continues, and the senator from south carolina and i, the senator from new hampshire and some others have vowed we will never give up on this issue until the truth is known and the people who perpetrated it are brought to justice. we have seen another page turn in this chapter of cover-up and obfuscation by this administration by the belated 19 months later release of the following emails. first one we will not pay much attention to. this is from the benjamin rhodes, who is supposed to be the public relations -- public affairs office for the national security council. in fact, he is obviously the propaganda organ. the purpose, the goals as he states them to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy. i tell my colleagues that that was not a fact. that was not a fact. there was no evidence that these

protests were rooted in an internet video. in fact, the station chief before these talking points were made up sent a message, this is not a spontaneous demonstration. to show that we will be resolute in bringing harm to americans in justice, steadfast to these protests to reinforce the president's strength and steadiness, that's all about the presidential campaign. it's not about trying to find out who perpetrated this heinous crime. it's not about trying to respond to the people who committed these acts. in fact, because of the cover-up and the obfuscation and now 19-month delay, not a single person who was responsible for the murder of these four brave americans has been brought to justice, as the president promised that they -- that they would. so yesterday, mr. carney says

well, that it was -- that this was not -- the release of this information had nothing to do with the attack on benghazi. my friends, i have seen a lot of strange things in my time, but that has to be the most bizarre statement that i have ever observed. this is all about a presidential campaign. this is all about an effort to convince the american people that the president of the united states had everything under control. the next day after the sunday talk show, susan rice said al qaeda has been decimated, false, that the embassy was safe and stable and secure, false, and of course the whole issue of blaming an internet video lasted on and on for a couple of weeks when it was clear that the evidence did not indicate it. i would yield to my friend from

south carolina on this issue, and i will return. mr. graham: okay. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: this email -- to remind the body of what we're talking about, this email was released as a result of a lawsuit, not voluntarily by the white house. in august of last year, the house of representatives, the committees of jurisdiction subpoenaed all documents related to benghazi, and basically were stiff-armed. senator mccain, ayotte and myself have written enough letters to destroy a small forest to the white house with nothing to show for it virtually. there was a private organization called judicial watch who sued under the freedom of information act and an independent judiciary -- thank god for that -- ordered this white house to disclose this email just days ago. knowing that the email was going

to come out, the white house provided it to the congress a few days ago. what does that tell us? that tells us that they did not want you to know about this email, and they talk about 25,000 documents they provided. it doesn't matter the number of documents you provided to the congress. you could have provided us the benghazi phone book. it's the relevance of the documents and the significance of the documents, and the reason they did not want you, me and anyone else to know about this email, because it's the smoking gun that shows that people at the white house level -- now, these are people that work for the white house, for the administration -- were very intent on shaping the story about benghazi away from what they knew to be the truth. and here's the problem for the white house. this was seven weeks before an election. president obama had said

repeatedly bin laden's dead, al qaeda is on the run, the war is receding, my foreign policy is working. many of us were critical of president obama's foreign policy, particularly in libya because africa daffy fell, -- after qadhafi fell, we did nothing to secure the country. senator mccain and a couple of others and myself, senator rubio, went in 2011 to libya and we said in an op-ed piece if we don't get rid of these militias, libya is going to become a safe haven for terrorists. and you have got to understand this about the benghazi consulate -- it had been previously attacked in april of 2012. the british ambassador had been attacked in june of 2012. the british closed their consulate. the red cross closed their office because they had been attacked, and we have got email traffic coming from libya to washington at the state department level saying in august -- saying on august 16,

we cannot secure the benghazi consulate from a coordinated terrorist attack, and al qaeda flags are flying all over benghazi. what they did not want you to know was the consulate in benghazi was very unsecured, everyone else had left the town and that the numerous requests for security enhancements going back for months had been denied. they didn't want to you know that because it would make the american people mad that the facility was so unsecured in such a dangerous area and people in washington constantly ignored requests for additional security. here's what they wanted you to know. to convey that the united states is doing everything we can to protect our people and facilities abroad. that, to me, is the worst of the whole email because they're trying to convey to the american people the families of the fallen that these things happen but we did all we could to

protect your family and those who serve this nation. nothing could be more untruthful about benghazi than this statement that they did everything they could to secure the facility. and the question as to whether or not this email relates to benghazi was the most offensive thing coming out of the white house in quite a while. no one else died. there was an attack on an embassy in cairo with property damage. what do you think susan rice was going to be asked about on sunday, 16 september? everybody in the nation wanted to know how our ambassador and three other brave americans died. to suggest they weren't trying to prepare her to talk about the deaths of an american -- three americans, four americans is just insulting to our intelligence, but the document itself tells you it was directed toward explaining benghazi. to show that we will be resolute

in bringing people who harm americans to justice, that was part of what they wanted her to convey. no one else was hurt, other than benghazi. so within the document itself, they are talking about reinforcing the view that we will go after those who harmed americans. the only people who were harmed, the four people killed were in benghazi. so that's just a bald-faced lie, that's insulting our intelligence, and it really is disrespectful to those who died in the line of duty to suggest this email they would not give us without a court order had nothing to do with the death of four americans. it had everything to do -- mr. mccain: i might add that all of the emails were supposed to be given to the congress in return for the confirmation of mr. brennan as head of the c.i.a. they didn't do that. mr. graham: no. the bottom line here is the goals set out in this email are to try to convince the american

people seven weeks before an election we had done everything possible to protect our people and facilities, to underscore that the protests were rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy. i'm here to tell you, and i dare anybody to show you where i'm wrong, there is no evidence of a protest outside the compound that led to an eventual attack. i have talked to the man in charge of security at benghazi. the only survivor i have been able to talk to. he told me that when the ambassador went to bed shortly after 9:00, there was nobody outside the compound that would not have let him go to bed if there would have been protesters and they would have reported up to the chain of command a protest. mr. mccain: and the next day, the station chief sent a message there was not, slash, not a spontaneous demonstration. mr. graham: that was the 15th,

so i will get to that in a second. so this is in real time. people are reporting a coordinated terrorist attack. there was no protest. the video had nothing to do with this because there were no protests. why was this? they are far less culpable in the eyes of the american people and myself if, in fact, this was caused by a video we had nothing to do with, a protest that you could not see coming. the truth of the matter is this was a coordinated terrorist attack that you could see coming for months, and it was a result of a broader failure of policy. why did they not want to admit that. they are seven weeks out. it undercuts everything they were trying to tell the american people about their foreign policy. this is the smoking gun that shows they were consciously trying to manipulate the evidence to steer the story away from a coordinated terrorist

attack of the security into the land of the internet video, causing a protest. that, to me, is unacceptable and is clear as the sun rises in the east for those who care. now i will go to this and turn it back to senator mccain. president obama after this attack said the following -- "but everything that -- every piece of information we get, as we got it, we laid it out for the american people." i am here to tell you that that statement has not borne scrutiny, that this administration did not live up to this statement. here's another statement. from jay carney. "i can tell you that the president believes that ambassador rice has done an excellent job as the united states ambassador to the united

nations, and i believe that -- and i know that he believes that everyone here working for him has been transparent in the way that we've tried to answer questions about what happened in benghazi if you were trying to be transparent about what was happening in benghazi, why would you fail to provide the relevant information, the information that was provided was based on the available assessment at the time? i'm here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they have not provided the relevant information. why? because the relevant information crumbles the story susan rice told on 16 september, crumbles the story of the president himself when weeks later he talked about a protest caused by video that never happened. the reason they haven't shared this with us is because it exposes the lie of benghazi. and i will end with this thought. you would not know today about

an e-mail on 14 september setting goals for susan rice to meet on 16 september to change the whole narrative if it were not for an independent judiciary and a private organization. this white house has stiffed the congress. mostly the media has been awol. but the reason we haven't stopped is because we've met the families. to any member of the congress who thinks benghazi is a republican conspiracy designed to help lindsey graham or anyone else get elected, why don't you go to the family members and explain to them what happened? why don't you tell the family members that your government -- the government was upfront and honest and see if they will believe you. this e-mail that came from a

