of your delegation through a tax credit to incentivize employers to hire veterans. we're returning some of the most capable people in america, disabled and otherwise, whether it fits in or not, we have the most talented generation of people coming home and can fill

some many jobs and we now have an incentive position program because of this president and your delegation to hire these veterans. michelle obama and my mother come until biden, have embarked upon a program called joining forces to help mobilize private companies working hand in hand with the private sector to create 50,000 jobs thus far with a commitment to create an additional 160,000 jobs. thanks to this president, to our president, and your delegation in the post-9/11 gi bill come of veterans can get free undergraduate education at public institutions and other benefits to cover vocationally and on-the-job training and practice programs. -- apprentice programs. when it comes to mr. romney -- all right. i come to his record as it relates to veterans, there is simply no comparison. you need, and i believe this is about farming terraces in the with the fact and that's what i'm here to do -- arming citizens with the facts.

i was wondering why he did not run again in massachusetts. i've never met a successful politician who did not run again. makes you think, doesn't it? the poll showed him about 15 points down at one year out. i'm going off script here. let me tell you about his record. when he became the governor of massachusetts, one of the first things he did was proposed to cut veterans' benefits to the tune of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars. is general assembly, controlled

by different party, blocked him or else that would have happened. even more concern to me, he supports what i call the romney- ryan budget. you have seen the cuts. these are the cuts they intend to pursue. senator knows this very well. we have been telling you exactly what they're going to do. they're going to take an ax to the budget between 17%-20%. where that tax will fall if you believe them, and i do, will be to take out their numbers just by their math that the romney- line budget will cut veterans' benefits by $11 billion. they mean what they say, folks. facts. he took the occasion of last veterans day to propose to a group of veterans that we voucher the va. that is code for privatize.

means was to provide a voucher -- a doctor -- to a soldier, a veteran returning home. ladies and gentlemen, there will be and should be a debate about the role of government. we will have that debate here in north carolina. we will have it in the united states senate. ladies and gentlemen, there should be no debate that it is the essential sacred role of the government to provide for veterans until their final breath.

[applause] my grandfather had a sighing, don't tell me what your priorities are. show me your budget, and i will tell you what your priorities are. these folks mean what they say. that's not the only example of the stark choice we face in november and across this country. working with your incredible attorney general, roy cooper, had that seen them face the heart of this financial crisis that the both alluded to. our president understands the devastating impact that this has had on the middle class where we literally lost billions upon billions of dollars in equity in our homes. true catastrophes and oppression's within each of the homes that are now under water and is estimated at one out of four are now under water. this is because of this man made crisis that was born out of something called a mortgage-

backed security. ladies and gentlemen, our president understands that. mr. romney simply does not get it. our president joined 49 other attorney general's, have republican and have democrat, led by your attorney general, roy cooper, working toward a landmark $25 billion settlement with five of the nation's largest servicing banks.

. .