tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 10, 2012 8:00pm-1:00am EDT
and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey. in a half hour, in house debate on a bill to replace automatic defense spending cuts. then the justice department files a lawsuit against >> more from the inquiry into the relationship between politicians and british journalist. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover. there were two such personally and politically different men, and who ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated, that ended up being enormously productive and formed the foundation of what became a series of letters between them later in their lives.
is very extraordinary . >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world. the private and public relationships of the american presidents, from truman and hoover to george h.w. bush and bill clinton. sunday at 8:00 on "q&a". >> defense secretary leon panetta says that if congress changes keep parts of his department's budget proposal, there could be risks to national security. he and general martin dempsey spoke reporters for a half hour. >> good afternoon. let me -- let me begin with some comments on the defense budget. i have spent much of this week, including two hours this morning on capitol hill, dinner last night here at the pentagon, reaching out to
members of congress and to senators to talk about where things stand as congress begins to debate, mark up and consider the defense budget in earnest. my message to congressional leaders remains the same. congress passed the budget control act. it requires a reduction of defense spending of $487 billion over the next 10 years. toi've said, we do not have choose between national security and fiscal security, but that does not mean that we do not have to make tough choices. we do. and defense should not be exempt from doing its share to reduce the deficit.
what that means is we have to make very difficult decisions -- difficult decisions that are tied to a strategy that achieves necessary and real savings, and at the same time protects the strongest military in the world. as you know, the military and civilian leaders of this department -- service secretaries, service chiefs, combatant commanders -- spent months developing a new defense strategy to meet our national security priorities and address our future security challenges. we then crafted a balanced plan that met the requirements of that strategy as well as met the spending caps imposed by the budget control act. my concern is that if congress now tries to reverse many of the tough decisions that we
reached by adding several billion dollars to the president's budget request, then they risk not only potential gridlock, because it's not likely that the senate will go along with what the house did, and if they did, they could force the kind of trade-offs that could jeopardize our national defense. the department of defense -- and, i believe, the administration -- are not going to support additional funds that come at the expense of other critical national security priorities. and if members try to restore their favorite programs without regard to an overall strategy, the cuts will have to come from areas that could impact overall
readiness. there's no free lunch here. there is no free lunch here. every dollar that is added will have to be offset by cuts in national security. and if for some reason they do not want to comply with the budget control act, then they would certainly be adding to the deficit, which only puts our national security further at risk. when congress restores funds to protect particular constituencies that may not be critical to our national defense capabilities, then they risk upending the kind of careful balance that we've worked very hard to achieve, and it could harm our ability to pursue the high-priority
investments that we think are essential to the force that we need for the 21st century. some examples -- i mean, if we're prevented from retiring aging ships and aircraft that no longer fit strategic requirements, then congress would be forcing us to have to look elsewhere for these savings, areas like reducing modernization investments and burdening the services with excess force structure that would risk hollowing out the force. if we're restricted from gradually drawing down the size of the ground forces in the years beyond 2013, congress would be forcing us to reduce readiness. we would have to cut training; we'd have to cut equipment, all of that very needed to support the force. and again, it would guarantee a
hollow force. if we're limited in our ability to put military health care costs on a sustainable track, then congress would be making all of this more difficult to invest in new technologies that we believe are critical to the force we need for the future. then't think any of us in administration or on capitol hill want these outcomes. therefore, i would strongly urge the congress to work with us to reach a consensus about our defense priorities, recognizing the budget realities that we face, not the ones that some would like to pretend are not there. i understand from my own experience that congress has the right to question some of our decisions and to make changes. that right is inherent in the legislative process.
but congress also has the responsibility to make sure that we protect a strong national defense. the bottom line is we cannot cut a half a trillion dollars from the defense budget and not cause some pain. but the price for that pain should be a 21st century force that can effectively defend our country in what remains a very dangerous world. we can do this, but we have to do this together. let me say another word about sequestration. again, i'm grateful to the house for recognizing the importance of stopping sequestration. but by taking these funds from the poor, middle-class americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our american constituencies, the
guaranteed results will be confrontation, gridlock and a greater likelihood of sequester. again, the key is to work together. each side can stake out its political position. i understand that. but the fact is that nothing will happen without compromise from both sides. before wrapping up, let me just take a moment to announce that the president has nominated general mark welsh to succeed air force chief of staff schwartz upon his retirement this summer. general welsh is presently the commander of u.s. air forces in europe, where he is responsible for air force activities covering almost one-fifth of the globe, encompassing 51
countries in the atlantic and arctic oceans. he's a command pilot who's flown more than 3,400 hours during the course of his career, and he's got a distinguished record that includes multiple combat missions during operation desert storm. i had the opportunity to work closely with general welsh when i served as director of the cia and he served as an associate director of the cia for military affairs, a position where he functioned as a critical link between the military and intelligence communities. over the course of our time working together, i developed a deep appreciation for his wisdom and his counsel. a former air force academy commandant, i believe that he has the right leadership qualities and distinguished background to follow his extraordinary predecessor, general schwartz. i'll have the opportunity in
coming months to pay a full and proper tribute to general schwartz, but let me just say that i believe norty has been a transformative leader in his nearly four years as air force chief of staff. he came into the role at a very challenging time, but because of his leadership, the air force, i think, is much stronger today. under his watch, the air force has reinvigorated its stewardship of the nuclear enterprise, made important investments in the capabilities needed for the future, and excelled in a wide range of missions, from the operations over libya to supporting our ground forces in afghanistan with close air support and isr. i greatly appreciate his counsel, his guidance, his friendship and his dedication to the air force and to the united states of america. >> thanks, mr.secretary.
>> good afternoon, everyone. on this day in 1775, a small force of green mountain boys led by ethan allen and benedict arnold successfully attacked the british garrison at fort ticonderoga, new york. at the same time, the second continental congress was assembled in philadelphia. their task was daunting: field and fund an army for a war that was already under way. as we sit here today, the 112th congress has its own daunting task: debate and decide on a defense budget with a war under way and with increasingly complex security challenges ahead. i appreciate the difficulty of the decisions they face. secretary panetta and i face them as well, and so do the service chiefs and the combatant commanders. we came together to prepare and submit a budget that we firmly believe is a responsible investment in america's security. now we stand ready and willing to work with congress to make sure our armed forces have what they need and no more than what we need to keep america immune from coercion. this means working together to
preserve the balance that we built into the budget. keep in mind this is a budget for a joint force. it should not be thought of as just a set of separate service budgets, but as a comprehensive and carefully devised set of choices, choices that reflect the right mix among force structure modernization, readiness, pay and benefits. different choices will produce a different balance. so before giving us weapons we don't need or giving up on reforms that we do need, i would only ask to make sure it's the right choice, not just for our armed forces, but for the nation. we all know that america's strength rests as much on the industry and the diversity of its people and economy as it does on the might of its military. now, speaking of the right choice for the nation, i'm pleased to join secretary panetta in applauding the nomination of mark welsh to be the 20th chief of staff of our united states air force. i know mark well.
i know about his courage in combat, his acumen in acquisition and his passion for developing future leaders. mark is ready to join the ranks of renowned airmen like carl spaatz, curtis lemay, david jones and also his immediate predecessor, norty schwartz. norty is the elder statesmen of our group of joint chiefs. i've been privileged to know him both as a fellow chief and as -- now as the chairman. in both positions, i counted on his wise and principled counsel. but more importantly, the air force counted on his leadership at a critical juncture. he delivered, and as a consequence, the air force delivers for the country. there's much more to say about norty in the days ahead, but for today i will simply say thank you. thanks to him for being a trustworthy wingman. thank him for being our nation's flight lead. with that, i think secretary panetta is prepared to take all of your questions. >> mr. secretary, with your
announcement, the department's announcement the other day that military trainers are being returned to yemen, what is the prospect of even deeper u.s. military involvement in yemen in coming months, whether it be air power or ground forces? and if i may ask general dempsey, what are we to make of these latest revelations of anti-islamic course teachings at the joint forces staff college? is it -- does it in some way reflect a current -- a current of thinking among some in the military that the u.s. is or ought to be at war with islam? >> with regards to the yemen question, as i've said time and time again, that we will go after al-qaida wherever they are and wherever they try to hide. and one of the places that they clearly are located is yemen.
we've obviously -- the united states, both military and intelligence communities, have gone after al-qaida, and we continue to go after al-qaida. the recent threat that concerned all americans about the possibility of another effort to take down an american airliner has come out of -- out of yemen. and it's for that reason that we will continue to take all of the steps necessary to try to go after those who would threaten our country and threaten our -- the safety of american people. we have operations there. the yemenis have actually been very cooperative in the operations that we have conducted there. and we will continue to work with them to go after the enemies that threaten the united states. >> would you rule out using ground forces in yemen at some
point? >> there -- yeah, there's no consideration of that. our operations now are directed with the yemenis going after al- qaida. >> yeah, if i -- if i could contribute to that part of the question -- or that question as well. we -- you know, we've had a decades-long relationship -- security cooperation relationship with yemen. we suspended it during the period of their civil unrest. and as president hadi began to restore constitutional order to the situation, we're reappearing in terms of our building partner capacity. but it is very much as the secretary described. it's trying to build their capacity, not use our own. to your question about the issue at the joint forces staff college, as you know, i've made an inquiry into a particular course that was brought to my attention by one of the students because he was concerned that it was objectionable and it was counter to our values, you know, our
appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness. and the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. it's totally objectionable. and so we are looking at how that course was approved, what motivated the individual to adopt that -- it was an elective, but what motivated that elective for being part of the curriculum. and we are looking across the institutions that provide our professional military education now to make sure there's nothing like that out there. it was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn't academically sound. this wasn't about, you know, we're, you know, pushing back on liberal thought. this was just objectionable, academically irresponsible. >> had a budget question. i want you to reconcile an apparent contradiction in your -- some of your remarks. for -- since you've been in office, you've said defense cannot be the sole burden -- bear the sole burden of fiscal -- of fiscal reductions, deficit reductions.
you've said domestic discretionary spending has to take part of the burden. the -- right on the floor today, they are debating that very point. democrats are complaining about the size and scope of the cuts in food stamps and other programs. you seem to agree with the opposition there, but yet they're doing -- the republicans have a package laid out that you said you wanted, basically. can you square a little bit why you oppose the legislation? >> i -- look, i've said this time and time and time again, and i'll say it one more time. in my experience in the congress as chairman of the -- of the house budget committee and later as director of the office of management and budget, there's only one way to deal with deficits this size, these kinds of record deficits that we've never seen in the history of our country, and that is to address every area of federal spending, as well as revenues.
every -- every major budget summit that i was a part of, going back to the reagan years, to the bush years, and to the plan that we developed in the clinton years, every one of those budgets focused on entitlement spending, focused on discretionary spending and focused on revenues. those are the pieces that have to be part of an effective plan to reduce the deficit. and when one party decides to go after one area as opposed to others, and the other party does the same thing, that's the kind of gridlock that prevents the kind of necessary action that this country has to take to reduce the deficit. >> one follow-up. then you would -- would you be one of the senior aides that would recommend that that legislation be vetoed because it's one-sided? the white house put out a sap to that effect. >> i -- look, i don't think there's a chance that this president is going to follow the priorities that the house is
taking in this matter by basically going after all these domestic programs in order to provide increases in defense and to deal with sequestration on the defense side. it's not balanced, it's not fair, and ultimately the senate isn't going to accept it either. so all we're headed for right now is further gridlock, and that's what bothers me. >> mr. panetta, this week the family of sergeant bergdahl spoke out, calling for a swap or transfer or exchange to be made to send taliban prisoners to afghanistan and start these talks and get their son home. have you reconsidered your -- has there been any change in your concerns with the transfer of guantanamo detainees to qatar? do you think that there's any possibility of restarting these talks with the taliban on confidence-building measures?
>> well, look, first and foremost, our heart goes out to the bergdahl family. we certainly understand the concerns of the family, and we share the concerns about bergdahl and the importance of getting him returned. and we're doing everything possible to try to see if we can make that happen. and -- but on the issue related to guantanamo transfers, my position hasn't changed. i would only take those steps in accordance with the law and the requirements of the law, and at this stage, frankly, there are no decisions that have been made with regards to that. >> mr. secretary, can you both respond as a follow-up to the budget issue.
the house has added a hundred million dollars for missile defense into the budget. do you think that the east coast needs a missile defense system? do they need to do this survey that will cost a hundred million dollars that the pentagon didn't request, or is this politically motivated? and the second question is related to the intelligence leaks related to the revelations about the underwear bomber this week. do you think that we need an investigation into that leak? are you concerned that it actually may turn out that that leak either came from this building, and therefore was it helpful, was it hurtful that the -- that the information came out about that plot? >> i'll address the last question. >> okay. >> and then i'll let marty speak to the first question. as a -- as a former director of the cia, i have to tell you that those kinds of leaks are very harmful to the efforts of
the intelligence community. our whole effort is to try to be able to get individuals that can provide intelligence and that can work with us. and to be able to do that and do that effectively, you have to protect these people, and you have to protect the confidence that -- and the classification and the covert nature of this kind of work. and when these leaks take place, i can't tell you how much they damage our ability to be able to pursue our intelligence efforts. and so i am fully in favor of a full and thorough investigation of this matter, and i understand that the director, the dni will do that. >> on the ballistic missile defense, as you know, we went through a strategic review back in the fall, and then we mapped our budget to it. and what i can tell you, jennifer , is i'm -- in my military judgment, the program of record for ballistic missile defense for the homeland, as we've submitted it, is adequate
and sufficient to the task. and that's a suite of ground- based and sea- based interceptors. so i don't see a need beyond what we've submitted in the last budget. >> questions. on yemen, by any measure, anyone you speak to will tell you that al-qaida in yemen is now stronger since 2009, more fighters, controls more territory, has more capability. so how is it, number one, that al-qaida is facing strategic defeat when they seem to be growing stronger, especially in yemen? my other question is to follow onto bergdahl. can i ask whether either of you, since you've taken these jobs, have spoken to the bergdahl family? why has the president not called them? and fundamentally, are doing as much to find bowe bergdahl as you did to find osama bin laden? >> how about if i take the latter and i forget what the former was, so maybe you'll remember. >> i think i'll remember. >> yes.
i've had the bergdahls in my office. i've corresponded with them several times. i've -- i understand their concerns. and i can assure you that we are doing everything in our power using our intelligence resources across the government to try to find -- locate him and that -- i mean, i'll give you one vignette. if you go to the centcom command center where -- you know, their conference room, there's a four-by-six foot poster of bowe bergdahl sitting in front of the podium to remind them, and therefore us, every day that he remains missing in action. i can assure you of that. >> with regards to yemen, our efforts have been directed at the leadership of al-qaida and those that have been involved in trying to plan attacks on the united states.