court requiring the white house to disclose it is devastating. it's devastating because it shows that three days after the attack, their goal was not to inform the american people of what happened but to shape the story to help the president get reelected. and i hope and pray that matters to the american people, and i believe it does. and i hope and pray that our friends on the democratic side will start taking a little bit of interest, because i can tell you this about senator mccain and myself. when president bush's policies in iraq were crumbling, we did not have enough troops and john mccain, to his credit, said that publicly and asked for the resignation of president bush's secretary of defense because of failed policy. when we discovered the abuses at guantanamo bay and abu ghraib when it came to detainee policy, both of us stood up and said the

system failed. don't believe it when they tell you this was a few bad apples. why did we do that? i've been a military lawyer for 31 years. it means a lot to me to adhere to the conventions we've signed up to. senator mccain, if there was ever an american hero in the senate, it's him, who's lived through a country that practices torture and he did not want us to go down that road. when we did those things, we were great americans holding the system accountable and doing the country a service. now all of a sudden we're just party hacks. i'm here to tell you, what drove us then drives us now. when you ask people to serve in faraway places with strange sounding names and to go out on the tip of the sphere, you owe it to help them if you can, give them the best ability to survive and if something bad happens, you owe their families the truth. just as in iraq, they tried to

shape the story in a fashion that did not bear scrutiny. it wasn't a few dead-enders. it was system failure that led to the collapse of iraq. and thank god we changed tactics and we overcame our problems. this benghazi story is about a foreign policy choice called the lightfoot print that caught up with this administration. it's about an administration that said no to additional security requests because they didn't want to be like bush. it was a story about an administration too stubborn to react to facts on the ground, that kept a consulate open when everybody else closed theirs, unsecured, believing that ignoring the problem would solve the problem. we have now found evidence of

their willingness, desire to change the narrative from a coordinated terrorist attack of an unsecured facility to something they really couldn't control and they did the best they could seven weeks before an election. and all i can say, if the shoe were on the other 23509 and this had been the bush administration, it would be front-page news everywhere and our colleagues on the other side would be up screaming. and it is sad to me that it hasn't been news everywhere and it's sad to me that my democratic colleagues in the house in particular have disdain for trying to find out what happened in benghazi. mr. mccain: and the fact is, i would say to my friend, the time has now come for a select committee. the time has now come because these talking points raise more questions than answers. it is time for a bipartisan,

bicameral select committee to investigate the entire benghazi fiasco and tragedy and it needs to be done soon. the american people and the families of those brave ones who sacrificed their lives deserve nothing less. my -- my friend, lindsey graham, just mentioned -- senator graham mentioned that -- about the media. i'd like to say thanks. i'd like to say thanks to fox news. i'd like to say thanks to some in cbs. i'd like to say thanks to charles krauthammer and the handful of people who kept this alive when the -- quote -- "mainstream media" not only wanted to bury it but subjected it, of course, as senator graham just mentioned, he and i to ridicule. i want to go back for a stoked this e-mail -- i want to go back for a second to this e-mail.

in return -- in response to questions yesterday by mr. carney, the white house press spokesperson, if you look at this e-mail and then look at what mr. carney said, it is an absolute falsehood. it's a total departure from reality. how does the president's spokesperson tell the american people something that is patently false? the president's spokesperson, in regards to this e-mail, that says that to show the internet and this protest rooted in an internet video, not a broader failure of policy. what was he talking about? do you know what he's saying? he said the rhodes e-mail is explicitly not about benghazi. well, then what was it about? then he goes on to say, the fact of the matter is, there were protests in the region. the talking points cited protests at that facility. they didn't. talking points did not cite protests at that facility; e.i., been gaz each. the connections between protests and video and the video turned

out not to be the case. it turned out not to be the case because it was never the case and no one ever believed it. tut was aboubut it was based on the best information that they had. he had no information that there was no demonstration sparked by a video. that was manufactured somewhere. and we -- the american people and we need to know where those talking points that susan rice gave. if you look at that document, he goes on to say, that document that we're talking about today was about the overall environment in the muslim world. how cou could he say that and look at that email here, talking about events in the muslim world? he goes on to say talking about susan rice, she relied on her for her answers on benghazi on the document prepared by the c.i.a. as did members of congress. mr. morell has stated the deputy head of the c.i.a. at that time, that he was astonished to

hear that there was reference made on all five sunday morning shows that there was a hateful video involved. so mr. carney is -- he is saying things that are absolutely false. the american people deserve better than that from the president's spokesperson whom he should they rely on for accurate information. when the bodies came home and it was a moving event, i was there, the -- then-secretary of state told members of the family and have told me that she said we will get these people who were responsible for the hateful video. that was a number of days later when it was absolutely proven to anyone's satisfaction there was no hateful video. and, of course, we still don't know what the final version of the talking points that susan

rice used on all morning talk shows, who was the final arbiter of it. we know now that mr. rhodes played a very key role in that. and we need to know who gave her those talking points because they are patently false. and if someone gave her those talking points, then why in the world did that person manufacture out of whole cloth information that were told to the american people? mr. president, there's a lot of points here, we get into some of the details, but the fact is that this is a cover-up of a situation which was politically motivated in order to further the presidential ambitions of the president of the united states. that's what this is all about. and that's why comments and

instructions were given in this email because the narrative was the tide of war is receding, osama bin laden's dead, secretary rice said at the time, susan rice said at the time, al qaeda is decimated, and the ambassador was safe and secure. none of those facts were true. but most importantly, we have five americans who were killed. it's very clear that that should not have happened, would not have happened if proper actions had been taken and most importantly now or as importantly now is the fact that for the last 19 months this white house has been engaged in a cover-up. it calls for a select committee to examine all of the facts and as always happens in these kinds of scandals, the cover-up is equally or sometimes worse than

the actual fact -- the action itself, and the american people deserve to know the truth. deserve to know the truth.

>> well, i'll respond in a couple ways. first using the words of the chiefs off the joint staff. levels there's a couple of gentleman who testified today. there simply was not enough the speed of the attacks for armed u.s. military assets to have made a difference, unquote. top military officer in our country probably has a good sense for where our assets are. i think there's this false premise out there, there's a theon that anywhere in world military assets should be less than an hour away. our military is the best in the ask we're great, but that just isn't how the world works. and the notion that we at the didn't dortment everything we could do to protect our people that night is just disgusting, quite frankly. i would note one more point, that there were multiple assets to benghazi that night, including a six-man team, a

a marine fast and platoon as well. the notion that the military assets that were available were not deployed also is not born out by the facts. been,ldn't it have couldn't the state department have made an earlier and more forceful or more urgent request? >> what are you talking about, earlier? >> very early on when it came clear -- >> that day? >> yes. which case general dempsey he tos the had they been able get there they wouldn't have made any difference. a requestere been made just as the attack began, would that still be the case, is your understanding? >> i'm absolutely deferring to dempsey by also the secretary of defense, leon panetta and others who have said beginning of this attack, a very fast moving attack that we had no advanced inning of, we were communication with folks back d.o.d., there

were assets moved, but again there are not military assets just everywhere around the world. even in that time frame that you're walking about. when, welling that's what general dempsey said, what the retired general said this morning. general.d brigadier >> any way, he said you don't it could have made a difference much it might have made a difference. >> again i will take the opinion militarytion's top official, general dempsey, who has spoken very clearly, again, simply note was enough time for armed u.s. military assets to have made a difference much i appreciate point of view,s and his opinion that the gentleman that was in stuttgart but again the opinion of the military is that it would not have made a difference much. >> but this retired brigadier general said that, was watching in realollowing this time. >> had insight into parts of it.

>> okay. can you say the same about general dempsey? >> our nation's top military commander? >> yes, was he following it also in the same kind of real time? >> he and lee yn panetta have testified at length about what they were doing and how they following it. they have spoken about this at engaged.hey were very >> the implication and what the, i think the committee was trying thisar out and what retired brigadier general said was that the state department was at fault, forget about the result, whether there would have been enough time, but that the askeddepartment had not for specific help. ofagain, i just noted all these different asset that were deployed to benghazi that night, played outcess that out ground. so i'm not sure what they're referring to and why they chose to hold another hearing looking at this. kind of chain, i mean -- >> the chain of command?