and with regards to our -- you know, our efforts and our operations, we have been very successful at going after the leadership and those that are directly involved with regards to trying to make those kinds of plans. and i think -- i think the fact that, you know, we continue to be successful with regards to these kinds of threats is an indication of the effectiveness of the operations that we have there. there is a larger tribal operation called aqap. and the yemenis are dealing with them. there are -- i mean, i will say that, you know, they do represent a threat in yemen, and the yemenis are the ones that are pursuing the -- that tribe, aqap, and trying to make efforts to reduce their influence as well. but you know, they are a threat. no one -- no one in any way
underestimates the fact that all of them represent a concern for the united states in terms of our national security. but i do believe that we are making effective progress at going after those specific targets that represent real threats to the united states. >> my apologies, can you just clarify one thing, sir? you talked about aqap just now as a tribe. and i want to make sure i didn't misunderstand you. you are talking about al-qaida in the arabian peninsula -- >> yeah. >> -- al-qaida in yemen, not a separate tribal organization? >> yeah, that's correct. that's correct. >> i would like to ask you, on syria, mr. chairman, to -- how do you assess the current situation in syria? as you may know, two suicide attacks took place this morning in damascus. do you have any indications if al-qaida could be behind those attacks? >> i have no information to that effect, as to whether or not they're involved there. obviously, the situation in syria remains of great concern.
this -- you know, the cease- fire does not appear to be working. and annan himself has indicated concerns about whether or not parties are abiding by the cease-fire. we continue to urge assad to step down, that there must be a change there. they've lost their legitimacy by the huge number of deaths that are taking place in syria. and again, we are working with the international community to try to make sure we take all steps necessary to try to do what we can to implement the necessary political reforms to have assad step down and to try to return syria to the syrian people. this is not easy. there are no easy courses here.
but i think the most important thing we can do now is to continue to work with the international community to bring pressure on syria to do the right thing. >> i -- >> -- follow-up on this? >> yeah, let me because joe asked me as well. i haven't seen any intel to suggest that aq was responsible for those attacks, although we do know that there have been extremist elements that are trying to make inroads in syria. that is to be distinct from the opposition. i'm not tying those together. you know, there is -- whenever those kind of situations occur, there will be violent extremist organizations try to take advantage of it. i'd just add one thing, and that is, two weeks ago i was in jordan. today my turkish counterpart is in the building, and we're trying to gain a common understanding of where we think we are and where we think we might want to go. >> if i could also follow up on syria. in addition to the annan comment you had, senator kerry talked about u.s. involvement in helping to create humanitarian no-fly zones or humanitarian corridors, about arming the syrian
opposition and arming the rebels. have either of your positions changed in terms of supporting the rebels with arms as opposed to nonlethal aid; that they haven't -- since, as you indicated, the annan plan doesn't appear to be working, why shouldn't the u.s. do more than diplomacy? >> well, i think as we've expressed before, that the most effective way to deal with the situation in syria is not unilaterally, but working with all of our international partners to work together to bring as much pressure as we can, diplomatically, economically and every other way, to try to get syria to do the right thing; that that -- that is the -- you know, we believe, the most effective way to address that situation. as far as what we do beyond that, as i've made clear, we at the department of defense continue to make all kinds of plans with regards to, you know, possible approaches in
syria. and if the president of the united states asks us to respond in particular ways, we're prepared to do that. >> yeah -- >> can i follow on -- >> let me just add i don't provide positions, i provide options. >> general, do you expect -- in your conversations with your turkish counterpart, since they've spoken about this themselves, do you expect these specific ideas to come up? >> absolutely. and it's because -- that each of the countries in the region have a different concern or a different set of their own interests. in some cases -- for example, jordan is very concerned about the potential for increased refugees, and you know, there's 400,000 palestinian refugees in and around damascus. so you know, that's a concern that an individual country might have that wouldn't necessarily be ours, but it's important to understand the complexity of the situation. >> if i may follow up from bob's question regarding the course being taught at the joint forces staff college, can i confirm that there's an investigation, but the
individual lecturer is still in place, currently holding his position? and does it seem surprising that an officer could speak to a room of o-5s and o-6s and say things regarding target civilian populations, and yet it took a while for this to come out? he spoke several times. this course was taught for several years. >> there is an investigation ongoing. the individual instructor is no longer in a teaching status. he is not in a teaching status. and are you asking me am i surprised? yeah. i'm surprised. and i was actually quite thankful that the young man who did find the course material offensive spoke up. >> we have time for two more questions. >> a follow-up -- just to follow up on that issue, if i may? >> sure. >> so should we -- should we understand that this elective course is not being taught anymore at the -- for the officers? >> that's right. that's correct. >> and the second question, which is on -- secretary
panetta, if i may, on al-qaida in syria, you've said that we don't have any indication of al-qaida in that -- those double explosions that took place in damascus. but what kind of assessment do you have on al- qaida activity in syria? because the syrian government confirms that al-qaida is active in syria. do you have an indication to say that al-qaida is actually active, how big it is, and is it a concern for you? >> al-qaida anywhere is a concern for us. and we do -- we do have intelligence that indicates that there is an al-qaida presence in syria. but frankly, we don't have very good intelligence as to just exactly what their activities are. and that's the reason we can't really indicate specifically what they are or are not doing. but they are a concern. and frankly, we need to continue to do everything we can to determine what kind of influence they are trying to
exert there. >> last question. >> mr. secretary? >> last question, yeah. >> this is actually to you both. president obama recently gave his personal opinion on gay marriage. in your personal opinion, should gay service members be allowed to get married on military bases in those states where gay marriage is legal? >> you know, i'm not going to render a personal opinion on that. as secretary of defense, i'm responsible for enforcing the law and for giving the best defense advice we can to the president of the united states. i think that's true for both marty dempsey and myself. there are two laws that we are enforcing in this area right now that are of note. one is the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." we just got a report that i received yesterday that indicates that that's going very well and that it's going pursuant to all of the planning that was done before that went into effect.
it is -- it's not impacting on morale. it's not impacting on unit cohesion. it is not impacting on readiness. and so because it was prepared -- and i give tremendous credit to the military for having laid the groundwork for that going into effect. as a result of that kind of effective planning, this is working well. and very frankly, my view is that the military has kind of moved beyond it. it's become part and parcel of what they've accepted within the military. the other law that we do have is the doma law, the defense of marriage act. and the defense of marriage act obviously does have some impact with regards to the benefits that are provided to same-sex couples. and so we continue to review the benefits. but those have to be provided consistent with doma. and until doma is either
rejected by the courts or changed by the congress, that's the law we abide by. >> yeah, personally, i follow the rule of law that governs the issue you just described. when asked for my military advice to the secretary of defense and the president, we -- i form it with the joint chiefs, and we provide it privately. >> the marriage -- on the marriage -- >> as a military officer, in the idea that everyone in the services be treated equally, does it concern you that some service members are allowed to get married on military bases; other service members are -- do not have that right? >> there's three -- if i could, sir, there's three -- so there's three bins of things we're -- this is under review, has been since "don't ask, don't tell." there's three bins into which these privileges and, as you describe them, rights -- that one is self-declared. so a young man or woman can self-declare, for example, who's going to get their
insurance benefits. then there's policies. and we control that, the secretary. the secretary controls it. those are under review. but then there's the law, and we don't control that. and so those three bins, if you will, are each rather clear in how we approach it. >> and with regards to, you know, the question on marriage, i mean, in that instance it's very clear that state law controls in that situation. so, you know, where state law provides for that, then obviously that kind of marriage can take place. if the law does -- prohibits that, then it cannot take place on a military base. >> and just a quick follow-up to general dempsey. have you discovered any negative impact as a result -- on good order and discipline as the result of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"? and if not, what was everybody so afraid of all these years? >> to the first part of your question, no, i have not found any negative effect on good order and discipline.
to your second, what were we afraid of, is we didn't know. and i think that the way -- we were given a year to make this assessment, to educate ourselves, to collaborate, to build a sense of trust on this issue. and given that time to do it, i think it worked out well. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house of representatives today passed a bill to replace automatic cuts to defense spending with different cuts. the automatic cuts are in the budget sequestered, part of the deal made last year to cut over a trillion dollars to offset the increase in the debt ceiling. when members failed to agree on cuts, the sequester went into effect, automatically cutting $98 billion from defense and social programs, unless congress
passed other cuts. this hourlong portion from the floor was on the rule to debate the bill. remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: i appreciate you coming in early to be with us this morning. this is a big day. this is the reconciliation bill. i serve on both the rules committee and budget committee, mr. speaker, and as you know we have had some tremendous successes in the appropriations process. this week we have been working through the commerce, justice, science bill. it's a bill that's reduced spending to those levels that we had in 2008. doing thosthings that the voters sent us he to do. and we are going to vote on that bill today in final passage, but an appropriations process we have control in this house that process where we reduced spending from 2010 levels down to 2011 levels, they'll go down again for 2013 levels to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, those are overwhelm 1/3
of the taxpayer dollars. 2/3 of the taxpayer dollars that are spent in this town, i mean borrowed and then spent, come on what they call mandatory spending programs. mr. speaker, as you know mandatory spending programs are dollars that go out the door whether congress acts or not. appropriations bills require congress to act affirmatively. but mandatory spending goes right out the door without any oversight from this body. until you get to reconciliation. reconciliation is that process that democrats put in plac wisely years and years ago to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker.
to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker. we are talking about a bill that has been put together by almost every committee of jurisdiction here in this house and assembled by the budget committee, brought here to the floor. it's been the subject of countless hearings already. we look at whether or not we would be able to bring a substitutedemocratic substitute to the floor. none was smithed that fly with the rules of the house. so we have one bill on the floor today. an up or down vote on whetheor not we are willing to engage in the first serious reconciliation process on this floor. some folks might say 2003, i say 1991. it's the right thing to do anyway as responsible stewards of taxpayer llars. in this case these aren't
reductions for the sake of reductions. these are reductions for the sake of complying with what i would argue was a very good deficit reduction agreement between the president and the senate and the white house last august. and as a part of that agreement we put in some blanket cuts to national security, some blanket cuts that some commentators have described these cuts, mr. speaker, as being intentionally so crazy that they would never happen butould be used only as a tool to get the joint select committee to act. as you know, mr. speak, the joint select committee did not succeed last fall. it's a source of great frustration for me and the members who served on that committee, had an opportunity to bring an up or down vote to both the house and senate floor on anhing they came up with, mr. speaker. they didn't have to get the whole 1.2, they didn't have to get 1.5. they could have just gotten one. half of one. they could have gotten quarter of one. but they got nothing. so where are we? well, in the words ever secretary of defense leon panetta, he said we are at a place where if these cutare allowed to go the impact of these cuts would be devastating to the defense department. i happen to share his concerns. again, these were yoord cuts, put in place to be so
intentionally crazy that congress would never allow them to occur. it would spur the joint committee to action. i happen to have supported, mr. speaker, an amendment offered by chris van hollen of maryland, the ranking member on the budget committee when we were going through the process last year, he offered an amendment that said, everything's got to be on the table. that includes the defense department. i agree with him. the defense department does need to be on the table. the defense departnt is undergoing $300 billion towards the reductions today. this bill does nothing to change that. $300 billion being reduced from the defense department as well it should, it's not easy but it should happen and it is happening, this doesn't deal with that. this is dealing with additional cuts. again the words of secretary of defense, leon panetta, former democratic member of this house, impact of these cuts would be devastating for the department. so we haven opportunity, mr. speaker, to do what i would
argue you and i came here to d not just you and i, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do those thgs not just that happen year after year after year, those things that have 12 months of efficacy and go away, but things that can be set in permanent law to change the direction of spending and borrowing in this country. candidly, mr. speaker, it's more about the borrowing than it is about the spending. there are priorities in this country. i would argue we did a great job of focusing on the plyors. when you are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar from your children and grandchildren, we have to redefine what responsibility is. that is irresponsible. and this bill then takes the step in two directions. one, turning back the second round of defense department cuts, not the first round, but second round, the round that leon panetta described as devastating to the defense department, and setting us on a path to bend that cost curve going forward by tackling
mandatory spending programs for the first time in almost a decade. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr. woodall, for yielding me th customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise in very strong opposition to this rule. it is totally closed. and it denies democrats led by mr. van hollen the substitute. we are not asking for dozens of amendments or something that hasn't been done in the past with regards to reconciliation bills. all we are asking for is one vote on a substitute. one ve. on what we believe is a better alternative to the republican bill. last night in the rules committee every single republican, every single one of them voted to deny democrats
that opportunity. mr. speaker, as one who does not believe in arbitrary and thought fest across-the-board cuts, there is a way to balance our budget, i want to support mr. van hollen's substitute in order to avoid the implementation of the budget control act see quester. -- sequester. in my opinion to allow this to go into full effect would be bad for the country. we are here in this awful mess because the so culled supercommittee failed to reach agreement last fall on a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plan. due in very large part to the absolute refusal of republicans to put revenues on the table. bowl simpson, and the gang of six all had deficit reduction proposals that sought to be challenged with both spending cuts and revenues, sought to be fair. they realized you can't -- you cannot solve long-term fiscal problems by slashing and burning the last century of social
progress in america. but today my republican friends have bught to the floor a reconciliation bill that actually makes sequestration look good. what's going on here is very simple, very troubling but very simple. they are protecting the massive pentagon budget and demanding no accountability by exempting it from sequestration, and finding even deeper cuts in programs that benefit the people of this country. the bill before us would create a government where there is no conscience. where the wealthy and well connected are protected and enriched and where the middle class, poor, and vulnerable are essentially forgotten. i have never seen anything like this. it is outrageous. it takes my breath away. my friends won't cut billions in subsidies from big oil at a time when oil companies are making record profits and gouging americans at the pump. they won't address the
inequities of the tax code which allows billionaire warren buffett to play a lower tax rate than his secretary. the revenues on just these two policies alone will result in billions and billions and billions of dollars in deficit reduction, but the republicans have protected big oil and the billionaires. however, my republican iends take a meat axe to snap. formerly known as food stamps. this is a program to help poor ople afford food. my friends on the other side of the aisle should heed the words of psident john financial kennedy, i quote, if a free society will not help the many who are poor, they cannot save the few who are rich. mr. speaker, we are one country. we should care about one another, especially those who are most vulnerable. that's not a weakness or something we should be ashamed of. rather it's something that makes us strong and great. as my friends know, i spent a lot of time and effort in congress on the issues of hunger and food insecurity and nutrition. tens of millions of our fellow
citizens don't have enough to eat. and every single one of us, democrats and republicans alike, should be ashamed. and that's why i am so outraged by the $36 billion in snap cuts. this notion that snap promotes a culture ever dependency, snap is a golden tket to prosperity is jeong. some on the republican side have even claimed that snap enslaves americans. give me a break. in fact, even in 2010 when unemployment was close to 10% and jobs were scarce, the majority of snap households or the nondisabled working age adult were working households. working househds. working families are trying to earn more. no one wakes up in the morning dreaming to be on snap. but these are tough economic times. some people have no choice. but we know that snap enrollment and spending on snap will go down as the economy improves. as families see their incomes rise and no longer need snap to
feed their families. don't take my word for it. this is directly from the congressional budget office. of course last night in the rules committee we heard the tired line that there is a lot of abuse in the snap program. we heard that there are countlesnumbers of people receiving benefits who do not deserve them. that, mr. speaker, is simply not true. it is common and -- it's a common and unfortunate misconception that snap is ripe with fraud, waste and abuse. many think it is being traded for alcohol and other things, it cannot. the usda is cracking down on it. snap is both effective and efficient. the error rate in snap is not only at an all-time low, it has the lowest if not the lowest of any federal progm. if only we could find a program in the pentagon that had such a low error rate. last night we also heard about
categorical eligibility, a process in which a low-income peon is automatically eligible for food stamps if they are already enrolled in another low income assistance program. categorical eligibility, it's important to state this because there is such misconception here, but categorical eligibility makes it easier for poor people, those who are already approved for other low-income assistance programs to receive snap benefits. but it also makes t easier on the state to have to administer these programs. this saves timend money and paperwork because the people who are already eligible for similarly administered benefits to not have to reapply for snap and states do not have to waste hours processing paperwork for people already eligible based on incomes. it does not mean that people who don't qualify -- who don't qualify for snap get those benefits. to the contrary people still have to qualify for the program to receive food, any claim this
is a fraudulent practice or ripe with abuse is just another falsehood and smear against one of the most efficient federal programs, the demonization of snap and other food and nutrition programs by republican friends it must come to an end. we have an obligation in this country to provide a circle of protection for the most vulnerable. cutting $36 billion means that more than 22 million households will see a cut in their benefit, is means 22 million families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. . two million people will be cut from the snap program altogether. my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like to hear this but sometimes the truth hurts. if this bill before us becomes law, it will take food out of the mouths of children in america. all in the name of protecting tax cuts for wealthy and increase pentagon spending. the republican reconciliation
bill threate medicare, it threatens children's programs, it threatens educational programs, programs that support our infrastructure. in short, if this were to be adopted into law it will threaten o economy as a whole. and the bill not only protects the pentagon budget, it increases it by billions of doars. does anyone here honestly believe that there's not a single dollar to be saved anywre in the pentagon? if you do you're not read be the newspapers. it's there in front of us every single day. the abuse that goes on. no mid defense contract. i can go on and on and on. we will continue to have the strongest military in the face of the earth, but at some point national security must mean more than throwing billions of dollarsat unnecessary nuclear weapons or a pien the sky star wars program that will never materialize, but national security has to mean taking care of our own people. it means educating our children. it means that infrastructure that isn't crumbling around us. it means clean air and clean
water and a health care system that works. those should be our priorities, but sadly those are not the priorities in the bill before us today. now, of course, senator reid says the bill is deain the water in the senate and the press conference yesterday, the senate majority leader said, and i quote, as long as republicans consider a more reasonable approach, one that asks every american to pay their fair share, the sequester is the only path forward, end quote. that's a pretty clear statement that the senate will not consider this bill. quite frankly, it's the right thing to do. a reasonable approach is what the american people want. yes, they want it to get our fiscal house in order. they want us to reduce the deficit in a fairway so the wealthiest among us pay their fair share. but mostly the american people want jobs, something that house republicans leadership continues to ignore. the american people know the best way to bring this deficit down is through job creation. they want the economy to improve. they want their lives to get better. this bill does not do that.
mr. speaker, let me concloud by quoting president dwight eisen hire in a speech he made in 1953. i quote, every gun that is made, every war ship launched signals a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, end quote. i'm afraid, mr. speaker, that president eisenhower wouldn't recognize today's republican party. we should reject this closed rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: to say to my good friend as the republican budget chairman said to him yesterday, i appreciate his passion on this issue. what brings us to the ry best decision that we can make in this body, mr. speaker, is havingolks who work hard day in and day out, educating themselves on the sues. they can bring the very best case for the american people to the floor. and that's why i would ask my
friend whether or not he believes it actually helps that debate to get involved in some of those rhetorical feats of mind, i guess we'd call him, because he knows as well as i know under the law of the land in 2002 food stamp benefits, ap benefits would have gone up about 40% over the last 10 years. and democrats and republicans came together over the last decade and increased those benefits 270%. 270%, mr. speaker. now, this proposal suggests that instead of going up 270% we allow those benefits to go up 260%. that's the draconian cut. i mean, we see that in the same rhetoric in the student loan program, mr. speaker. everyone in this body knows the law of the land was the student
loans rate at 6.8%. a below market rate of 6.8%. they were lowered for a very small fraction of the student population for a very temporary period of time to 3 kp 4% and the law has it back to 6.8%. they talk about that as a doubling instead of returning to common law. and, mr. speaker, to continue to suggest as he knows is not the case that republicans are unwilling to focus on the defense department, let me say it plainly. i believe there is waste and fraud andbuse in the defense department and i stand here willing to work with y to eradicate it all. i supported ranking member van hollen's amendment to put defense on the table. the budget that this house passed, the only budgethat's passed in all of washington, d.c., reduced defense spending by $300 billion in recognition of exactly that. and, mr. speaker, again, the
rhetoric just gets a little overheated from time to time. ndidly i think it gets in the way of us doing business. when i say to you that secretary of defense, leon panetta, on august 4, 2011, if these defense cuts happen, and god willing that's not the case, but if it would happen, it would result in a further round, because we already cut once. in fact, we cut twice. a further round of a dangerous across-the-board defense cuts that i believe, leon panetta, secretary of defense, would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families. i uld say to my friend, how does it advantage us to make this republican-democratic issue, when the democratic issue of the -- when the secretary of defense said this would be hurtful to our troops
and their families? how does this me a democrats and republican issue when leon panetta, the o.m.b. director, said this would be dangerous across-the-board cuts to troops and their families? when president clinton's chief of staff, leon panetta, former o.m.b. director, former budget committee chairman, says i believe allowing these cuts to go forward would do re damage to our security, to our troops and to our families. do we have real choices to make? i do. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i would yield. mr. van hollen: the democrats have a substitute amendment that would replace the sequester in a different way. it would prevent the across-the-board cuts from happening to defense and the nondefense progra. so there's an agreement that that meat ax approach is the wrong way. we have an alternative. the gentleman just talked about
how we have this great debate on ideas on the floor of the house. i have a simple question, why aren't we going to get an up or down vote on our idea, on how we would replace the sequester in a balanced way? mr. woodall: reclaiming my time and i thank the gentleman for his commepts and his offering of that substitute. the reason is three-fold. number one, that substitute doesn't comply wh the rules of the house. we made a decision in this body that we were going to not continue to ask for more and more and more out of taxpayers' pockets but that we were going to try to do our own business here in terms of oversight on all of the money that's already being borrowed and spe and sent out the two. number two, that is the rules we adopted in this congress, mr. speaker. but under the rules adopted in the last congress in which you were the budget chairman, you know your substitute would also not have been in order under the pay-go rules that you instituted. under a republican house, the substitute is not in order. and under a democratic house the substitute would not have been in order. but number three, and would
argue most importantly, i would is a toy -- i would say to my friend, we have a trust deficit with the american people. it doesn't surprise me. when we talk about the five-year impact of the reconciliation plan that we passed out of our budget committee and i hope this house will pass today, we're talking about a net effect on deficit reduction, the process for which reconciliation was created of $65 billion over five years. over the next five years, $65 billion is not going to have to be borrowed from our children and our grandchildren. under the gentleman's substitute, over that same period of time, spending is actually going to go up by almost $37 billion. this is a process that is designed to reduce borrowing and spending, to reduce the burd we're placing on our children and the gentleman's substitute increases the burden that we'd place on our children. mr. van hollen: if t gentleman will yield? i don't want to take up all your time. mr. woodall: i will.
mr. van hollen: i want to make our point that what our substitute does is dollar fo dollar replaces the sequester, which is what our republican colleagues have said is the object of this effort which is to make sure we don't have the meat ax approach and i would just note that the gentleman said that one of the reasons we're not fg to have an oprtunity to -- going to have an opportunity to vote on ours is it doesn't comply with the rules. in bringing the republican bl to the floor today, i'm reading right here on the report, the committee report, you waived three rules. you waivedhree rules. and yet you can't allow an up or down vote on a substitute amendment. you know -- you know you have it within the power to allow our side -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. i would say what we have within our powers, the poweto stop the borrowing and the spending. i'm reading here from today's "congressional quarterly" because folks get confused and we talk about the reading clerk
and things gets confused. reading from "congressional quarterly" it says here democrats left open a responsibility through a motion to recommit which is allowed under the rule. my friend on the rules committee knows that to be true. my friend on the budget committee knows that to be true. i look forward to bring your substitute to the floor for a vote. i think that's the right of the minority. i'm glad we preserved the right of the minority, mr. speaker. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: just to re-emphasize the point that mr. van hollen made. you know, the rules committee has the right to be able to waive the rules to bring any piece of legislation to the floo and mr. value holen rightly pointed -- van hollen rightly pointed out in the report on this rule, the republicans implemented waivers because their proposal without these waivers would violate the rules. and so, you kno my friend talks about, you know, this
shouldn't be a partisan discussion. i would just say to my friend, the reason why this is a partisan discussion is because the republicans have made it such. by denying us the right to come to the floor and offer our substitute, not as a procedural matter, but as a real substitute you have politiced this debate. you have shut us out and that is why there is frustration. i just want to say one other thing, again, because i am so sick and tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this country, especially the snap program. my friend was talking about all this money that we invested in snap as if somehow we were giving these very generous benefits out. just for the record, in 2002, the average snap benefit was $1 per meal per day per person. $1. you know, with all the improvements whave made, today it's about $1.50 per meal per day.
and it's going to go down next year because of cutbacks we already made in this program, unfortunately, to offset other things over the past few years. but that means in a 10-year period that we have increased this benefit by 50 cents per meal. i don't know about my friend but, you know, $1.50 doesn't go very far today. so what we're talking about trying to help people get through this economic crisis, that's what we're talking about. so this is not some extraffic get, overly generous benefit. that's what it is. and rather than cutting waste in the pentagon budget, which we all know exists, you protect the pentagon budget. you know, rather than going after subsidies for oil companies and going after, you know, billionaire tax breaks, you protect all that. and where do you go find the savings, programs that help the poorest of the poor. i mean, it's outrageous. mr. speaker, at this point i'd
like to yield three mint to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van holl: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from massachusetts and thank him for his leadership on efforts to ensure that those families who are struggling most in our country continue to have access to food and nutrition and that children in our country continue to have access to health care and that's what this debate is all about because we do have an alternative. thers no disagreement on two things. number one, we need to reduce our deficit in this country in a credible way. number two, the meat ax approach to the sequester is not a smart way to do it. so how should we go about reducing our deficit? well, we proposed to do it in the same balanced way that every bipartisan commission
that has looked at this issue has recommended, through a combination of difficult cuts, and i would remind everybody that just last august we cut $1 trillion through a combination of cuts as well as cuts ttax breaks for special interests and by asking the wealthiest people in this country, people making $1 million a year, to contribute a little bit more toward deficit reduction. . mr. woodall: would my friend yield? mr. van hollen: yes. mr. woodall: it raises $3 in taxes versus the spending cuts. can you tell me -- mr. van hollen: i'm glad the gentleman asked the question. simpson-bowles, they proposed an approach which was about $3 in cuts to $1 revenue depending on the accounting rules. we already enacted $1 trillion in cuts.
100% in cuts. you voted for that, i voted for that, 100% cuts. what this does is for the next one year we do another $30 billion in cuts, a little over, and $80 billion through closing loopholes. for example, we say the big oil companiedon't need taxpayer subsidies to encourage them to drill. they have already testified, their chief executives, they don't need that. they are making plenty right now. we also say that millionaires should pay the same effective tax rate as the people who work for them. and if you take that approac frankly with $1 trillion in cuts we have already made, we are still cutting a lot more tn the bipartisan groups recommended compared to the revenue. so our ratio of cuts to revenue is much higher because those bipartisan groups, they recommended that $1 trillion in cuts. we adopted that on a bipartisan basis.
what they are not doing, what you're not doing is taking the other part of thei recommendati, frakely -- frankly, which is to say let's close some of these outrageous tax loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction. and because 98% of our house republican colleagues are signing this pledge saying they won't take one penny of additional revenue -- mr. mcgotsche: an additional two minutes. mr. van hollen: you won't ask one penny more for people making over $1 million a year to help us reduce our deficit. not one penny. the math is pretty simple after that. because you ask nothing of them, your budget whacks everyone else. that's why your budget ends the medicare guarantee. that's why you cut $800 billion out of medicaid. and that's why in your see quester -- sequester program here, you whack the programs that help the most vulnerable struggling families. let's talk about what the nonpartisan congressional dget office said about what your
proposal would do. 22 million households with children would see their food and nutrition support cut under the snap reductions. 300,000 kids will no longer get the school lunch program. 300,000 kids will lose their health coverage under the children's health insurance program. those are the decisions you have to make because? you don't want to ask the oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidy. we say, the american people would make a different choice, we have that different choice in the substitute amendment. that substitute amendment would prevent those cuts to the defense department, would prevent cuts to n.i.h. and biomedical research, but it would prevent those cuts without whacking seniors and children's heth programs. it would do it in a balanced way. we say we don't need the direct payments to agricultural businesses. these are payments that go to ag businesses whether they are making money or not.
the spigots on. we cut those. you don't in your proposal before us today. why not? instead, y cut the food d nutrition programs. so, we think the right approach is the balanced approach that every bipartisan group that's gotten together has recommended. and because 98% of our republican colleagues have signed this pledge saying they are not going to ask the folks at the very top to put in one penny, one dime more, you are smacking everybody else. we don't think that'the right way to go. we agree we should reduce the deficit and we reduced -- we eliminate the sequester but just in a different way. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speakeri yield myself 30 seconds to say we just disagree on what balance is. what our proposal for brucks is to reduce spending over $65 billion over five years. and your proposal is to spend an additional $35 billion over the
sameive years. we disagree what balance is. we are moving in the wrong direction under your proposal. right under our proposal i a-- i'm oud to serve th my friend. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to support the rule. mr. speaker, i am very proud to represent the guard base home to the michigan red devils, the 107 fighter squadron. the 107, mr. speaker, flies a-10's. they recently returned from a deployment to afghanistan where they performed so bravely, made us proud. the 107th was one of the air guard units scheduled to be eliminated under the president's budget proposal. fortunately, the house armed services committee will present a defense re-authorization bill here next week which resources that and saves the 107th, along with protecting the air national guard across the entire country. this house is going to do the right thing for the great
american patriots of the air national guard by prioritizing spending within our budget. not by spending more money. so i would certainly urge our cloogs in -- colleagues in the senate to join us. and, mr. speaker, we need to remember that the cuts that caused the obama administration to target the air guard were before the sequester, before the sequester. if the sequester is allowed to go into effect, the impact on the community that i represent, for example, would be immense. and the defense corridor we are building as part of our economic revitalization would be stopped dead in its track. not only would the national guard again be put at riskf massive new cuts, but military contracting across the board would be faced with additional cuts. in mccomb county alone, a county i'm proud to represent, this would mean $200 million in additional cuts, mr. speaker. and obviously would count -- cost countless jobs in the defense related corridor. this house has taken steps to
stop the devastation of our air national guard and now it's taking steps to stop the deaf significance of our defense base and needless loss of jobs with commonsense reforms. so i would urge all of my colleagues to join me in reconciliation today in the defense re-authorization bill coming to the floor next week. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'm proud to yield to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this bill which chooses to slash programs that help struggling families get whack on -- back on their et without closing a single tax loophole or limiting a single special interest subsidy. our bunt -- budget should reflect our values even as many
in the faith community have argued, it should advance the moral rponsibilities of the nation to provide for the common good. i note that the catholic bishops just sent a letter concluding that, and i quote, the prosed cuts to programs in the republican budget reconciliation fail the basic moral test, end quote. i'm pleased that the bishops are speaking out, as he they should. 40% of the total cuts here come from cutting assistance to low and moderate income families, including food stamps, medicaid, the children health insurance program, social services for vulnerable children and elderly and disabled people. but instead of eliminating the agricultural subsidies where people don't have to plant a seed and they get paid, this budget would cause more than 200,000 children to lose their school lunch. would cut the food stamp program by $36 billion.