>> how does that work? the secretary of state call up stuttgart and say deploy some assets? or did secretary clinton speak thatsecretary panetta night? >> there was a lot of coordination between the state department and defense about response to this. and of course there's a military chain of command about how assets get deployed and there are military decisions made help.which assets can believe me, again, the committee was getting at was a notion that we at the state department did not do everything we could, including coordinating with our military colleagues about a possible response. notion is just not true. it has been repeatedly batted the senate committee on intelligence, by other committees, bipartisan have held who multiple hearings including the house articled services committee. so i'll appreciate this committee's attempt to continue talking about this issue, really werenotion that they pushing today has been repeatedly proven false.

tobut it's not an attempt keep talking about it, they are still talking about it. focusing on how to embassy security and -- >> this retired brigadier general who testified this thisng has not spoken to before, before that committee. which youiewpoint just said you agree with. but surely they should be to him.to talk >> i'm not saying they shut be to.wed >> i thought you were saying the committee is wasting its time. >> i would never use that term. look, nobody wants to get to the bottom of what happened at people atonight the the department of state, let me be clear about that. maken talk about how to our security better, we can hold hearings on that and we should. but constantly playing politics this and trying to find somewhere, something that they purposes for political isn't the way to address benghazi and that's what they

today in thiss committee, and there's a difference. >> i appreciate that you want to look forward -- happened andt what how we can do better based on this. >> surely congress has the right backward. >> absolutely. >> and the whole idea of this -- wait, congress, has looked backward, hold on one second. looked backwards, with nine hearings. we've given 46 briefings, they have looked backward. we, the senior leaders involved have testified publicly, multiple times on this, while i opinion of this gentleman, again -- >> who has not testified before? >> fine. and i appreciate his opinion. these senior military channelers involved have. multiple committees have looked at this and came to the same determination, that there was no asset that wasn't deployed that could have made a difference. you have atand why problem with the committee having this guy testify to them testifiedasn't

watchingnd he was this -- >> there were a number of people watching what happened. and i wouldcion love for the committee to prove me wrong, is that they have all of the facts, on nine hearings, multiple briefings, that they are trying a politicalto make issue. >> the problem with that is that you say that they've heard there is to hear, and yet then this new e-mail surfaces. >> which isn't an e-mail about benghazi, matt, it's just not about benghazi. >> it did have one question about -- yes. mentions a question, this is not about what happened that day. >> respectfully, this was a wasaration for what she going to do when she went on the talk shows. >> this was an e-mail that had talk lines, but if she needed to draw on them she

could. have all -- separate process for what she would say on benghazi, we've been over that many many times. >> on the next "washington journal," the head of the center the university of virginia, larry sabato talks t ads, he wrote an article about more than the expected to be spent on ads this year. we'll talk about the of sanctions as a and jennifery tool depaoli takes your questions school.s. high graduation rates. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the conversation at facebook and twitter.

>> a couple of live events today. hagel is atetary the wilson center to talk about the future of nato, that's on eastern.at 10:00 a.m. here on c-span at 11:45, hosts germanma chancellor merkel for a join conference. and later she speaks at the chamber of hers about u.s.-german relations and the of thecance trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership. at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> how do you think these women came from such a very low rent part of the world? you know, the victorian era ified.trat there was the very rich, the reale class, and the achievers. the life and times of these women is in the most buccaneer you can think of, it was after the civil war, finances were beginning to major.

we had rockefeller, jim fisk, all of the robber barrons out making a lot of money. and i think it was easy for them because they had been running low rent con artists, now let's go with the big boys. they were beautiful and they were tough and they were driven they were driven both for power and individualism, but as have been court i sans, they could have been kept in a fine manner if they wanted, but they really were pushing for their independence and women's independence. so they became these fiery feminists, unlike anybody on the scene. >> mcpherson argues that two little remembered victorian sisters changed the course of women's rights, and american history. 8:00 on c-span's q and a.

>> president obama on thursday honored the teacher of the year, an english, teacher from maryland. this is 15 minutes. thank you to a leader of unbelievable passion and everyise, somebody who day wakes up and thinks about three things, either his family, how to give every child a world class education. of education arnie duncan. [applause] i also want to thank our members of congress who are here today.

have them hereo and always en current all to focus onongress education and teachers. and i am thrilled to be welcoming all our state and national teachers of the year. round ofhem a big applause. [applause] good job. is a phenomenal group. in addition to being very good looking -- ( laughter ) best, and they'd be the first to say that they're only here because they're surrounded by outstanding teachers who give all to their students every single day. is a chance to thank not just the teachers on this stage across thechers all country. we really cab say enough about how important their role is in making sure that america

succeeds. so thank you for what our children, and what you're giving our nation. now it's been a while since i in school. but i still remember all the made mel teachers who who i am, who opened the world up to me. who made me feel that maybe i had something to offer, and maybe saw things in me before i myself. in we all had teachers like that. who succeeded in business or in a play or or broke anapp athletic record and they'll tell you about a teacher or coach who and challenged them and taught them values and encouraged them to be curious and ask questions and explore new ideas. everybody's got somebody like that in their lives. that's what great teachers do. path.et us on a better and they do it even though we them. much of teachers don't get an off day,

even when they're exhausted, even when you're up all night with your own kids. even if you've got bills or personal on your mind, once you're in front of that class you've got eager mind depending on you. and what a lot of people may not realize is how emotionally taxing teaching can be, because great teachers really care about their students. their struggles with you. well after the school day ends. them.rry about you're often the one is that go to with their troubles and their can seend sometimes you that they've got something on their mine even if they don't it. to you about sometimes they reach back after they've gone off to college and may need a little advice. that all-encompassing commitment that love that you your students that makes so many teachers go the mile. it's why many of you dip into your own pockets the pay for supplies, it's why you spend your nights and weekends thinking about new ways to make

and whysons come alive you work hard to build relationships with your students' families. make sureu want to they all have the support they need outside of the classroom as well as in it. a teacher is a 24-7 job. and yet many say there's nothing in the world they'd rather do and that's the kind of commitment that the guests we stage todayhis exhibit every day. we've got teachers here from away. few miles came also got teachers who from the mariana islands. fromteach everything biology, music special education. what connects them is how they reachnge their kid to their full potential, the crow a activity and passion that they work instead of just going through the motions or teaching it to the test. separates them is the lasting impact they have on their students' lives. of today's the story

honoree, our national teacher of the year for 2014, mr. sean mccomb. [applause] now, i wish i could say this is happenedst thing that but that's --ear, second or are ranked third. ( laughter ) in terms of big stuff happening life.n's but when sean was a high school with somee dealt pretty serious problems at home. and spent his days feeling and disengaged. and then he entered mr. shirts' english class. mr. shirts was one of those everything. changes he made sean want to work hard. when sean's mom passed away,

mr. shirts gave sean the strength to deliver her eulogy. when sean went to college, it was, as he put it, through the will.of mr. shirts' so sean himself saw the impact could have in a child's life. and it was mr. shirts' example that led sean to become an himself.eacher c.e.o. of -- patapsko high school, he works called advanced , it's students who have the ability to do the work the extra push. graduatingast two classes in that program, 98% four-yearted to a college. and they earned more merit

collardship money tonight rest of the graduating class combined. it's a tribute to sean that one him whatudents asked do you think about me becoming a teacher? sean asked wham subject he to teach and the student says it doesn't matter, i just as much fun as you do every day. and sean tries continue still in his students a sense of respect and obligation to each other, as one of the students said, you like i'm not learning on my own here, i learn from everyone. it speaks volumethe kind of example sean sets for his students that as part of his application for this award, the parents of one of his students behalf.letter on his and they wrote, our daughter had the typical teen-age drama in times really got her depressed about school and life in general. for helpd out to sean with getting her back on track. load, if his schedule he knew one of his students was