that means 46 million americans, one half of whom our children would see their benefits cut and two million americans would lose them entirely. this at time when one in seven seniors faces the threat of hunger, and one in five children right here in america a land of plenty face a similar risk. they are going to bed hungry in the united states of america. we know the impact of hunger and malnutrition. lower performances at school, poor growth, an immune system less able to fend off illness. instead of ending subsidies to big oil companies, this budget eliminates the social services block grant which provides childcare assistance to low income working mothers, addresses child abuse, provides care for the elderly and disabled. about 22 million people, half of them children, will lose rvices. instead of ending tax breaks that allow corporations to ship jobs overseas, this budget cuts medicaid, slashes the children's health insurance program, forces
350,000 americans to forego health care coverage provided by health care reform. instead of asking millionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle class families, this budget makes children who are u.s. citizens but immigrant parents ineligible for the child tax credit, harming two million families and 4.5 million chdren who are united states citizens. they end the medicare guarantee for seniors in this nation. these cuts have a catastrophic effect on the most vulnerable in our nation and for what? all to protect special interest subsidies, tax breaks for the richest members of our socty. by friends it's $150,000 for the average millionaire in a tax cut. that's what we are talking about in this piece of legislation. it is wrong. budgets are about choices, values, and this bill exposes exactly what this majority is all about. we need to pass legislation that strengthens, rebuildshe middle class of this country, creates jobs, invests in rebuilding our
infrastructure, supports manufacturers, and supports fairness to our tax code. this reverse robin hood agenda of the house majority fails in every single regard and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. when i hear my colleagues talk, it sounds as if we have a choice about doing one thing or another thing. and i will say to my collgues, when you are borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children -- just a moment. i will be happy to yield to my friend. when you are borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children, when you are mortgaging the future of this country, it's not a choice of either spending cuts or revenue changes. we got to have both. we've got to have both. and to describe it to the american people as if we can do
one or the other and get ourselves out of this mess, we cannot. we absolutely cannot. i would ask my friends, and i would be happy to yield to my colleague, when this house brought to the floor a tax cut bill that gave every member of congress a tax cut at the end ever 2011, they said we don't have to pay -- we only have to pay 4% of payroll taxes instead of 6%, i voted no. i said there is not a member in this body that needs a tax cut. i said we have too big a problem in this nation to give tax cuts members of congress. i voted no. did anybody else vote no with me? did anybody else vote no with me? i will not be lectured about how it is that tax cuts are distributed in this country when we have opportunities to cut them on this floor, to eliminate them on this floor, and my colleagues continue to vote yes. we could have added a provision that eliminated those tax cuts for the rich. we did not and should have. i would be happy to yield.
ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the fact of the matter is there are choices and the majority refuses to make those choices. let us cut. let us cut the taxes for people who -- let's not provide the tax cuts for people who are making over $250,000 in this nation. let us come back from afghanistan in an orderly way. mr. woodall: thank you very much. ms. delauro: let us cut the agriculture subsidies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman from georg has the time. mr. woodl: i thank the speaker for his help there. i'm sorry i needed it, but i appreciate him offering it. we passed a budget in this house. a comprehensive budget in this house. and to hear my colleagues talk, you'd think this is the only bill we are going to pass for the rest of the year. to hear my colleagues talk you think we are not going to bring a farm bill to the floor and go after ag subsidies.
to hear my colleagues talk you think we are not going to bring a tax bill to the floor and try to raise revenues in this country. to hear my colleagues talk, this is it. this isn't it. this is the bill that responds to the chairman joints chief of staff, general martin democracy, who said this year about the cuts we are trying to prevent today, i will tell you that i am prepared tsay that sequestration will pose an unacceptable risk. that's what we are here to talk about today. how do we mitigate an unacceptable risk. how do we mitigate against the challenges that former clinton o.m.b. director, former clinton chief of staff, current secretary of defense leon panetta says threaten our national security? and again we are going to have a choice, mr. speaker. . we brought a very powerful proposal to the floor today. very powerful proposal. for the first time in over a decade, we're tryingo get a
handle on that out-of-control portion of spending in this dget. just a little bit, mr. speaker. just a little bi and, again, we just have a different idea of what balance is. we have a different idea of what deficit reduction is. my idea over deficit reduction over the next five years we reduce the deficit. my colleagues' idea of deficit reduction is we spend over $40 billion above what we were going to spend anyway. it's a difference of opinion. i am glad we are bringing this vote to the floor. i look forward to the debate. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: no one is arguing sequestration should go into effect. we don't think that is good for our country. but we think the republican reconciliation bill is worse for the country because the cuts in so many programs that hurts our people. there is no balance in there. there is none in your reconciliation bill.
it's all cuts to programs that actually help the people of this country. and then finally, i just say, we have an alternative to sequestration. mr. van hollen brought tt before the rules last night. the rules committee republican, every single one of them, voted no. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: i thini'll let this thing cool down a little bit, but the gentleman on the other side of this debate is quite wrong. there's no balance in this particular bill at all. there is no balance. the cuts are devastating. meals on wheels for seniors. medicare programs, medicaid programs for seniors, and if you take a look at the rest of the issues, school lunch programs, kids are going to go hungry. there's no balance. there is no tax proposal in this. there is no bat -- balance at all. i have one more problem that's not being resolved.
the national flood insurance bill was part of this reconciliation and it has a gaping hole. as the corps of engineers has gone through the nation's levees and downgraded thos levees, creating an enormous problem for agriculture for this nation and certainly in california where many of the levees have been downgraded, it's now impossible r farmers and the agricultural community to obtain loans to continue to produce and to enhance their agriculture production. in amendment, i hope could be put in the bill, would simply require an immediate study by the department of agriculture and the federal emergency management agency to undertake a study on the impact of the downgrading of the levees and the resultant inability to get flood insurance and the impact that has on the agriculture communities. keeping in mind that agriculture in a flood zone is one of the very best ways to reduce the risk. i would hope that the majority
would consider as this thing moves along to fold into the national flood insurance program an opportunity for the farm flood program that i've introduced which would allow farmers to obtain national flood insurance and then the lending that the banks could make available so ty can continue to build the necessary facilities for their agricultural production. with that i yield back. the spker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woall: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, there are no tough choices here. i talk to the gentleman wse seat i took the other day. i said, john, when you are up here as a congressman you made it look fun. folks were always saying thank you, thank you, thank you, for all the strength that was going on here. -- for all t spending that s going on here. when you increase the public debt in this country by 50% over the last four years, you are out of giveaway decisions.
all we have here is tough decisions. that's all we have. i know my friend from massachusetts speaks about passion and conviction. his advocacy for the neediest among us is an inspiration on the floor, and in committee and on, i don't fault him that for a bit. but i say to my friend, hadn't we given that payroll tax cut for members of congress, we could have provided that food stamp increase that you discussed earlier to an additional two million individuals in this country. two million individuals in this country had we forgone that tax increase here in. we didn't. we chose to go along with the program and cut away, spend away. we can't do that. we have to stop that. and i would say to my friend, because it's hard. i have the same families struggling in my district the same you do. the foreclosure rate in my district is higher than your district. the number of folks going homeless in georgia because of foreclosure is higher than in
massachusetts. when you talk about the additional 1.8 million folks, 1.8 million folks, mr. speaker, according to the c.b.o., are going to lose their food stamp benefits under this bill. there's no question about that. but here's the thing, mr. speaker, and this is important. this bill doesn't cut anybody from food stamps. this bill says the only people who can get food stamps are people who apply and qualify for food stamps. hear that, mr. speaker. the c.b.o. tells us, and my frie from massachusetts quotes that 1.8 million people are going to lose food stamp benefits. but the only change this bill makes is that you actually have to apply for the benefits to get the benefits. so that means 1.8 million people in this country are losing -- mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. wood wod if --
mr. woodall: if you want to change the food stamp rules, if you want to lax it, then let's not demonize it. let's not say we're throwing poor children out in the streets. we have a successful food stamp program and why don't we just -- mr. garamendi: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield to my friend from calirnia. mr. garamendi: the fact is 1.8 million people will not get the supplemental food that they get from food stamps. they are going to be hungry, that's a fact. nothe fact -- the rest of the fact is the application process has been supported by the federal government and by the legislation so that the states can reach out to those people that are hungry and that are qualified -- that are able to qualify for food stamps. that's gone in this bill. so the ability to ach out and to bring into those programs and beyond that -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time from my friend. i would say reaching out and bringing folks in the program who do not qualify for the
program. the rules for the program are clear, mr. speaker. if you qualify for food stamps, i am the first one who wants you to have them. if you qualify for the snap program, under snap program rules, you should get food stamps. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: yes. mr. mcgovern: the government accountability office says the error rate in the snap program is less than 3%. what is he talking about when people getting benefits -- i'd like to know the numbers of that. how much? mr. woodall: this is important, mr. speaker. i hope people are paying attention back in their office. the gentleman is talking about the error rate. the error rate. folks who mistakenly got food stamps because in the application process they got the application process wrong. they shouldn't have qualified but they gave them to them anyway. what the c.b.o. says is entirely different. what the c.b.o. says is 1.8 million american families, if they walked into the office today and applied for food stamps today, would not qualify for food stamps. it's not an error.
it's not a mistake. it's that the rules of the game have been changed to say we just want everybody, we just want everybody to have a part in the program. when the gentleman says the papeork nightmare for states, i happen to agree with the gentleman. there is a tremendous paperwork challenge for the states. this does not solve that. all we're saying go through the application process. to suggest we are trying to take benefits away fromeople who need those benefits is disengine with us. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i'm prepared to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from georgia has six minutes remning. the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: half a minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: the gentleman is wrong. just wrong when he talks about the abuse in the snap program. that people are somehow getting benefits that they are not entitled to. and the demagoguery that is
going with categorical -- it helps people who are eligible get the benefits. no, i am not going to yold to the gentleman. he gets up on the floor and talks about it this payroll tax cut for members of congress. that was a payroll tax cut for the -- for everybody. now, if he wanted to exempt members of congress, that would be minuscule. that would do nothing to provide any benefit to anyone. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. odall: mr. speaker, i would say to my friend, i wish he would show me the code sections here that if in the snap program and say under the snap program the income criteria we had yesterday, that's changing and so folks aren't going to get those benets tomorrow. that's not here. all this bill does is to say you need to apply and you need to earn those benefits on your own merits. when the gentleman talks about paperwork, he knows good and well the c.b.o. took that into
consideration. when the c.b.o. says 1.8 million families are no longer going to qualify, it means some folks are going to get off of categorical eligibility because that is the gaming of the system and they are going to go back in and apply for the benefits and get them but 1.8 million will go back in and apply and get denied because they don't callify for benefits. -- qualify for benefits. mr. speaker, if we need to change the eligibility criteria, if we have folks in need who can't qualify, let's change the eligibility criteria. but in the name of good government, when we are going in programs and say we have rules of the game, we just want people to have to follow them, to somehow define that as being mean-spirited, it galls me. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mrmcgovern: mr. spker, let me yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: what galls me is that the republican majority is balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country, the poorest of
the poor. the gentleman talks about c.b.o. c.b.o. says that cutting $36 billion from the snap program means that more than 22 households will see a cut in their benefit. it means that 22 million families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. in fact, two million people will be cut from snap altogether. that's not me making up numbers. that's c.b.o. that's where i get this from. i think that's cruel and inhumane during the worst economic crisis that we've faced. yes, we have to balance a budget and we haveo make tough choices but why does it always have to be on the backs of the most vulnerable? why can't donald trump may a couple more dollars in taxes? why can't we end the subsidies to big oil? why can't we have warren buffett pay the same tax rate as his secretary? that's all we're saying here. your reconciliation bill represents your priorities. what we're arguing is your priorities are wrong and bad for the country. we have an alternative. you won't let us have an opportunity to debate that alternative on the floor.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'd say to my friend from massachusetts, and i'm prepared to close if he has any more speakers. i woulyield to my -- i'd reserve and enjoy my friend from massachusetts to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. i'll offer an amendnt to this closed rule to let the house work its will and give mr. van hollen's substitute an up or down vote in the house. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, you know, i think what we're talking about here today are two different visions for this country. the republicans have their vision. that is outlined in tir reconciltion package. mr. van hollen i think has adequately summarized what the
democratic priorities are. the difference -- main difference in their proposal there is no balance. it's a meat ax approach to everything. cut, cut, cut, cut regardless of what it means to the people of this country. what we're trying to do and quite frankly what other bipartisan commissions have recommended is a more balanced approach. we cut spending but there's also some revenues to be raised. and at a time in our country where we have a tax code that allows warren buffett to pay a lower tax rate than hi secretary, it seems that we can have -- it's time for a little fairness and tt's all we're asking for here. that's all we're asking is for a balanced, fair approach. we're prepared to make the tough choices. those tough choices means cut i say to theepublicans, you'll have to suprt closing tax loopholes and raising taxes. on the wealthiest individuals in this country.
mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent at this time to insert in the record a letter from the u.s. conference on catholic bishops. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: and i want to read one paragraph from that letter to congress. i quote, the catholic bishops of the united states recognizes the serious deficits our country faces and we acknowledge that congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. however, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the nds of the poor and the vulnerable people. the proposed cuts to programs in the bget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. the catechism of the catholic church states it is the proper role of government to make it accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life -- food, clothing, health, work, educatio and culture suitable information, the right to establish a family and so on. poor and vulnerable peopleo
not have a powerful lobbyist to advocate their interests but a they have the most compelling needs, end quote. mr. speaker, that paragraph sums up what i feel and what so many of us feel about what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing. . yes we have to make tough choices, but why are always the tough choices on the backs of middle income families and the backs of moore? there are people in this country who are hungry. we are the richest people on the planet and we have hungry people here. what is our response? not to help a way to figure out how to deal with this scourge, their response is to take a meat axe approach to snap. which will cut benefits. that's what c.b.o. said. it will cut benefits. people will have less food tomorrow than they have today if this were to become law. i think that's a horrible choice. that's not a choice we should -- we shouldn't be discussing on the floor. let's make the programs more efficient. let me tell you the snap program is more efficient than the
pentagon. the waste, fraud, and abuse at the pentagon, the wasteful weapon systems at the pentagon. i will tell you, i don't care what leon panetta says, there's savings to be found in the pentagon budget. we ought to go after that. we ought to make sure that donald trump pays his fair share in taxes and ought to close these corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to get away with paying no taxes. middle income families can't do that. this is abt fairness. that's what we are looking for. fairness and balance. this is a tough time. rather than following the european model which my friends seem to love of as you taret and cut, cut, cut -- and austerity and cut, cut, cut, we should invest in a robust highway bill to put people back to work, investing in education making sure ouroung peoe are compared to compete in the 21st century economy. and yes, investing in a social
safety net and investing in programs that pride a circle of protection to the poor and most vulnerable. there is nothing wrong with that. we should be proud of the fact that we are a country that cares . let's not give that up. that's a strength. it's not a weakness, it's a strength. and i said to my colleagues, my biggest problem with the republicans is it fails that test. what it does is it goes after the most vulnerable in a way that i think is cruel and wrong. mr. speaker, you urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i thank my friend from massachusetts for joining me on the floor today. i thinhe chose exactly the right choice of words when he was trying to make his points. describe your opposition as hating women and children and that'sour best chance of winning the argument. if only it were true. that's what i hope the american people take home from debates
like these, mr. speaker, is that there are serious challenges here and serious people here trying to solve these challees, but we get wrapped around the axle in the name-calling, i hear, that i argue does nothing to feed a child, take care of a family. the gentleman says that we are the richest nation in the world. i would tell the gentleman there is no poorer nation on the planet. there is not a nation on the planet that has borrowed more money than this nation has. not one. not one. whato they say about socialism, mr. speaker? it's a great plan until you run out of other people's money. guess what? we are running out of other people's money. i want to show you a chart, mr. speaker. this is a chart -- i'll sh it around so other members can see it. the green line represents tax revenues this this country, it goes back to 1947. what you can see is tax revenues are fairly flat because of the economy. because this goes back to 1947 it reflects the new deal with f.d.r., all of that growth in government. the redline is the spending,
government spending. it goes all the way through 1965. it reflects lyndon johnson and alt great society spending that goes on. what you'll see, i want to make sure my colleagues can see it there, the redline representing where spending is going in this nation. the green line representing where taxes are historically in this nation. mr. speaker, does this look like we have a tax problem here? does it look like we have a spending problem in this nation? taxes have remained the same as a percent of g.d.p. as has spending until now. until now we have a spending driven crisis in this nation. i say to my friend, again he chose all the right talking points. they want to protect the rich. they want to protect the oil companies. i will tell you there's one bill, mr. speaker, you know it well, there is one bill in this congress that eliminates every single corporate loophole exemption deduction and break. there's one. that same bill, mr. speaker, eliminates every loopholthe wealthy use to avoid paying
their fair share. every one. mr. speaker, it is the single most popular co-sponsored tax bill, fundamental reform bill, in the house and in the senate, it has almost 70 members in the house, it has nine members in the senate, and there is one democrat on it. one. mr. speaker, given the right speech down here about what folks ought to do doesn't move us in the right direction. put your name on some legislation and moving something forward gets us in the right direction. this budget committee chairman sitting here beside me, i'm proud of him, chairman paul ryan, that's a name known around this country as a man who is trying. there are a lot of folks here known for blaming. there aren't many folks known for trying. we say we don't care about the slings and arrows. america is facing a crisis and if not me than who? we got that in the house-passed budget, mr. speaker. folks who said if not me, then
who? they made tough choices. here we have the first reconciliation bill, first reconciliation bill. my colleagues on the other side are going to offer a motion to recommit to this deficit reduction bill that actually increases spending. and called that balance. mr. speaker, food stamp program spending has increased 270% over the last decade. the mean-spirited folks that my colleagues talk about want to increase it by 260% instead. these aren't easy decisions, mr. speaker. but they are not going to put one family that qualifies for food stamps out. not one. not one. we are going to move beyond the demagoguery, mr. speaker. we are going to move into the real business that governing this nation takes. i hope we'll get a strong bipartisan vote on this rule. i hope we'll get a strong bipartisan vote on the
underlying bill. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of both the rule and the underlying bill w that, >> members later voted to replace spending cuts. all 200 votes came from republicans. it now goes to the senate where its future is uncertain. in a few moments, the justice department filed a lawsuit against the maricopa county sheriff. a pentagon news briefing with leon panetta and joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey. we will show you bore from the house debate. -- more from the house debate.
on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will focus on the institute of medicine's report on the obesity rate. we will be joined by dan glickman. gary johnson will take your calls about the campaign. we will examine the foreign born population in the united states. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 eastern. >> furthermore, i remain optimistic about the future of indiana and the united states of america. the news media and political leaders spend a great deal of time talking about what is broken in our country. to some degree that is the nature of their business. we should also have confidence that the unique american
experiment is alive and well and our political system still can work. >> tuesday night richard lugar lost to richard murdock. look back on his sixth term career including his work in the 1990's on a nuclear disarmament program with the soviet union. >> the justice department has filed a lawsuit against the maricopa county sheriff's office. the case stems from allegations of violations from the constitution and is only the second such action. thomas harris spoke with reporters for half of an hour. -- thomas perez spoke with reporters for half an hour.
>> today the department of justice did something it has done only once before in the 18 year history of our civil police reform work. we filed a contested lawsuit to stop discriminatory law enforcement practices. we have invariably been able to work collaborate tivoli to build better departments and safer communities. maricopa county and joe arpaio has been a glaring exception. attempts to find solutions have proven elusive here in maricopa county. the department of justice began its initial inquiries into allegations that montgomery county sheriff's -- miracle but
sheriff's office were violating rights of people in maricopa county. following repeated at unsuccessful efforts to attend -- obtain voluntary compliance in connection with our investigation, the department took the unprecedented step of filing a lawsuit to force them to comply. this caused them to meet their legal obligations and it was settled in june 2011. six months later the department issued its letter of findings detailing the results of our investigation. we found there is reasonable cause to believe mcso engage in a pattern of practice of discriminatory police sang with latinos, -- policing with latinos, and founded several lawsuits and meritless
practices. after we issue our findings letter last december, we tried to reach a negotiated settlement. the united states is not seeking monetary damages or attorneys' fees in connection with our case. title 6 authorizes the funding it received from the department of justice. we seek to accomplish one important goal -- to fix the problems identified in our investigation and to ensure the necessary policies and practices and oversight are in place so that mcso comply with constitution and laws of the united states and the county becomes safer and better. we travel to phoenix and met with lawyers for mcso.
the man to my left was there who was also a member of my team. we met with attorneys for the county and the sheriff and we met with them and we discussed the parameters of this -- a potential settlement. we've made it clear it would require an independent monitor. we gave mcso a 128 draft settlement agreement that we hoped would serve as a framework for further discussion. unfortunately, these discussions were brief and discussions broke down because mcso and arpaio would not agree to any settlement that included an independent monitor. this is not a new requirement. monitors have been critical components in other cases from las vegas to pittsburgh to elsewhere. they play an important role in
making sure reforms are carried out in a sustainable fashion. ronald reagan was correct. trust but verify. there was a provision that stated "the monitor shall not and is not intended to replace or assume the role or duties of the defendant including the share of." monitors work collaboratively to provide necessary support and assistance to ensure the problems are fixed. unfortunately, this provision was unacceptable to the sheriff and mcso and negotiations ceased. earlier today we filed a civil complaint in the district court against mcso and maricopa county.
the police are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not divide them. this is an abusive -- the police are supposed to protect and serve our communities not to divide them. at its core, this is an abuse of power case involving a sheriff's office that disregarded the constitution, it ignored some police practices, compromised public safety and did not hesitate to retaliate. constitutional policing and effective policing go hand in hand. the actions were neither constitutional more effective. there are three categories of claims in the complaint. practicesice unlawfully discriminates against latinos in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. it is the sheriff's prerogative to set priorities for his
agency. he must carry them out in a manner consistent with his constitutional obligations. law enforcement agencies cannot cut constitutional corners in the pursuit of their objectives. mcso officers have unlawfully discriminated against latinos and violated their rights and a number of ways including racial profiling of latinos, unlawful detention searches and arrests of latino drivers and passengers and unlawful targeting and illegal detention of latinos during home and worksite raids. the complaint further alleges that mcso failed to adopt internal oversight practices to monitor police activities, examine their effectiveness and prevent unlawful activities. for instance, despite the fact the traffic operations have very low success rates and a very
high rates of stopping latino u.s. citizens and legal residents, the specialized units have received little oversight and inadequate training. if you look latino you are all too frequently fair game for officers. the second category of claims in the complaint is there correctional practices violated the constitutional rights of latino prisoners and mcso presence to have limited english skills. it is a safety matter as well as a civil rights compliance manner to in -- administer a jail where employees can communicate with prisoners that have limited english skills. in a position statement stated june of 2010, they noted the importance of providing language assistance to prisoners stating that such assistance is "is
central to the overall operation of the jail and the safety of the prisoners and the officers." it outlined how mcso has failed to put this in practice in their jail. mcso and the sheriff failed to provide assistance to latino prisoners with a limited english skills. mcso detention officers routinely issued commands only in english. in some instances when latino prisoners failed to follow a command given in english because they could not understand it, the detention officers placed an entire area of the jail in the lockdown. this practice obviously inside's unwarranted hostility toward inmates, potentially placing prisoners and officers alike in harm's way. mcso detention officers have forced them to sign a key legal
documents printed in english which they cannot understand in which they have forfeited or potentially forfeited he writes. mcso failure to provide language services is a violation of the civil rights of latino prisoners as well as a substantial departure from general correctional standards. the third category of complaint or claims and the complaint came from the pattern or practice of retaliating against critics of mcso practices. it outlines a number of instances where they have targeted a range of people including judges and community leaders who took actions or simply doing their jobs. these were people they either disliked or perceived were critical ormcso or the sheriff. a hallmark of our democracy is freedom of expression.
it is important dedicated public servants are able to carry out responsibilities without fear of retaliatory reprisal. they were designed to silence and punish critics they perceived to be against what they were trying to do with the added at the fact of silencing would-be critics. they were directed at public officials, judges, and private citizens engage in lawful protest. the complaint quotes from a recent opinion filed against the former county attorney and two of his assistants that found the sheriff's and others were involved in a "concerted effort to wrestle power from the maricopa county board of county officials and superior court judges and to instill fear in the hearts of those who. would who" nobody is above the law and
nobody can miss use -- misue power to silence those with different opinions. it starts at the top and pervades the entire organization. mcso frequently used derogatory terms such as "wetbacks" and "mexican bitches" to refer to latinos. in terms of next steps, the matter will not be assigned to a federal judge and we will follow the judge's direction. our goal remains the same. we want to fix the problems and work collaborative lee with the community and the court to implement a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable
reform. we recognize the hard and dangerous work law enforcement officers do day in and day out. our job here and our work is intended to make their work more rewarding and to make the community safer and better. i would problem then debate the existence of the problem. they released a 17-page document entitled, integrity and communicate. recede these as admission of a problem the region we see these as an admission of a problem. give this has led to a crisis of confidence in the community. while it is perhaps heartening that a number of changes appear
to be taken from the 128-page agreement we provided back in february, this document cobble together beyond the 11th hour is no substitute for meaningful reform. it is time to forge a sustainable solution that includes of effective oversight. unfortunately, the time- consuming path is the only way forward. i look forward to any questions you may have. >> [inaudible] >> it was enacted after the l.a. riots, and it has been in place for about 18 years, and the department has been forced to
file a lawsuit said was not being filed in connection with other resolutions. it involved a columbus police department, and by what ultimately settled between the parties, so we have been able to work collaborative leave because we have a shared interest in making the community safer. this is extraordinary, because law enforcement agencies have routinely complied with their agencies, and the time a lawsuit was filed, the previous term a similar suit had to be filed was 1989, so there were 13 ears.
the extraordinary nature of this is unfortunate. i asked how long it would take. that is entirely up to the county. they have a 128-page document that can serve. they may not agree, but i would rather fix the problem so we can address public safety and civil rights challenges. >> why not just comply and revisit the situation if it does not work out? >> we tried that in 1997 when there was an agreement at the jail. there was no monitor. history has repeated itself, so when you have problems as deeply rooted as they are here, when you have a prior history of
backsliding, it is a recipe of history for the repeating itself, and i would note yesterday the sheriff noted they would continue to use the services of our time independent experts to insure their strategies are good, so external oversight can be a good thing. if there are great things that are going to come out of this document and can come off of the apartments they should have nothing to fear of of an independent monitor just like a monitor in los angeles who was able to be a force in bringing productive change. by how many are pulled over? >> the complaint has a number of
paragraphs that address the issue, and we'd enlisted the expertise of one of the preeminent experts in racial profiling, and this is noted on paragraph 28, 29, and 30, a complaint that latino drivers were anywhere from four times 29 times more likely to be stopped -- for times to nine times as likely to be stopped, so this alleges if you are latino and you are all too frequently fair game, and the majority of people stop were you as citizens or people authorized to
be in the united states. >> what is the possibility of the department of justice being involved concerning racial profiling? is there any possibility? >> the court will now make a determination as to whether this is a related case, and the case could be assigned to judge snow, and it would be up to just go to figure of the appropriate next steps. >> are you saying this is an abuse of power? >> i cannot comment on criminal investigations under way. >> they have all said, why isn't the justice department showing us what they have as they try to
negotiate is? what is your response to the mark >> they have agreed in what is your response? >> they have access. regarding the issues and discriminatory kolis, i would be hard-pressed to think of a department that is on greater notice of the allegations of discriminatory policing than this department, so it is curious to me that they would feign surprise, and the material that constituted a majority were already in their possession, so we now have a complaint, and we will move to discover re common and and we will move separate, but we are prepared to move forward as instructed.
>> [inaudible] >> this could have been done much sooner. we were stonewalled. prior to 2010 it had been 31 years since the department had to file a similar lawsuit to the one we filed in 2010 seeking basic access to information. you sign a form. says when i get asked for information i will provide it. other jurisdictions understand about, so this case was undeniably delayed by longer than i would want. we would continue to move
forward. ?> what about having oversight >> we have reached agreements with police departments across the country, and i have read to the language they have had. one of the key interventions in los angeles, los angeles police department was a troubled police department in the 1990's, and they have performed in remarkable ways. public confidence is up. everyone would agree that an independent monitor did not take over. the monitor in pittsburgh did not take over the police department, but they were critical components of the reform. the community needs that.
the department needs that, and it is part of the building of confidence, having an independent person who can help them through a number of challenges, and los angeles is perhaps the best example of how an effective monitor has been able to serve an important role. monitors are something to embrace when you have problems, but if you do not a knowledge of the existence of a problem, it is hard to embrace the need for reform. >> [inaudible] one thing we have been hearing is from the county attorney. i want to know given the evidence of anything that has happened, and he continues to say this is continuing to go on.