in need, whether for a shoulder to cry on or a calming world of encouragement, he'd be there to help. an image from sean's application that captures what he and all the teachers here are to accomplish. every child has an invisible chalk board attached to their and minds. that they carry with them lives. their some people they meet write mess ans of love and support, some messages of negativity and doubt. it a teacher's job to erase the thoseve messages and fill boards with caring words and inspire confidence and strengthen values. some of todays students might not even know what a chalk board any more, but -- ( laughter ) teacherknow that what a gives them stays with them for a lifetime because teachers matter. michelle and i talk to students, we often tell them end case is a a two-way street. our job to provide students

with great schools and teachers job to do their homework and do their best. elect have to make sure that teachers and school districts have the resources they need to do their well. and invetsing in education has been a top priority of mine ande the day i took office, it falls on all of us to make sure that we're encouraging our kids and reading to them and teaching them healthy, successful habits that set them on a path to college and a career. and a lifetime of citizenship. teachers who work hard to every day,ir kids they too deserve our support. kids thatese are our we're grooming for all the tollenges that they're going face throughout the next generation. be prouder of sean and all the teachers who here today. sean, i'm pretty sure mr. shirts you, too.roud of and to all the teachers who are

the millions who are working hard in classrooms all across our nation, we want well.nk you as you're doing the lord's work. with that i'm going to present sean with his apple. thank you. and god bless you. god bless america. [applause] that's a good looking apple. >> thank you, mr. president, and ongoingetary, for your commitment to education, for your efforts to maintain the hope of opportunity for all children. and for having this group of teacher representatives to the white house this afternoon. privilege and honor for us, our families, and the receiveies we serve to this recognition. i am blessed to be among the

passionate and dedicated educators before you. this is an incredible group of and inspiration al professionals who take deep pride in making a difference for children. a firm believe they're we are each a product of the people who surround us in life toshes and friends, our students, colleagues and communities, and all of those people we aree today, thank you so very much. became a teacher because i had incredible teachers who were able to shine a light of hope and possibility into a dark time in my life. teaching is my calling to do others. i had an opportunity to spend my helpingiving purposely, children fulfill the promise of their lives. teaching is an opportunity to with others who deny the common assumption that demographics determine destiny. comes with challenges and gullies like any work both theg, but also with priceless rewards of changing lives, instilling hope in the

seeingof children, and potential come to fruition. like each of these teachers am not here alone. my students are with me here today, because they have become of who i am. ashley taught me that what the qualityhat is of what you have to say, not how loud you speak. taught me that it's not how much you can see, but that you always see the best in every situation. bearing burdens can make you stronger and when you're finally them down, that strength can lift up others. has taught me our lies are not determined by our past but by our present choices our future. as a father i hope to pass some of these lessons onto my newborn son. like parents across this nation, i will be relying on our trusted schoolsessful public for his education. schools filled with teachers who students fall in love with learning, who cultivate

individual strengths and inspire to be their best. and i want the school that he asl atten to do what school cross this country are now and have always been doing, working better. we know that change is hard and we do it when knits the best interest of children. this change must be under taken ju tissuesly. it must value the complexity of and it must be done with civil and critical respect thes that knowledge and experience much our classroom teachers. before youke those today. we stab here because of those important people who invested in us and here we stand for investing ine of each and every chai. may god bless america's educators and gotta bless us all. thank you. [applause]

[applause] >> 25th street itself is not that unusual. similar streets have popped up in other cities, whether beaumont, texas, hells half acre, larry her street in denver, but what makes ogden's

ish street somewhat unique the fact that it arose in the middle of a mormon settlement. hand then the one mormon people's party, which was struggling to retain control of the city. and on the other hand you had the railroad which was the city,ic life blood of the which was bringing in nonmormons, which swelled the of the liberal party. and so the railroad, which was the economic life blood, was also leveling the playing field. so you had that irony. thei think in that context, guilty pleasures that were along 25th street were going to be a little bit more taboo than they might have been in other cities. with the hotels and restaurants here at the depot, three blocks east of here, the three blocks inween them began to fill slowly, with boarding houses, houses, and saloons.

bordellos and even some opium dens. people so happens that who came through here, transcontinental passengers, interested in pastimes that were quite different than those culture was accustomed to. >> this weekend book tv and history tv take a look at the history and literary life utah, saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2 and sunday at 2:00 on c-span 3. >> everybody says how do you think these women came from such thery low rent part of world? as you know, the victorian era stratified, there was the and rich, the middle class the real barron achievers. the life and times of these most buccaneer time that you can think of. it was after the civil war,

finances are beginning to become jimr, we had rockefeller, fisk, all of the robber barrons lot of money.ng a and i think it was easy for them, because they had been running around with low rent con thests, now let's go with big boys. and they were beautiful and they and they were driven and they were driven both for individualism. but as i say, they could have been court i sans, they could been kept in a fine manner if they wanted. but they really were pushing for and women'sndence independence. so they became these fiery feminists, unlike anybody on the scene. argues that two little remembered victorian sisters changed the course of women's rights and american history, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a.

>> during this week's question time, the british house of commons, prime minister david cameron was asked about thetions against russia and scottish leader's comments regarding russian president putin. this is 40 minutes. impact. we expect better results for thousands of young people at risk of becoming meet. >> questions to the prime minister. >> number one, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to captain thomas clarke of the army air corps, flight lieutenant rakesh chauhan of joint helicopter command, acting warned officer class do spencer faulkner, corporal james walters of the army air corps, and lance corporal oliver thomas of the intelligence corps, reservist who also worked as a research assistant.

these tragic deaths remind us of the continued commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces, and i know that our deepest concerns are with the families that is very, very difficult time. i'm sure the whole house will also want to join me in paying tribute to and mcgwire who was stabbed to death in her classroom on monday. it is clear from the tributes paid she was a much loved teacher that work to school for over 40 years. she gets so much about her pupils, should come in on her day off to help prepare them for exams. our thoughts are with her family, her friends in the entire school community who have been left devastated by this truly shocking and appalling tragedy. the criminal investigation is underway in everything they can be done to get to the bottom of what happened will be done. mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> i very much associate itself

with a prime ministers tribute to the serviceman who lost their lives in afghanistan last week, and two anne mcgwire who lost her life in the classroom situation he spoke about. can ask them about something different. last week the institute for fiscal studies revealed the government's decision to trouble tuition fees will cost more than the system it replaced. is this disastrous policy a symbol of the government's long-term economic plan? >> it is another expansion of higher education and. that's what we're seeing under this government. all of the forecast from the party opposite that fewer people would have applied university, those forecasts were wrong. that people from low income backgrounds would have applied. those forecasts were wrong. unlike other countries we put in place a system for tuition fees that means we can expand our universities and go on winning in the global race.

>> mr. roger williams. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the prime minister and, indeed, the whole house for paying the tributes to the five men who recently died in afghanistan. in particular i pay tribute to lance corporal alber thomas who worked for me in westminster. he was an outstanding young man who was so well liked and held in such high regard by everyone who knew him and worked with them. the loss of bears particularly held on his family and friends who grew up with them. i'm sure the prime minister would want to join me in praising all our reservists who face all the risks that are armed forces experience. and sometimes tragically paid the ultimate price. >> here, here. >> my friend is right to pay tribute to lance corporal oliver thomas. it is a reminder the sacrifices that we have born in afghanistan. this looks as if it was a tragic

accident but will get to the bottom of what happened but he's right to mention how our reservists in all three forces serve alongside the regular colleagues and take all of the risk. and in afghanistan preapproved again and again that they are people of huge quality ability and courage. as we go forward and expand our reserves i hope everyone in our country, particularly businesses, the public sector, local council and others including the civil service will do everything they can to make sure the reservists are welcomed into businesses and supported in the vital work they do for our country. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i want to join the prime minister in paying tribute to captain thomas clarke, flight lieutenant rakesh chauhan, acting warned officer class to spend spencer faulkner, corporal james walters of army ergo, and lance corporal oliver thomas of the intelligence corps who were tragically killed.

mr. speaker, these deaths are tragic and poignant reminder, sacrifices made by our armed forces including reservists who are serving our country with the bravery and distinction. all of our thoughts go to do their friends of those who knew of those we lost including the honorable member. we share his lost. our deepest sympathy goes to the families. i would also like to join the prime minister thing traded to the speaker anne mcgwire who was murdered in the classroom on monday. this was an appalling tragedy. it is clear from the testimony of those who have spoken out since she died that she was an inspiration to those she taught. our thoughts are with her family, friends and teachers and pupils of the school. mr. speaker, yesterday for the first time we got to know the names of some of the investors including hedge funds who were given preferential access. how were these lucky few chosen?

>> what we're talking about is an exercise in privatizing the royal mail which has been a success for our country. a business that lost a billion pounds under labour has now paid the money back to the taxpayer, is making profit, and the people we should be praising are the 140,000 employees of royal mail who are now under this government shelled in the business they work for. >> now answer the question to the royal mail is featured in buffalo and was sold out. only he would want to congratulate for looting -- losing the taxpayer 1 billion pounds. now, now, each of these chosen few investors were given on average 80 times more shares than other bidders on the basis of the national orders words

they would provide a stable long-term shareholder base. in the words of the business secretary, -- can the prime minister tell us what assurances in return for their gold ticket these investors it gave us so they would hold the chairs for the long-term? >> first of all he said the people were given shares. they paid for scheppach second, he raises again, he raises again this issue that there was some sort of agreement. there was no agreement. at the end of the day he should be recognizing that a business that lost money, that he tried in government to privatize but failed, is now in the private sector making money, succeeding for our country and its employees are now shareholders but isn't it interesting that with the growth in our economy the fall any unemployment of the reduction in the deficit, he's reduced like all to labour to complaining about a successful privatization. [shouting] >> ed miliband.

[shouting] >> no, mr. speaker but i'm raising an issue about a ripoff of the taxpayer which the british people know when they see it. the reason this matters, and the reason this matters, and the reason this matters is because -- >> order. the orchestrated yelling us are predictable and incredibly tedious but it won't stop us getting through a bit longer. people can call down. take a tablet if necessary. mr. ed miliband. >> shares sold for 1.7 billion windowsill for privatization are now with 2.7 million. who cashed in? 12 of the 16 so-called long-term investors made a killing worth hundreds of millions of pounds within weeks. now yesterday, now yesterday the representative of the bank that sold the shares said was an understanding, and i quote, with those investors, he said there was an understanding.

that's what it says on the record. with those investors about the long-term commitment to royal mail. so why were they allowed to make a fast buck? >> we are getting them we are giving lectures on taxpayer valley from the people who sold our nation's gold. [shouting] he talks about -- he talks about ripping off the taxpayer when it was he who left an 11% budget deficit after the biggest banking bail out in britain's history. but i have to say these are exactly the arguments that they made about the privatization of the national freight corporation. exactly the same arguments made about british telecom and british airways. it pleases the back benches, it excites the trade union, but it's utterly utterly meaningless. is he recommitting to renationalize in the post office now? of course not.

it's just plain to the gallery because he can't talk about the success of our economy. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, you should listen to members of his own side, what did he say yesterday? this privatization have left people down. the interest of the taxpayer were not taken into account. he called unethical and immoral and he is nodding his head. that is -- now, he talks about the postal workers. he talks a lot about the postal workers, mr. speaker. so this is her interesting. there were no conditions on the hedge funds but there were conditions on other groups. can he explain why postal workers were told they couldn't sell their shares for three years but hedge funds were told they could cash in on day one? >> the post office workers were given their shares and it's right that they were given their

shares. let's celebrate the capitalism. let's celebrate. i thought he believed in empowering workers. we are not a 140,000 workers about their shares. in terms of the risk to the taxpayer he ought to reflect -- >> order. there's far too much noise. i say to you, you are a product of the ladies college. [shouting] [laughter] >> i cannot believe they taught you to behave like that. prime minister. >> mr. speaker, try to your right there is a lot of history in this shouting because of course in the past with all these privatizations we had the shouting. over each of us look at labour's

candidates and "the sun" of straw wants to give you. son of prescott wants to get you. it's the same families with the same message. it is literally the same old labour but that is what is happening. no, he asked about -- [laughter] he asked about taxpayer value. this is what the national order -- audit office said privatization has reduced taxpayer risk to support the universal postal service. this is a good deal for taxpayers because of this business was losing a built-in. it is now making money, paying taxes, gaining in value, good for our country but bad for labour. >> ed miliband. >> the post office is making a profit when they privatized. what we discovered today is one rule for the postal workers and another rule for the hedge funds. and mr. speaker, who rode these

hedge funds? they've been very coy. none other than the chancellors test man. so why is it mr. speaker, it's one rule if you deliver the chancellors best man's speech, and it's another rule if you deliver the chancellors profits? >> what this shows, mr. speaker, he can't talk about the deficit because it's falling. he can't talk about the economy because it's growing. he can't talk about jobs because there are one and a half million more people in work. so he is painting himself into the red corner by only talking about issues that are actually successes for the government but appeal to the trade union, the left-wingers behind them and the people who want to play the politics of envy. that's what's happening in british politics. everyone can see it. nothing to say about the long-term economic plan that shows britain is on the rise and labour is on the slide.

>> and mr. speaker, what we know is there's a cost-of-living crisis in this country worst -- oh, oh, they don't figure the cost-of-living crisis. why not? because they stand up for the wrong people. the more we know about this privatization the bigger the fiasco it is. and national asset sold at a knockdown price. a sweetheart deal for the city, and the government bungled of the sale. everything about this privatization stinks. [shouting] >> not a mention of gdp. not a mention of what happened while we were a way in terms of employment figures. non-eviction of the fact that deficit is getting better. we know, mr. speaker, he's got in his advisor from america. yes, he has, mr. axelrod and this is what he is giving advice is a. let me share because i think this is excellent advice. he says this, there's a better future ahead of us but we must not go backwards to policies that put us in this mess in the first place.

[shouting] >> i don't know what the opinion -- >> order, order. order. [laughter] [shouting] >> in response to that question the prime minister has finished and he can take it from me that he is finished. >> mr. speaker, from the cyber attack on estonia to the invasion of georgia to recent events in the crimea we have seen a clear pattern of behavior from the kremlin, and the west has allowed itself to allow wishful thinking to take the place of analysis. given that defense exports from the eu to russia have amounted to about 700 million euros in

the last three years not counting the 1.2 billion of the french warships, isn't it about time we were talking about eu sanctions and? >> i think by right honorable friend is right on this issue. we have set out a clear set of sanctions in terms of russia's behavior toward ukraine. we have taken a series of steps so far in terms of putting asset freezes and travel bans on named individuals. we take an acer is a diplomatic and other steps and we've set out the so-called stage three sanctions that we think should be taken if further destabilization of ukraine are set out and we do believe that restrictions on arms sales should certainly be part of that. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister promised by the end of this parliament a third of the cabinet would be women. we know the former cultural secretary had to go. does he agree with the new culture secretary that this is because government appointment

should always be made on merit? >> what i said was i wanted to see a third of my front bench ministers being women at the end of a conservative government. we have made some important progress in terms of the numbers of people on the front bench. i have to say with respect to my coalition partner in terms of cabinet members, the liberal democrats need to do a bit more people to wait on this issue but i hope you make further progre progress. >> to the subject of royal mail, as the leader of the firm which brought british gas to the market, and as the offer of --

[inaudible] may i tell the prime minister that the questions, the criticisms the way the royal mail launched was handled by party opposite those -- shows their total ignorance of the city markets. [shouting] >> the fact is that when you're trying to make an immense sale, you have to take trouble to find people who are to underwrite it, and they are not able to prophesies what stock markets are going to be like a week ahead. and, therefore, the whole way, the prudent way in which to handle is for a sensible. it does if you are --