[inaudible] >> we are going into the discovery process. the complaint alleges in discriminatory policing, the complaint states back to a police -- to at least 2006, and retaliatory actions date back to 2006 as well, and the discovery process will allow us to move forward in those discussions. a letter in response which detailed a response to his concerns, and we continue to be willing to sit down and to accomplish and seeks to accomplish what we have been able to accomplish in virtually every other context we have seen in.
this is a remarkable community in terms of inability to form a consensus. >> you mentioned lapd. how do our problems compare? >> every community has a different set of problems. you are trying to affect culture change. the culture change that occurred in los angeles is that institutional policing goes hand in hand. you can ensure public safety, enhance your standing in the
community. we will continue to work towards that end if they express an interest in doing so. >> what kind of evidence are you able to elaborate on? >> we have a complaint, and we now have a process. we will comply with all orders issued by the court. >> has anything changed? did the investigation continue? >> this investigation was initiated in june of 2008. i was not working at the department of justice in 2000 a.
this investigation will continue. eave --e were to liv [inaudible] >> we have to fix the problem. of the problem has been systematic. there are other issues. this is about reforming a system so we have effective policing that helps reduce crime and ensure public confidence, and it is something we will continue to be here as long as is necessary. >> what is the potential they have risk -- what is potentially at risk?
>> the county takes a portion of the assistance, and the service office is are recipient, so the money passes through the county to the sheriff's office. when you accept that you sign assurances but you will not discriminate based on race or origin. nor will those you give money to discriminate. when we wrote to the county attorney in april, we noted he had been of service. that is the role in this particular case.
>> [inaudible] are you still going to sit down? >> they have the document. and we have to make a finding that we have exhausted all of our efforts. we have exhausted them and then some, and that is why we are here today. we always are willing to discuss solutions. time is of the essence. the stakes are high. there are public safety implications. i am confident the sheriff's feels the same way, and i would love to do that, but it takes the the bureau to participate, -- it takes two to participate. >> [inaudible] >> that is a question i would invite you to ask our share of spirited they have a 128-page
document. they have read it, because there are a number of items in this document that reflects the fact, and it would be a wonderful thing for this community if we could come together and form solutions. the solutions or potential solutions are noted in the 128- page document. we have thought about how you fix the problem. we have taken out and had a back-and-forth. did you say, i agree with this, i do not agree with that, and then you come to consensus. he wants no independent monitor. that is untenable.
>> [inaudible] >> we will wait and see. >> what happens next? defile an injunction -- do you file an injunction? >> we will move to the discovery phase. we will have an appearance in court, and our team will be there, and we will follow the court's direction on how to proceed, and i am confident that will be very soon. >> these men go through things and have scars no one could understand and accept each other. >> the first thing the start us
-- startled us was the relationship of these different man who ended up forming an alliance none of us would have participated. it ended up being enormously productive and form a deep friendship. the letters are extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club and the world. the private and public relationships of the american presidents from herbert hoover to bill clinton. >> in a few moments, more from the british inquiry into the relationship between politicians and journalists. in two and a half hours, a pentagon briefing with leon panetta end general martin dempsey. and house debate on a bill to replace an automatic defense spending cuts.
later, the lawsuit against sheriff joe arpaio. the heritage foundation hosts a discussion on lessons learned from japan's efforts to recover from last year's earthquake and prepare for future catastrophes. that is at noon eastern, and then a look and russia and the future of the opposition party. >> i thought it was important to book that took it seriously. obama did not come from out of nowhere. also the tea party movement, which seem to come out of nowhere. occupy wall street, i thought those were things to get
seriously. >> the former white house adviser van jones on movements today. also the american spectator founder contend model liberalism is flawed and has no answers .or today's political issues part of booktv this weekend on c-span 2. >> the communications director for british prime minister david cameron from 2010 until 2011. he testified today in to inquiry looking into british journalists and politicians. >> thank you.
>> the evidence i shall give shobi the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> your witness statement is dated the first of may this year. if you looked at the last hurrah of, you will see a signature which is yours. the statement is given in light of the ongoing investigation. is that right? >> yes. >> you started working as a journalist in 1989. is that correct? >> yes. >> you edited a column. in the year 2000, you were
deputy editor of "news of the world." in january were appointed and now editor. on the 26th of january, 2007, you resign. in june, we will come to the exact date when you give evidence, you were appointed director of communications to the conservative party. is that right? >> yes. >> you started work in to buy, and after the next general election, you were appointed director of communications at downing street. is that correct? >> yes. >> can i ask you this general
question first on? there are reports you were keeping a personal diary with relatives of sense -- with relative eents? is that correct? >> no. >> you have had to rely on memories. are there other documents you have had access to that might have existed? >> there are some notes. >> these are manuscripts or computer records the amount >> notebooks -- fees are manuscripts or computer records the amount >> notebooks. >> you have been arrested with
connections, so i will not be asking questions on those matters. can i ask you some background statements? it is clear you were best friends with rebecca brooks. is that true? >> yes, we have not spoken in a long time. >> can i ask about your relationship? how often did you speak to her? >> i think the social meetings we had, but we would talk now and then. i would not say we spoke every week. there were times when we did not speak for quite some time. i would say over the time regularly is the word i would use. >> did you communicate by text message? >> occasionally. >> i e-mailed?
>> occasionally. >> wouldn't be fair to say you knew what each others' respective political standpoint where? >> it was pretty clear. as for her, she was supportive of the labour party. she was chief executive when the sun change its allegiance to the conservative party. as to her personal views, how she voted, i have no idea. >> the you have any insight? >> beyond the odd conversation, i guess the question how she would vote, i have no idea. >> was she someone you felt was close to politicians?
>> i think through the course of her work she was close to politicians. >> i will come to the. when you took over in 2003, which aspect did you want to change? >> i do not remember wanting to change in the cultural aspects. the main change are instigated was a cosmetic one. i wanted to redesign triggered strikes -- i wanted to redesign. >> are there any differences in culture? >> the pace is very different. the atmosphere is different on different days of the week. if you try to find a comparison between news of the world and the sun, it is a saturday,
because that is the day you are producing the newspaper. >> you are dealing with rupert murdoch as editor, so we are looking at 2003 until 2007. about how often would you speak to him? but i cannot put the number on it, but he would call on a saturday night, and sometimes it would be a couple times a month. i think i would describe that as a regular -- irregular, and always a saturday night phone call. aside from the occasional news international meeting when he was in london for when i would go to new york for the budget discussions. >> end of the content, what was he interested in? >> in terms of specific content
i do not remember any conversations about a particular part of the paper. we did talk about sports pages. the company made of a big investment about expanding the size of sports coverage, and that was a fundamentally important part about the mix to the paper, so i am sure we discussed that, and we discuss politics in general, and he would give his view on whatever was in the news at the time. >> he tried to buy but i did not succeed. wasn't he interested in scoops? >> i might tell him if we have a good story when we were planning on running that night, but not always. >> wasn't he interested in
stories but might impact success of the newspaper? >> sport is a good example. in terms of driving the news of the world, the sport was crucial, and it had an impact on physical production, so i remember having that conversation. "news of the world" invested in new presses, and i was concerned about the impact on sports coverage. i remember discussing that. >> you are bringing the conversation around to neutral subjects, such as sport. did she ask you questions directly about circulation figures?
and during sporadic telephone calls, from new york presumably, on a saturday, did he intend to ask you, "how is the circulation going? >> not always, no. >> but often? >> i remember occasions when he did. but i would not characterize it as the main purpose of the call. quite often, he would not mention it. >> both you and he were aware of the factors which might impinge on the circulation of the paper, correct? >> my job as editor was to produce a successful newspaper. >> would you said you discussed the political issues of the day, were these general discussions about political issues, such as european referendums, or whatever it might be? >> yes. europe was not as big an issue for "news of the world" as for a daily paper, but yes.
>> and did he discuss how politicians were doing? >> on occasion, yes. >> did you have a sense he wanted to find out how political opinion in this country was moving? >> i do not recall a specific conversation in that way. >> but in general, mr. coulson. i am not asking for a specific conversation. but did you have that sense? >> i might, in the course of a conversation, offer a view, but normally related to a particular issue rather than the longer- termed picture. >> during 2003-2007, were you particularly interested in politics or not? >> yes. >> and although your paper may not have adopted a position, your personal physician throughout has been pro- conservative, was it not? >> was supported labor under my editorship of "news of the
world." >> but your own personal -- >> how i voted? >> i would not ask you something so personal as how did you vote. but what was your general perspective on things? was it generally speaking conservative? >> i think that is fair to say. >> do you feel as part of your job as editor, in any event, to assess the mood of the country and how the country would vote in the next general election? >> my job as editor was, as best i could, establish where the leadership was in terms of politics and certain issues. >> to leave or to follow? >> i think to try to reflect, sir. >> sold in that sense, to follow?
>> more follow that lead, i would say. -- follow than lead, i would say. there were some causes, as an editor, you would want to champion. generally speaking, a successful newspaper is one that is in tune with its readership. >> some things you cannot get them to do, but there are some things you could get them to do, if the cause was right? >> them as in politicians or the readers? >> readers. >> i do not think you can get the reader's to do anything other than try to buy the paper. >> you have to have an understanding of where they are so that when you decide that you do want to promote a particular cause, to go into leadership mode, that it is sufficiently in tune with where you know they are that it does not cause you
trouble. >> you want the two to be aligned as much as possible. >> of course, the exercise tends to be unscientific, because you have a large readership and a range of opinions within that readership. >> that is right. >> to you take opinion polls on a rudimentary basis of your readership? >> pretty rudimentary. there was some market research i would occasionally get access to. >> would you describe your relationship with mr. murdoch as being more more something different? >> i was an employee. i thoroughly enjoyed my time working for him. in the sort of interactions i had with him, he was warm and supportive. >> warm toward you, and vice versa? >> of was not particularly close to him in that regard. i would not want to overstate
it. he was supportive to me as an editor. i enjoyed working in his company. >> there are rumors that you turned down the editorship of "the daily mirror" from the resignation of mr. morgan. if you did, that might reflect on your loyalty to mr. murdoch, but did you? >> there were conversations toward the possibility of me becoming the editor of "the daily mirror," and i chose not to do so. >> the 1 general election which came in your watch was the 2005 election. in the end, you decided to continue the paper path support of tony blair, but why in the end -- to continue the paper's support of tony blair, byut why "in the end"?
>> there were a number of conferences. my team and i decided to support tony blair. >> did you feel he would probably win that election? >> it was not the key factor in the decision. the key factor in the decision, as i touched on earlier, was that i felt "news of the world" best interests would be served by tony blair. if you read the lead up at the time, i do not think it was wildly enthusiastic. i think on balance we felt that was the best way to go. >> you say you reflected the mood of the country at the time, i suppose. >> possibly. >> were you surprised who might win that election? from their political editor, for example? >> in terms of advice, some pretty detailed conversations about it.
that would certainly have involved the political staff. i was keen also to involve members of staff who did not work in politics, who did not understand westminster, who were not immersed in the world, people who worked in different departments. >> did you have discussions with rebekah wade about it? >> i do not think so. in terms of the editorship of " the sun" and the editorship of "news of the world," there were different papers, and there was a clear line between the two. there was a rivalry between them. i certainly do not remember any conversations with rebekah about that issue. endorsement would be a surprise?
>> i did not have any conversations about it. >> did you have a conversation with rupert murdoch about it? >> i might have after the event. i do not know. i do not remember any more. >> wouldn't you want to find out whether what you were doing was contrary to his viewpoint? >> i did not have a conversation with him. i do not remember one. i do not think it happened about the 2005 election. i followed my own path. i do not feel, sitting here now, that i was pushed, in courage, or told to go a certain way. i remember the process quite well. i was determined we would spend a reasonable amount of time with politicians from both parties, and we would make up our own minds. >> a move forward to october 2005, a conservative party conference. there were candidates standing for the leadership.
you testified in your statement that you met mr. david cameron there, at a dinner. do you recall? >> yes. >> was he your preferred candidate for the leadership? >> certainly at the last stage. i have taken the time to look back at some "news of the world" editions around that period, and i do not think "news of the world" ever explicitly supported mr. cameron, or explicitly supported anyone. we did employee mr. william hague, and he expressed a preference. he went to work for him later. >> from a personal perspective, was he your preferred candidate for the leadership? >> i do not think i formed at that stage a clear view.
i found a leader from "news of the world" where we suggested it was his to win. i have up on anything to the contrary. i think that is as far as it went. >> between december 2005 and january 2007, was the news of the world clearly moving toward endorsing the conservative party at the next election? >> i do not think so. "news of the world," under my editorship, came up with the line "hug a hoodie." i do not think that is the case. >> paragraph 34 of your statement, you talk about the agenda for your meetings with politicians at around this time. you make it clear at no point in
any of these conversations was the potential support of "news of the world" discussed, or any commercial interest. you mean news international, do you? >> yes. >> you said this could impact on the press and more generally. there are conditional agreements, sentencing, those sorts of issues. >> i do not recall doing so. >> human rights acts. was that a frequent topic of conversation? >> that may have come up in conversation. it is possible. >> in the context of the human rights, were you in the camps that freedom of the press would protect the privacy of
individuals? >> i believe in freedom of the press. >> if there were conversations about the human rights act, it is clear what your position would have been in those conversations, is it not? >> i certainly believe in the freedom of the press. that much is true. >> in the same period, as regards your dealings with politicians, would it be fair to say it was a clear subtext to your dealings with senior politicians of all three main parties that they were keen to know whether the news of the world would support them? >> no. the explicit issue of "will you support us" was never asked of me during that time. directly, no. >> subtext is the way i put it. >> i think politicians from both
sides, in those conversations, were seeking to get their message across and hope it would be received by us in a positive light. >> usually, in human interactions, one knows what the other person wants out of one. it is subtext, in your conversation with politicians. >> the agenda for me was to work out, in the course of a conversation, whether or not the party or the politician would best serve the interest of "news of the world" readers. i had some ideas of what constituted that. >> de you think the politicians you spoke to knew that you were the conservative party supporter? >> i do not know. >> you had a conversation with mr. brown in 2006 at the labor
conference in manchester. you describe that in paragraph 36. >> yes. >> the labor conference in manchester that year, we knew, because it was announced, that mr. blair would be leaving within the year, and in all probability mr. brown would be the next prime minister. would you agree? >> i think that was a given, yes. >> he said to you -- you say, "i remember that meeting well. mr. brown told me he had it on very good authority mr. murdoch would appoint me as the editor of "the sun" when rebekah was promoted." do you see that? >> yes. >> he was telling you it was already rupert murdoch's decision that rebekah wade would be promoted and you would be the next editor of "the sun." >> i did not believe rupert
murdoch would have had that conversation with him. >> why not? he was close to mr. brown, was he not? >> my understanding of how news international works, in terms of appointment of editors, is that it would not have involved the conversation at that stage. it was sometime after that rebekah was promoted, quite some time. i did not believe it. i believed it was an attempt by mr. brown to sort of impress on me his closeness to mr. murdoch. quite frankly, i did not believe it. >> but it was certainly an attempt by mr. brown to impress on you his proximity to mr. murdoch. that is clear. that is the strong message he was transmitting to you. but his predictions were right, were they not? >> i did become the editor of "the sun."
>> if certain events had occurred, it might have. but rebecca-- rebekah was promoted. >> at some time, yes. >> you refer to mr. osborn. you said you met with him in 2005. did you get on well with him? >> i got along fine. we did not spend a lot of time together, but i remember having a cup of coffee with him at that conference. >> you deal intergroup 38 specifically with a story which was published in -- you deal in paragraph 38 specifically with a story that was published in "news of the world" in 2005. can we understand the context? did "the sunday mirror" published the same story? >> i am not sure when i was aware there would publish the
same story. >> on the same sunday? >> yes. >> and you could anticipate that "the sunday mirror" would be hostile to mr. osborn, did you not? >> i knew they were publishing it, so i did not give it any thought. i think it is a given that "the sunday mirror" is a more left- leading newspaper, and as a consequence might be more critical. >> you knew "the sunday mirror" had the story. you knew they could only publish it on sunday. on the event they published it the same sunday as "news of the world," it was pointing to the same date, was it not? >> i am not sure at what point i knew they had the story. >> the story, stripped down to its bare essentials, was capable of being harmful to the interests of mr. osborn, self evidently. >> it certainly was not helpful.
>> your editorial stance on the story was fibril to mr. osborn, was it not? on page 20395. october 18, 2005, splashed over three pages. it contains all sorts of detail. i do not think it is necessary for us to go into now, but it is there if anybody wants to read it. you were effectively saying that mr. osborn should be given another chance, were you not? >> i think the leader was saying that here is the information, here is what he says about it, make up your own
mind. i think if i were to try to distill the message of the leader, "the tories fate is in your hands," i would say that is the leader column of "news of the world." as much as i would love to say the leaders i wrote for the most-read part of "news of the world," they were not. the first page "with a hooker" could not be described as career-enhancing for george osborne. the idea that we went easy on him is ridiculous. >> did you personally write this editorial? >> i would have contributed to it. quite often, i would have a conversation with another member of staff, they would write it, and i would offer a view. sometimes, i would write them myself.
>> was there an underlying evidential basis for the story? that is not the basis of my question. you say in the fifth line of the editorial that mr. osborn was a young man when he found himself caught up in this smoky world. you say a bit later on, "last week, we said the tory leadership is cameron's for the taking. nothing since then has made us change our mind." mr. osborn was then to be mr. cameron's number 2. so this was putting a favorable gloss on quite a murky world, was it not? >> mr. osborn -- i do not think we should necessarily go into the details of the story. but mr. osborn was not admitting to anything. these were the claims of a
friend of a friend, as i seem to remember. that was the view form. i think probably as a result of a discussion with my team. that is where we ended up. i have taken the time to look at "the sunday mirror" leader. it does not call for mr. osborn to be fired. it is fair to say it is more critical, as you might expect. but it certainly does not suggest that it would be the end of his political career, by any measure. >> wasn't it a classical example? let me put it in these terms. "news of the world" could not resist the scoop of a great story. but then they lost it in the editorial, and put perhaps the most favorable interpretation that could be put on the story. >> i do not think it is. if you are looking for an
example of "news of the world" being helpful to the conservative party, this is a pretty poor example. what matters here is what is on the front page, and the headline on pages four and five. i look at the front page now and am reminded that, had we not had a dvd promotion this day, the story would have been twice the size. that's all i can say. compare that to the leader column. a do not think it holds. >> would you have buried the story altogether if you had not known "the mirror" were going to splash it? >> certainly not. >> the free dvd was all about "little britain." that takes up half the front page. you can see the other half. it is a standard "news of the world" splash.
>> i do not know that it was standard, but it was a "news of the world" story, a "sunday mirror," story, and other newspapers followed it. it still gets a reasonable amount of coverage in "the guardian puzzle -- guardian." >> january 2007, you resigned. whether discussions before the resignation? >> there was the conversation about my resignation. >> did you have conversations with mr. murdoch before you resigned? >> no. >> you concluded your severance agreement, described as a compromise agreement. the narrative starts at page 02379. we can see it is dated february
26, 2007. do you see that? >> yes. >> which i think is exactly a year to date -- i am sorry. a month after you resigned. >> i resigned two weeks before i actually left. the conversation i mentioned it took place two weeks before i left the building. >> you were not resigning on the basis that you would walk away from any benefit to might attain. you and thought you would lead eventually. >> it was my decision. there was not in negotiation or discussion about whether or not i would or would not. i was very clear that i was going to resign, and i did so. >> clause 3, you received both
payment in lieu of the employers contractual. , and compensation for termination of employment. so there are 2 you a separate trenches -- tranches. the last is paid in 2007. is that standard practice or not in severance agreements of this sort? >> i have never resign before, so i do not know whether this was the format that was followed. i am told that the separating out of payments in this way is a reasonable standard practice, but i am not an employment lawyer, so i cannot be certain of that. >> there is reference in the agreements -- a rather
complicated clause. it effectively means that the stock units which were going to vest in new in august 2007 would continue to best in you, notwithstanding your resignation. do you see that? >> yes. >> as of that stage, did you also have stocked in news international, as opposed to news corporation? >> i had shares in news international, which i think i sold it before i left the company, before i resigned. there may have been some shares i had around this time that i may have sold immediately. >> can i be clear -- apart from the restricted stock units which would vest in august 2007, were the shares or stocks either in news international or news corporation, up by may 2007, in your possession?
>> i do not believe so. >> there is a provision that the employer will pay any reasonable professional expenses incurred by you in relation to certain matters. that clause, i think, is subject to litigation in a court of appeal. >> that is right. >> under the last clause, 7.1b, you agreed, in consideration of a small payment, you would not make or cause to be made, directly or indirectly, any statement or comment to any person, including without limitation to the press or other media, which might impugn the good name or character of the employer, any of its newspapers, or any associated company, including officers,
employees, or shareholders. has that provision in any way impacted on the evidence you are giving a specs >> -- giving us? >> no. >> when you resigned from head editor of "news of the world," did you receive any commiseration from the star blair? >> sometime later, yes. >> mr. brown? >> yes. >> mr. cameron? >> i do not remember doing so. >> you were approached by mr. osborn in may 2007. this is in your statement. it was in march 2007. >> which paragraph? >> herger 59.
>> thank you. >> you met for a drink. he asked you, in effect, whether you would be interested in joining the team. it goes without saying that mr. osborn knew that your natural sympathies were with the conservative party. >> i do not know. you would have to ask him what his thinking was. certainly, he approached mei sae asset. >> i think it is pretty obvious that he did know otherwise he would have gone somewhere else. >> in any event, he was correct. >> did you know if anyone else's in the running for the job? >> no. >> did you know if anyone else was later? >> no at a later stage after i started working for the conservatives i was told that
there had been another bbc journalist to have been that had a discussion i think of mr. cameron quite some time that i was considered for the job. it did not work out. >> his name has come up in this context. what did mr. osborn say that you could offer the conservative party? >> the conversation was more around my views of how the party should organize its communications with the election. i gave my views. >> what did you tell him tax c? >> i told him i'd you needed to
.e professional pee have a good relationship with as many media ones as general. i told him later the conversation with mr. cameron that my firm belief with the television would play a crucial part in any general election campaign. the might be more so than it had done previously. >> you had no more political experience, did you? >> no. >> didn't mr. osborn at least thought yout he might bring to the table? >> i was the editor of a national newspaper. i had managed the team.
i had a hand in running a business i suppose in terms of the commercial aspects. i am sure these are considerations. >> i am sure this is the case that you were a good editor. you're taught from the you being the director of communications. >> i think this is a question for mr. osborn. the question was not this is why we think you're going to be great. i do not recall it that way at all picture it as a part did the interview. at what point did you say are you interested in this job?
>> i think it was clear that they were interested in hiring me. he said they were going to make changes to the professional set up. he will likely to meet mr. cameron. >> he identified you as the man? >> i didn't think he would have called me. >> this might have been an interview. let's ask him a few questions. we will go in and think of it. >> and did not know what was in georgia osborne's mind. >> you are a newspaper man. you're used to selling ideas and stories. did do not see this conversation as selling yourself? that is what most people do and interviews.
>> i went into it with a degree of reluctance. i was not really thinking about politics. once he met him, how did you would your view across the that it might be a good idea or maybe you did not? >> what i fell is that this is what the party needed to do to be elected. this touched on the print media. i remember very well saying to mr. osborne that television is going to be hugely important. hardly a stunning observation.
i was already thinking about the possibility of this. >> i presume you went along to think about it. why are they asking me to do this job? >> he said i want you to talk to and meet with mr. cameron. it went on and from then. >> your career in journalism, you have the largest circulation in the united kingdom. now you're up to sending
completely different. it doesn't pass through your mind what are they asking me to do this? >> something completely different. this is be on the stories you have alighted on. rain campaigns variate i came to be in tune with the leadership of the newspaper that is fast. those things i am sure were attracted. the route from journalism to politics, i was hardly the pioneer. there have been several people from their the history of politics that have gone from newspapers into politics. >> even became director of human occasions.
that may reject of human communications. -- he even became director of human communications. >> it is as appropriate. >> what about your connection to "news of tnews international?" >> there may well have been a conversation about the fact that i worked on "news of the world" and maybe we discussed some individuals in that regard. i do not really remember. i am sure the conversation would have touched on my previous employers in some way. >> you are close to mrs. brooks? >> we are friends, yes.
>> you also understood the viewpoints of the conservatives that had some sort of closing vote. >> that may have been a consideration, yes. >> they were ones which certainly passed through your mind. >> they would have done for mr. osborne. >> they did. i cannot tell you what he was thinking. in terms of my thinking, i went into the meeting. i did not see it as a meeting. my initial reaction was slightly reluctant but i was intrigued.
i have further conversation and decided that this was something i wanted to do. >> there were conversations. i want to ask you this simple question. did either france is more or and and llewellyn raise this case with you? >> and remember. it is possible. >> use said toward the end of may 2007, it day said the offer of this. were you of for the job after the conversation which may have taken place?
>> i think the conversation is the confirmation. it may well be in those conversation. in my mind, that conversation was the confirmation penn . >> he also ask me about the goodman case. can you remember the gist of your answer? >> i was able to repeat what i said publicly. i said that thing about this case in terms of what they did.
>> did the job follow that conversation? >> in terms of paper work, i cannot remember the exact time. >> can as the about the timing of their conversations with rebecca? if you said that that could be in may or earlier. >> i cannot remember the time. i know i told small number of friends. i am sure she was among them. >> what was their reaction? >> i think she would have
congratulated me. >> i do not remember her saying otherwise. >> >> do you know whether she had any influence over you getting the job? >> not that i recall. >> were there any conversations with her at any stage which might have indicated that she had an influence of you getting the job? >> not that i can remember. >> you say that he met mr. cameron, i am keen to understand this. appreciate this interview. by the time you're going to meet mr. cameron, we know exactly what was happening. did you formulate in your mind
and did you have to explain what it was the you were bringing to the parti? what skills to do actually bring to the parti? >> i am sure i tried to talk in the most favorable light of myself. i am sure i try and to do this. >> what i'm keen to understand is what it was a year able to point you in your history make up. i understand boasting. i understand that. this could be a sensible move. what was it? >> i think it was my experience.
have been considered useful. it does not specifically discussed as being an advantage. >> it is my best recollection. i do remember explaining that my "news international" background was not suggested by either. it was introduced into the composition by me. my background should not therefore be seen as some sort of guarantee of the papers. >> in might be a factor.
>> my help in terms of connecting with "news of the world" readers, yes. >> also your personal connection. >> it would not hurt. i do not take the view that they would guarantee any kind of support. >> i am not talking about you expressing the view. i'm talking about the guarantee. >> my personal connections well beyond "news international." >> at this time, mrs. birk is becoming an influential person. >> use influential before that. >> even before that? >> quite possibly.
>> i did not know where she was in terms of for a career. >> i think it is fair to say, yes. >> politicians were keen to get close to her. >> it is fair to say that they want their message across. >> in order to get your message across, the best lightning rod was mrs. brooks. >> if you are a politician, you have the opportunity to talk to an editor. you will take it. you'll try to sell yourself and your party in the best possible light.
>> she has a personal personality. >> she has a strong personality. >i think i would say strong. >> action "news of the world" you said that you would not get it from that paper. he said he was more sympathetic to the labor party. >> i never worked with him. i cannot say with any degree of certainty. certainly from what i knew of him, and i knew of him briefly, he worked for another rupert murdoch paper in new york. we with each other regularly. he was more likely to be left- leaning.
>> you are discussing likely support of different newspapers. the message you were getting is beth "news of the world" was not in the back. is that fair a? i much i used those words but that is the essence. >> is important about "news of the world" might go at the next election? >> i'm not sure that david cameron ever said we have a "news of the world" in the bag. this is a conversation i introduced. >> you felt that he might benefit from your insight? >> it went further and we discussed other newspapers.
>> it is not just "news of the world". it is also the son. i told him that he should not. he understands that he is not him. >> i started that conversation. >> it was for mr. cameron, yes? >> circulation. quest not just circulation, it contained a significant number of others did and did? >> within its circulation, yes. >> in terms of the most
important newspaper, the son would always be there. >> if you wanted to look at it yes.erms of circulation, esp other newsa number of anothe tippers we needed to work hard to gain support. i did not look at my working day and analyze and based on circulation. at the a lot of effort in trying to secure it. i did exactly the same. i put a lot of work into it the daily telegraph. >> i am not sure i was suggesting that you lavished this.