[inaudible] >> order, order. people are shouting. i know -- >> if you -- [laughter] if you fail, those institutions responsible for its launch are ruined. [shouting] >> the right minister. >> he makes an important point because when you're privatizing state-owned industries, if you sell them for less than the price set outcome it is written off as a failure and if you settle for anything more than the price you are accused of undervaluing the business. that has always been the way. as i said that is what labour said with respect to british airways, british telecom, british aerospace. they oppose every single move to build a strong competitive of private investors sector in our country, and that continues today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. mitchum would like to be a

policeman buddies only working part-time and can't afford the thousand pound bobby taxing each day to apply to join the met. his mom and dad are foster cares and they would like to give it to him if they had. is -- if my constituent is people of passing the fitness and test requirements of the police why should his bank balance stop him? went to become a metropolitan police officer become an aspiration for the few rather than the many? >> the honorable lady is as questions about what she calls a bobby taxing let me make three points. it is not a tax. secondly, it is not a barrier to recruitment and thirdly recruitment is taking place in the metropolitan police. that is what's happening. we are seeing people being recruited. as is happening members who want to join the metropolitan police are able to get assistance with this qualification that they now require. >> mr. speaker, last week --

[inaudible] here in your apartment last night young scholars painted the scene from shakespeare's work. mr. speaker, could this right honorable man, the captain of our state, make our national -- [inaudible] a national day? and cookie choose to tell before the house what shakespeare means to an? >> can i thank the ottawa friend for the beautifully and really crafted question about the anniversary of shakespeare's birth? it is a moment for celebration not just here in britain but all across the world where shakespeare's works are getting a wider and wider understanding and education. i will attempt the quotes he is brought out in his question but i was a to any politician if you read henry v speech, if that

doesn't inspire and dry the on i can't think what does. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when will he published the relations they produced standard packaging for tobacco products? >> i can't prejudge the queen's speech but we said we want to take action on this front and we will. >> thank you, mr. speaker. textile engineering, food and drink manufacturing are all blooming -- booming. for example, fabrics are producing the of wall street for master buses which have been very, very busy this week because they are grading jobs at apprenticeships. will the prime minister praise them and all the other local firms that agreed to attend my first ever jobs fair on friday the 20th of june? >> first let me make it to my on welfare for holding his job fairs, a number of members of

parliament have taken this approach and it's in real benefits in local areas as you get businesses coming forward pledging apprenticeship, pledging to take people on and you can bring them together with people who are looking for work. what we've seen since the recess is a series of figures in our economy, growth now running at over 3%, 1.5 million of our fellow countrymen and women in work since this government came to power. inflation now at a five year low, this is confidence at its highest level since the early 1970s. there's still more work to do, absolutely no complacency. the long-term economic plan is not completed but it is well on its way. >> before he was elected, the prime minister said that if they let me he would put a -- [inaudible] making use of the cheapest most developed form of renewable energy. last week he announced his party wants to add support for onshore wind. 70% of the public to support a. what changed his mind?

>> what has changes with seeing a massive increase of onshore wind in our country. we will achieve with what is in the planning system and under construction approaching 10% of our electricity demand provided by onshore wind. i think the question then is is a right to continue to overrule local planners and local people and the continued -- to put taxpayer money and have to build that onshore wind? i don't believe it is. the manifesto will make it very clear for local communities to see. of the parties will have to make their own choices. >> in the last few weeks, over 160 million pounds of private investors was announced. we vetted 3000 new of friendship since the new election. in short -- [inaudible] does the prime minister agree with me that as recourse goes, pay follows the?

>> i'm glad to hear he is leading the way, particularly on apprentices. where we are it is not 1.6 million apprentices have started under this government, our target is 2 million. we would see a particular expansion of higher level of apprenticeship schemes but it is a major part of the living our long-term economic plan. >> thank you, mr. speaker but i'm sure the prime minister read last week's excellent report by the all party group which is set out how consumers are getting a raw deal from the secondary market. the question is, mr. speaker, whose side is the prime minister on? >> i haven't seen the report the honorable lady mentioned. i will have a look at it and i will discuss it with my right honorable friend who i welcome to the cabinet, who i think,

labour seems to criticize the point but i'm not quite sure on what basis they were doing the. i think you are doing an excellent job for our country. very happy to study the report she mentioned. >> a number has fallen 25% in the last year but they're still so much more to do. i'm hosting a jobs fair this friday. >> here, here. >> in the light of -- [inaudible] what else is government doing to make it a reality? >> what we've seen already is 1.7 million private sector new jobs created, far outstripping the loss of public sector jobs so there are one and have been people altogether. we seen an increase in full-time work. in terms of driving further employment growth i think the clear message to businesses you've got the 2000 pounds on

financial insurance bill which i think can help people to take on the employment. the cuts do business with someone shops is also very welcomed, and from next year anyone under the age of 21, you won't have to any national insurance, contradictions at all. we want to see more people in work and rais to raise even fort level of aspiration in our country. >> mr. speaker, nuclear power is a very important component of our energy mix because it produces large amounts of electricity with very little co2. this government called itself the green is government ever. what will his government do to ensure that nuclear power stations such as hinckley point which is already five years behind schedule, is online on time? >> i have to say to the honorable gentleman i'm sure he has a constituency interest in

this because the northwest is very important energy assets for our country. the last labour government was in power for 13 years but can never build a nuclear power station nor make any progress on moving towards doing it. under this government we have hinckley point going ahead, the most exciting development. i believe there is opportunity of more to come. that is what we're doing putting our money where our mouth is and making sure we have nuclear power providing high quality base load power which is carbon free. >> thank you, mr. speaker. business confidence is returning, unemployment is falling come more new jobs are coming to my constituency. most of that relies on infrastructure spending, financed by private pension funds. does my right honorable friend share my regard the labour's raid on retirement funds, the brainchild of the shadow chancellor, an estimated two amounted to 118 billion pounds last week, not only racked

private pension but hobbled by private sector infrastructure that was in our country for a generation? >> i'm delighted to hear about the effect you got employment rising, unemployment falling, more people taking on apprenticeships and businesses expanding. that is what we see across our country and decisive in 20 minutes into prime minister's question not a single labour member of parliament has been turn gdp unemployment, growth in the country our economic plan. they don't want to talk about our economy because they can see it's getting better under this government. >> will the prime minister make representation in relations -- that have been held under house arrest in saudi arabia for more than 10 years? would he agree with me that human rights and women's rights should be our priorities and our

relationship with saudi arabia the? >> i read the report as she did and i share her concern and i will look into it further. in terms of our relations with all countries, we do give a proper party for human rights and to the rule of law and we raise these issues with all countries that we meet with. >> could i gently tell the prime minister the liberal democrat women not only pull their weight but perfect a ready and willing to push their way. i recently -- [shouting] i recently hosted -- [inaudible] the culture and what can be done to build up women in its name. i know the issues, forced an early marriage are important to my right honorable friend. so would he please consider viewing the film and showcasing

on these issues that he's hosting in july? >> i think the honorable lady first of all can i thank her for the work that she does particularly on women and enterprise with a business department i think is widely important to the point i was making is i know all parties in this house want to see greater gender equality and representation, present incumbent and the rest of it, and all parties have made progress. my party has made progress and there's more we want to do, specifically on her concerns about preventing sexual violence in conflicts, we are taking huge steps this year in raising the profile of those issues. i pay tribute to the leadership shown by the foreign secretary. also the country that has met its targets in terms of 1.7% of aid going to gdp going in aid. we are able to push this item right up the agenda which we will do over the course of this year. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday ukrainians in scotland wrote expressing disgust and

astonishment as the first mission statement. will be prime minister support the statement of the scottish ukrainian committee and state and labour and condemning those statements which support, which support a regime which oppress his a minority group and silences its critics? >> i agree wholeheartedly with the honorable lady. i think what alex salmond said was a major error of judgment. i think all of us in this house should be supporting the ukrainian desire to be a sovereign independent country and to have the respect of international community, and party leader for that ambition. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i met with just jumpstart who is a charity. will my friend congratulate the

council of worked with myself and my honorable friend, a year committing 75,000 pounds to a program of up to 50 committee public access defibrillators that will save lives? >> this sounds like an excellent campaign. we have as a country taken a lot of steps forward in terms of making sure this sort of equipment is more readily available because if you can find people who suffered a heart attack quickly, you can save lives in those golden minutes in that golden hour when it first strikes. i it sounds like an excellent idea and i join him in paying tribute. >> over the last 12 months the use of food banks has increased by 93%. social landlords, read her rates have gone up by 84%. will be prime minister except that the governments own policies are driving up debt and

poverty? >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman is clearly the best route out of poverty is work and we should welcome the fact there are one and a half million more people in work. if you look at the figures of course he is right that food bank usage has gone up not least because food banks are not properly advertised and promoted, not least by java center plus but also by local authorities. if he wants to deal in facts, the oecd has shown the proportion of people struggling to buy food in the uk has actually fallen since before labour's great recession. i know that members opposite want to make this argument about policy and inequality in britain but the fact is that statistics don't back them up. inequality has fallen compared to when they were in office. there are few people in both the poverty and fewer children in relative poverty. the picture they want to paint because they can't paint a picture about economy that isn't going, they can't paint a picture about people not getting jobs. the picture they're trying to paint is wholly false.

>> with the service sector, with the manufacturing sector and with the construction and manufacturing sector all growing at 3% plus, with the prime minister agree the economy is well on the road to recovery and rebalancing as well? >> i'm grateful for the question. the recent figures did show that manufacturing was one of the faster growing sectors of our economy and i welcome that but i think what the chancellor said in his budget is we are not resting on our laurels and saying the job is done. there's more work to address the fundamental long-term weaknesses of the british economy. we need to manufacture more, export more, save more and we need to invest more. unlike the party opposite we have policies that promote all of those things. >> there's been so much noise that only from her seat but on her feet. [laughter] >> has prime minister seen the study which shows that

two-thirds of local council are either dimming are cutting their streetlights at night. and does he think that women are feeling safe in the local communities at night under his government? >> i have like all honorable members to take part in election campaigns have been lobbied on this issue on both sides of the argument. i think it is an issue for local determinations. i want to see good street lighting but we should listen to the arguments from the police and others about the effects that this has. >> i congratulate my right honorable friend on economic prosperity. [inaudible] >> we are very happy to look at the issues she raises, but the weapons that we've used to try to help young people who don't have rich parents but who can

afford, who can afford mortgage payments is help to buy because it helps them to get together that deposit of 5% deposit rather than 15 or 20% deposit to the labour party are shouting about it. they should be welcoming this. it's expanding aspirations and growth in our country but that is what they should be promoted and that is the approach we will take. >> order. >> i have to inform the house that i have received the following letter from the house. i write to inform you that i've indicated to her majesty, the queen that i wish to surrender as clark of the house at the end of august this year. i shall then have served the house for 42 years over 11 parliaments, and for the last decade at the table. as clark of the house i've been fortunate, indeed, to the best job in the service of any

parliament, indeed one of the best jobs in the world. i have been lucky enough to have been involved in most of the innovations in the procedure and business of the house over the last 10 years. whatever the attitudes of polimetrix and whatever brickbat may be thrown at it i conclude said that the house now is a more effective scrutiny or and more topical relevance and independent-minded than i have ever known it. as chief executive of the house service of some 2000 staff, i've had the great privilege of leading a remarkable group of talented people, deeply committed to the house and whatever their role here, all the rightly proud of being stewards of the central institution in our democracy. that commitment and pride has been a feature of working like

her for as long as i can remember, but in recent years it has been increasing levels of professionalism and teamwork and than ever clear focus on delivering the services required by the house and its members as well as reaching out to education and information to the world beyond westminster. i am so grateful to have had throughout my service, especially over the last three years, the support and friendship of members on all sides of the house, and especially of the occupants of the chair as well as the happy camaraderie support and counsel of my colleagues at all levels. i have spent much of my career seeking to make the house and its work and the work of its members better understood by those whom it has served and the citizens of the united kingdom. for i believe that with understanding comes value and

with valuing comes ownership. and our citizens should feel pride in the ownership of their parliament. the house of commons across the century has never expected to be popular. and, indeed, it should not cost popularity, but the work it does in calling governments to account and its role as a crucible of ideas and challenge deserves to be better known, better understood and so properly valued. so, too, does the work of individual members, the workings of the constituents, but often as the last resort of the homeless and hopeless, the people whom society has let down. this is a worthy calling and should be properly acknowledged and appreciated. this house is the precious center of our parliamentary

democracy. and with all my heart i wish it well. yours sincerely, robert rogers. >> here, here.

to some extent some democrats have been in on this, too, have there been in some states african americans who want to be sure that they have re lieably african american districts. a large percentage of voters so they can be sure they have a representation in congress. >> this weekend on c-span. changing demographics redistricting and the republican party. later on c-span the white house correspondents dinner.

on american history tv a history of hawaii and the sugar ndustry. >> members of congress this week held their first hearing on campaign finance since the supreme court struck down limits on individual political contributions. retired supreme court justice stevenance testified before the senate rules committee backing a constitutional amendment allowing congress to regulate campaign finance laws. this is 2 hours. i'm deeply worried about the future of our democracy. for over 100 years we have struggled with the issue of money and politics always seeking to find the right balance between freedom of political expression and the

corrosive influence of the unchecked flow of money to public officials. we have had periodic scandals and periodic corrections. we've had new laws and new ways to evade those laws. but we've never before seen what is happening today. as we will learn this morning, a perfect storm of new forces court opinions clever political optives and the high stakes inherent in governmental decisions have created a qualityively new political landscape where candidates are compelled to raise more and more money and yet at the same time have to contend with virtually unlimited spending by shadowy entities representing nameless donors. what has occurred represents

revolutiony not evolutiony way in is campaign finance america. one person, one vote. there they are well intentioned people, that i respect whobble that restrictions on who can give to campaigns and how much they can give trespass on cherished first amendment freedom of speech protections. others -- and i am among them, are worried that the recent decision's elimination of even modest limits combined with a business tin system that in too many cases mass disclosure of who is giving and allows a so-called flood of dark money into the process has the very real potential to crode the integrity of the system itself. historicically the flow of money has rested in and out of political campaigns on three pillars. regulation of sources

regulation of amounts and disclosure. recent decisions have severely restricted our ability to control sources and amounts. but in those decisions -- referring of course to citizens united and mccutchen, the court has explicitly invited congress to utilize disclosure as the protection of the public interest in these situations. justice kennedy and justice roberts in their opinions cite disclosure as the reason that the limitations don't have to be upheld. unfortunately, the disclosure rirmes that they mention in those opinions as the bulwark against abuse and corruption simply don't exist. for example, according to a new study by the center for responsive politics, total independent expenditures

reported to the feck by outside groups total about $70 million to this point in 2014 nearly three times more than was spent at this point in 2010. that is the point i want to emphasize is that this isn't a gradual growth of a change of a few dollars here and there. what we have is an explosion of this kind of money not only of outside expenditures but also of expenditures where we don't know the source. we've created a kind of parallel universe of campaign finance. the traditional candidate-based system with clear limits on sources and amounts and strict disclosure requirements and the independent system with no control of sources, no limits, and no disclosure. naturally, this troubling new world of campaign finance impacts how we as elected officials interact with the

fund-raising process. quanlt tatively and the amounts of money that elected officials need to be made. an average u.s. senator -- and of course all senators are above average but an average u.s. senator running for reelection has to raise something on the average of 5,000 to 8,000 a day every day 365 day as year for six years in order to accumulate the funds necessary to run for reelection. and at that rate, you very quickly run out of friends and family. my concern here is the system. this isn't a democratic or republican issue. and the country does not benefit from an undisclosed contribution and an arms race in contributions. disclosure in this context is not an infringement on the first amendment. but what we are allowing to happen before our eyes is

already having its inevitable effect. the erosion of confidence in our system and in us as stewards of our country's future. the challenge here, the challenge before us, is to find the balance between competing goods, the freedom to exercise our political voice on the one hand and the public's interest in safe guarding the integrity of the political process on the other. to restore that balance in what feels like an increasingly unbalanced system. i welcome our witnesses today and look forward to their contributions to these important deliberations. senator roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to be here today on this very important subject and i brought my own chart we in the minority do not have

enough money for another display unit over there so scuke we could put our chart up where you had your chart. >> without objection. >> the chart bears the text of the first amendment to the constitution of the united states. and i believe that is what we are talking about today. the rights of citizens to express themselves to make their views known on the issues that affect their daily lives and pocket books or any other issue they wish to discuss. the first amendment protects those rights and it prevents the government from restricting them. the exercise of those rights does not threaten our democracy. it is the attempt to restrict these rights that we must fear. we are living today with the consequences of the failed attempt to restrict them. this failure was not hard to

foresee. it is not the fault of the courts or the federal election commission. it is the direct consequence of the poor decision congress made when it pass it had mccain-feingold bill. i opposed that bill. i and other whose voted against it did so because we knew it would restrict people's rights to participate in the political process. it would not get money out of the system but would simply divert it to other avenues. supporters of the bill of course denied it. they assured us it would not happen our system would be better. it should be clear now who was right and who was wrong. but rather than admit they were wrong the proponents have just proposed new regulations. because the courts have properly found much of their last efforts to be unconstitutional they have proposed new regulatory schemes under the guise of disclosure. no longer able to simply

prohibit speech, they do not it by ey seek to prevent putting onerous bar yrs to those who wish to speak. the last people we should be asking for advice are those who helped write the law that created the problem in the first place. let's stop this fool's errand of speech regulation. let's stop trying to prevent people from criticizing us. let's stop demonizing citizens who exercise their first amendment rights. let's stop pretending more speech somehow threatens our democracy. we have nothing to fear from a free marketplace of ideas. we do, however, need to fear a government empowered to investigate its own citizens for exercising their rights. the revelations of the internal

revenue service targeting of conservative groups and others have shown this to be a real danger. we hear a lot about corruption. when this issue is debated. i think for many people that the definition of cluppings is the promotion of ideas with which they disagree. it is amazing how for years george soros has been spending millions of dollars to promote liberal and progressive causes none of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be concerned about it. now that the coke family is promoting free markets and enterprise we are supposed to believe that our democracy is at risk. that is absurd. corporate spending is supposed to be a concern but corporations have long exercised unfettered rights to express themselves provided they were media corporations. i am pleased to say that the citizens united case changed that. the supreme court recognized

the first amendment does not allow this congress to choose who gets to speak and properly ended this nonsensecal distinction where the only consequence being that now more voices are heard and i know i know there are some in this body who do not want those voices to be heard. and they are doing everything they can to silence them. our majority leader unfortunately who has a fixation with the koch family that can only be described as bizarre takes to the floor on an almost daily basis to attack them. why? because i think he thinks they pose a threat to his power. he wants them to stop talking. congress shall make no law how the first amendment begins. doesn't allow us to silence those who oppose us. that applies to corporations labor unions mr. soros and the

coke family. it applies to everyone. let's stop trying to do so. let's stop trying to impose regulations designed to deter and harass our opponents. instead let's just admit the mistake we made when we tried to regulate political speech in the first place. let's remove those restrictions. let's allow those who want to contribute and engage in our political system to give money where they want as long as they follow the law. everyone in this country has the right to express themselves. even people who don't manage to get themselves invited to appear on television shows or to testify at senate hearings. people. all people, individually and as groups, have every right to make their views known. instead of trying to stop them, let's reinvigorate our system. new restrictions and regulations are not going to improve the system. getting rid of those we already

have imposed will. that is the course we should take. simply let's just do it. thank you for your time. >> senator schumer. >> thank you. first let me thank you senator king for suggesting this hearing and for your chairing the hearing as well as your invitation to justice stevens whom i looked forward to hearing from. well, i think mccutchen is a real turge point in our debate about money and politics. mccutchen seems to say that free speech absolutely defined as it does allows anyone to spend nep amount of money in any way in our political system. mccutchen carried to its logical extreme will get rid of individual limits, will get rid of limits on corporations will

just allow money to totally envelope our system. it is frightening. it is frightening. and the reason we have this hearing is not because of some new ads. the koch brothers have been doing ads for years but because of the mccutchen decision. the bottom line is very simple. i respect my colleagues' fidelity to the first amendment. but no amendment is absolute. most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support anti-pornography legislation. that's a limitation on the first amendment. most everyone here believes you can't falsely scream fire in a crowd at theater. that's a limitation on the first amendment. we have many, many different laws that pose limits on the mendments because through 200-

some odd years of juris prudence the founding fathers and the supreme court have realized that no amendment is absolute. we have noise ordinances. everyone accepts them. that's the limitation on the first amendment. so if you impose a view that just when it comes to allowing 7,112 ad to put the on television that the first amendment is absolute but in so many other areas it's not, you have to ask why. and then when many on the other side of the aisle don't support disclosure which is actually an enhancement of the first amendment, free debate, free nowledge, one wonders why. the first amendment protection

of free speech is part of what makes america great. so is the concept of one person one vote. and when a small group of people, 700 in this case, have so much more power to influence the political process, then everybody else -- our democracy is at risk. that's the problem here. there is a balancing test. and there are many concepts in the constitution. the concept of having a somewhat level playing field so that those who have overwhelming wealth and choose to spend it whether they be on the left or the right, the laws we're proposing affect the koch brothers and george soros and should. because now legislation

which could bring disclosure but would not stop the path mccutchen is on senate democrats are going to vote this year on my colleague tom you'd al's constitutional amendment which once and for all would allow congress to make laws to deal with the balance between equality, each vote is equal each person is equal and the first amendment. a careful balance. but not what the five members of the supreme court have said no balance. we will bring that amendment to the floor shortly. and we will vote on it. and i will be working with senator you'd al and majority leader reid and hopefully every republican who cares about honest elections to bring it to the floor this year. when the supreme court or any of my colleagues say that the

koch brothers first amendment rights are being deprived that they're not being heard it defies common sense. it defies logic. and the same would apply to some very liberal person who put on 10,000 ads. the ability to be heard is different than the ability to drown out every other point of view using modern technology simply because you have a lot more money than somebody else who has an equally valid view. i hope that senator udall's amendment will attract bipartisan support but it will draw to a fine point where we are at. and that is that the first amendment is sacred. but that the first amendment is not absolute. and by making it absolute you actually make it less sacred to most americans.

we have to bring some balance to our political system. if people lose faith in the system which they are rapidly doing in large part because they feel correctly that people with a lot of money have far more say in the actual political dialogue than they , this great democracy could faulter. we don't want it to happen. and the best way to stop it is to show the supreme court or limit the supreme court show them that their absolutist view is wrong and support an amendment like senator udall. >> for the information of senator cruz, walsh, and udall who arrived the schedule we are going to follow is i am going to invite justice stevens to speak and each will be asked to provide a statement if you wish to do so. justice stevens, if you would oin us at the table.

>> justice stevens is a retired justice of the united states supreme court was appointed to the court in 1975 by president gerald ford i think the third-longest sitting justice of the supreme court. and justice stevens, i knew that you were a distinguished jurist but my eye was caught by a headline in the paper over the weekend that says pope to move jean-paul for sainthood. d i realized later it wasn't the same john paul. we're delighted to have you here today. >> thank you very much, senator. senator king, chairman schumer, ranking member roberts, and distinguished members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the pernt

issue of campaign finance. when i last appeared before this body in december of 1975, my confirmation hearing stretched over three days. today, i shall spend only a few minutes making five brief points. first, campaign finance is not a partisan issue. for years the courts' campaign finance juris prudence has been incorrectly predicated on the assumption that avoiding corruption or the appearance of corruption is the only justification for regulating campaign speech in the financing of political campaigns. that is quite wrong. we can safely assume that all of our elected representatives are andidates for office law-abiding citizens.

and our laws against bribery provide an adequate protection against misconduct in office. it is fundamentally wrong to assume that preventing elections are a contest between the candidates for public office. like rules that govern athletic contests or adversarial litigation, those rules should create a level playing field. the interest in creating a level playing field justifies regulation of campaign speech that does not apply to speech about general issues that is not designed to affect the outcome of elections. the rules should give rival candidates irrespective of their party and incumbency status, an equal opportunity to persuade citizens to vote for them. just as procedures in contested