>> all i was suggesting is that it was the most important. are we in agreement that lets in terms of circulation, yes. >> in terms of influence? >> i am not sure i buy the theory that a newspaper's endorsement will influence its readers directly in that way. >> do you think politicians buy into that very? >> i think that is a theory that is becoming less and less popular with politicians. >> at the time we're talking about the 2010 election. do you think politicians are still buying into its? >> we wanted the support of the sun and as many new savers as we possibly could. we did not know when the election was going to be.
work has to be put into it. >> newspapers or not the only focused by any measure about communications. television was fundamentally important. we were clear. that is a mechanism for communication. television was going to have to be impartial. >> ps. >> newspapers do not have that limitation. >> the compositions you have with a newspaper are different than the ones you have with the bbc. in terms of planning a strategy, where are the people that you wanted to try to have good relationships with, the people you would spend your time talking to and the way he would try to get the best possible light your policy, the
television was crucial. i would say as we got closer, i would say even more so. >> planning your strategy in relation to the print media, they went to one side. there are two key elements. you have to do your best to secure the support of the sun. are we agreed? >> yes. >> in order to secure the support, at the best way in was the record books. >> i would not describe it in that way. i was keen and that we had the relationships throughout the paper. four otheroes throug newspapers. these figures do not work that way.
you cannot rely on this. what the war attempting to do is build a series of relationships that we had something positive to say, you give yourself the best possible coverage. it was a range of relationships from the newspapers. >> you do not wish to endorse any particular newspaper even the eiffel the causes. even mention the "guardian." >> i had good relationships. i probably would not include "the daily mirror" in truth. more importantly, david cameron to be viewed as we do
this as possible. they had in el toro mountain to climb. we wanted to touch as many readerships as we could. >> " do you advise that he became as close as he could to mrs. brooks? >> no. >> did the work that out anyway? >> there is a family connection. burke is a constituent of his. they live relatively close. there is a fairly long established family connection. that was the genesis of it. >> let's go back to the
section about influence of papers having an outcome. above the second perception that there is supplied support that would be the director of favors tax there are issues and policies relevant to the issue. >> in the course of the election campaign, there were issues that a whole range of newspapers were considered to be important. i will seek to maximize that. once in government, he got on
with the business of governing. politicians keep their promises. we ended up with a coalition of government that made that a more complex process. >> we all got to close to it? had expressed you before it july 2011? >> i do not remember him doing so. >> you said that he almost have to meet with journalists because it was so important that you think he would have preferred to be enjoying in that at home with his family.
did he ever expressed disgruntlement to you that he has spent so much time with journalists and editors? >> frequently. >> there is a deeper problem here. they're getting too close to one newspaper group. >> no. that i recall. >> it follows that he must have been surprised that we all but to close to "news international." but it came after a chain of events. did not know what his thinking was. a was not there. -- i do not know what his
thinking was. i was not there. >> i was asking what your thinking is or was. do you feel the politicians got to close to "news international" or what? >> i look from the perspective of what they're not there was improper conversations or a dump that sits over this idea. i never saw a conversation that to my mind was inappropriate in that way. >> try not to look at this too literally. he denied many times there were no express deals. we're not talking about inappropriate conversations necessary trade-offs.
this closeness is unhealthy. >> the word on help the implies impropriety. i'm not sure i agree with that. i have been out of politics for quite some time. things are going to change. things have already changed. i think the process may have even begun. we were the first government ever to be transparent with the media. maybe the process is already started to enter into people's minds. >> transparency was not introduced until july 2011. i think that we make public some
special meetings with the media. >> that was in 2010. >> can i ask you to go backs to 45? >> at some stage, we ought to have a break. >> let's go do that. we'll give him a few minutes. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you.
in august 2007, it was there. >> that was 45. >> is this right? when you tip of your job in june or july 2007, you had no shares of stocks in news international but in august 2007, they were invested in new? >> i think there is restricted stock units that were granted to me before i left at "news international." the second set was a subject of this agreement. >> do you know the approximate
value of the stocks? >> in preparation for today, there are grease values around 14,000 pounds. >> are these once sellable on the open market or not? >> i think so. >> why do you think you overlooked them? >> this is by way of explanation of excuse. my job was a busy one. my job was a skill. i did to pay close attention to
my own circumstances in this regard. i should have done it. >> did you discuss the existence of anyone in the conservative party or government? >> no. >> did you discuss their existence of any civil servant? >> no. >> paragraph 48 you deal with your vetting stages. do you happen to know what it was? >> i do now. i did not then. >> what is it? >> ssc. security check i think. >> is a step short. it is the standard.
>> if you have any unsupervised access to information? >> i might have, yes fed >> is to everett in meetings with the national security council? >> -- i might have, yes. >> have you ever had meetings with the national security council? >> it allows occasional access to top-secret paperwork and also with participation. quite sure i understand what you're saying in 2010. are you saying that someone thought this was an adequate ta? >> there is a meeting that involves the communications around that issue or incidents.
the view was formed. to be in that meeting, my status would have needed to be changed. i do not know what state that process was. i left in january. >> to be fair to you, if these are all massive for the government to sort out, and not for you. >> yes. >> after publication, july 2009, were any further assurances saw by mr. cameron or anyone else in relation to the matter? >> no. that i recall. -- not to that i recall. between july 2009 and may 2010,
if i can be your bearings, do you recall having discussions with "news of the world" as to who they would support in the next election? >> i do not recall specific conversation about the endorsement or the likelihood of endorsement. we would of had conversations arrau conference times. >> the means of securing their endorsement, who did that mean 3? >> for me it was about a broad range of relationships. making sure that we maximize the opportunity to get our message across as effectively as we could.
presumably knew about the trip to santa rainy in 20008? >> i did. >> was something you had handed organizing? >> i was not involved in it nor did i go. i may have been involved in the logistics. >> this was something which must have please do in many ways. >> and certainly would that take in this rather than not. i did not form a vehicle that it .as the key moment car >> i'm us a real looking for the key moment. it is a change in its approach
and affiliations. it does away from labor and enforcement. >> we would have hoped it was an opportunity. it was an opportunity. i do not know what was said. i was not there. i would have seen it as an opportunity for david cameron to put himself and his party in the best possible light. i don't know what happens. i think he just told me that it went quite well. he went on holiday immediately afterward. >> you knew that it would take some time to get the support since it would come in relation to the timing of the next election? >> i did not know that. >i did not get involved in the sun's decision.
>> i am sure that is the question. mishaps i phrased it badly. you said you would take time to secure the support. >> it did take time. >> you knew that it would come from past experience. >> i certainly saw its as a long process. during my time working for the conservatives, there were ups and downs to say the least. did i have a plan that went to that date? there were times or we did not know when the election was going to be. through 2007 in 2008, it remains at times. in that regard, it was certainly a long process. >> did know that some strategy
would deliver this major prize at the appropriate time from the perspective of wood to be as close to the next election as possible? >> i am not sure i knew when they are going to do its. >> i am talking about more generally. >> would it be a big moment if they switch to? >> i think that is fair to say. although, in terms of shocks and if you look at the political history, the far bigger shock was returning to the conservatives. you could argue it was less of a shock. >> you say i am sure we discussed a hit. that is the coverage becoming less coverage.
we're now in the summer of 2009. >> i have not describe them as frequents. >> is rebekah taking the lead? >> i would not describe one as taking the lead. in terms of my attempts to make sure they coverage for the conservative party covers the headlines and what was going into the paper, that is the editor's job. i would have this come stations with him. >> union the ultimate decision of when to be made by mr. murdoch, a heavily advise buying rebekah brooks. >> i would have taken the view that james murdoch had not taken a senior role at "news
international." i would have taken the view that it was going to be a combination of use. obviously, rupert murdoch will play a part in that. >> we will however murdoch. >> i was the party to the conversation. i think it is fair to say that the three of them would have been involved. >> you knew this organization very well. you knew how they operated. were you hired because he understood them? they knew the way in would prove his son and rebekah brooks act that was the dynamic. >> when you say the way in, the way into what? >> for the conservative party. >> it was an important line of communication. >> he was going to do as he was
told. >> i do not accept that. and do not think i am in a position to say. i do not know what part it played. >> you have worked with him over the years. we have what some give evidence pim. you know that. >> i am not here to give the character assessment. i have no idea. you have a very disparaging view of show business. >> i am talking about personalities. it may be part of the picture here. >> i do not know. i am not suggesting the conversations with rebekah or not in any way influential. i except that. i've also consider my
conversations with dominick. and hope to have some conversations. i've not had any with james murdoch except a brief conversation with him. we met briefly for a drink. i do not have been regular line of communication to him. >> have you had the opportunity to watch for recall what mr. rupert murdoch said on the subject of political support both in relation to "the sun" "news of the world." >> said in a note. >> no. the phenomenal feat of memory. i would be corrected if i am wrong, but in relation to new , and he saide world"
he was really identifying with sun" politics and was something he was involved. i am not using his words. i'm using my recollection. he said some observations about that. his lack of interest in next, did you see that as evidence? >> i did. >> a what to know at that surprise you and whether it surprises you now? >> i hope i have not given inadvertently the wrong position. i am not suggesting rupert murdoch was not a fundamental part of the decision process. yes i spoke to rebekah.
i did not have this conversations in the belief that they did not matter. i was not party to that meeting or the discussions that took place. i do not know who was involved. i am sure that rupert murdoch was. i am sure he did a very clear view. >> would you agree with this that mr. murdoch's express it very clear view to require a markedly robust editor? >> bold move, yes. >> after the meeting, mr.
cameron must have been pretty happy? >> we had a brief conversation on the phone. yes, i think it was positive news. >> very positive news. >> my view was instinctively cautious. let's wait and see when and how it happens. >> you are instinctively cautious about everything. this was in the bath. >> in my mind, i was not going to see it as an absolute until i had seen the paper. >> you had no idea when the news would break? >> i am not sure precisely when
it would break. i did not play a part. i cannot recall once the labor conference had started. i may have been told that it was likely or not. i do remember being at home and seeing the television in showing the front page. that was the moment when i fell the paper was there. it had happened. as i say in my statement, i am not suggesting it was-. of course it was not. it was a positive force. at the risk of sounding and grateful, i thought becker does not the front page -- i thought it was not the front page i would have wanted nor the timing. rebekah was trying to get a hold
of gordon brown. i am sure should shrink to get ahold of you as well. >> i cannot remember if we had a conversation that night. i think i had a conversation with dominick after dinner after riots in the television. i cannot recall if i had a conversation in rebekah witrebeh that night. >> did you take any delight in knowing that the front page itself was after the services ta? the timing was rather delicious. proceed good timing, wasn't it? >> it has an impact. my interests were more selfish. i was more interested in the impact of the conservative party. i remember still searching for
the headline in this edition. i think it was in the subtext somewhere. i'm not trying to suggest that i was disappointed. i was not. i would prefer them to have done it in a different way. and a different time. i would have liked for them to have done it. >> we know there was a certain amount of pain there in the labor party. does that surprise you? >> no.
>> the conference would also be the case. no jubilation in the conservative party? >> i would not describe it as jubilation. it was not a bad day in the office. >> did do not feel that without belittling everything else that you were doing that you told us you were doing a lot that you had secured the major prize? >> i did not feel that way at all. >> that is a list of your
meeting in opposition. we can see looking generally that you are seeing everybody, really, including the forecast media. >> on years eve 2008, there was a party at the farm, is that right? rebekah ined with osborn charlie durning year's eve. >> there was a wedding in 2009. on the 30th of september 2009,
there was dinner. that would be the date i thing the sun had in the labour's lost. do you recall that? >> yes. you have listed everybody he was there. >> i believe so. >> i suppose the mood might not have been universally favorable. we can see who else was there. i know i cannot speak for others. perhaps everybody else was pretty happy. yes. >> what we do not see is all the telephone calls he might have had the people on your mobile a
whatever. >> i look at the guest list. this is my recollection of who was there. i do not think anyone else was invited. that is something he might want to double check with others to read their. -- who were there. i'm pretty sure i am right. see the fed was in. a general politics discussion. you know anything more? >> i think it was the first time i met him. i think it was literally a hello. >> of dg under his -- what did you understand his role to be?
>> not brief. i did not know whether not to have a specific brief. it occurs to me that he did. he was the new corporate affairs one that went across the company. i did not know then what his specific news corp. was. >> you understood that he was the european lobbyists. >> i am not sure that i did. i saw him as a corporate affairs executive. this is what led to his hands.
he spent a lot of time in european politics. orid not have any real feview information about his role. >> what did you understand about him? >> from my experience, logistics, conferences, he might have a hand in organizing any functions. he would be involved in broader issues for news international. that is how i would understand it. not involved in editing. >> certainly not. it is all rather vague. he was a pretty high-powered executive. >> when i met him, i did not give any thought to him being high-powered.
i did not know -- i knew about news international after i left. james murdoch was there. there were a lot of people i did not know. i did not know where he fit into the hierarchy. nor did i ask. >> did you know whether he was someone who had frequent contact with government ministers or their advisors? >> i knew the corporate affairs person, he was likely to take on a roll along those lines. beyond that, no. >> with what end or too wet and was he taking on that role? >> -- or to what and was he taking on that role? >> i do not know. i did not have any conversations with him that were specific. >> apart from this one conversation, with their other conversations with him? >> i looked at my itineraries.
as i touched on earlier, he had a hand in organizing the lunch between david cameron and the former spanish prime minister. i do not recall whether he attended that lunch. later, in my itineraries, i have noticed another meeting with him. it had a line put through it. i do not remember it. i am assuming it got canceled. while still in government, i do recall talking to him in my office. i cannot find a formal record of that. it could be that he was seeing someone else or in the building with another meeting and pop in. -- popped in. was a brief conversation as i recall it.
>> before june, 2010, did he discuss with the news corp.'s intention to seek to acquire the remaining shares of b sky b? >> i did not recall any conversation along those lines. >> you as saying there was not a conversation or you do not recall one? >> i am sang i do not recall one perry >> when the bid was announced, was it a surprise to you? >> i am not sure i knew about it in advance. i would want to go back and look at the advanced to it. i did not know whether it had been flagged in the papers, where the level of speculation was. i seem to remember there was a fair amount of commentary in advance. i may be wrong about that. that is my recollection. >> it is not something that was
discussed with you? >> i did not remember any discussions with rebekah about it. >> paragraph 95 of your statement , met with him on a few occasions for coffee, including one occasion. >> yes. >> what was he doing on that occasion? >> i am sorry, what are you referring to my reference to the meeting? >> yes. >> as i explained, that is the meeting i am referring to. are we talking about the lunch or the possibility of a meeting? >> i am seeking to clarify what we were talking about? >> the possibility of the coffee
is the meeting and discussed -- meeting i discussed previously. the lunch was in opposition. it was some time prior to that in 2009. >> at that point, was he involved with news corp.? >> i believe he was, yes. >> was he on the board? >> i believe that is right. >> you say you cannot recall but it is possible he attended the lunch? it is your best recollection. with the affairs of news corp. discussed? >> nook. not as far as i remember. >> the remember what the discussion was about? >> it was about spanish politics and british politics. the lunch took place in the house of commons.
it was the first time they had met. it was a political conversation. >> it was the lunch that was organized. it was not one you organized. >> he played a part in it. >> in terms of the logistics of the lunch. when you got to demonstrate in may, 2010, -- to downing street of 2010, your salary was cut $140,000 a year. did you explore whether it was possible for private donors to top of your salary? >> no.
>> i think it is implicit. your salary was not topped u >>p. -- up. there was a >> payment paid to me. >> i understand, yes. you told us about the be scud-b bid. -- the b sky b bid. did you know what mr. cable's it was towards the bid? before it became clear it in december, 2010. >> i do not believe so. >> you do not believe so? >> i do not have a specific memory. i did not talk to him about it. it had been reported that he had
taken a view. that is possible, i suppose. through that means, through that route, yes, and may have been aware -- i may have been aware. i was not involved. save for my communications. >> there was a political storm of sorts on the 21st of december, 2010. you were involved in that. it is on your role. >> yes. >> did you speak to him that day? >> i do not recall doing so. >> did you speak to him about the bid any so? >> i did not recall any conversations about b sky b. >> was there any conversation with any politician that saw
whether or not to gain your -- the benefit of your experience in having worked for news international for the purpose of considering this bid? >> not that i remember, sir. >> we put this general point to you, bill and back to when you you edited the they ever "news of the world," plug sky tv programs? >> when there was a promotion, skype paid a price for it. it was bought as -- sky paid a price for it. it was bought as promotional space. that is the man crossover. >> they paid the same rate as everybody else. >> i do not know. >> not given a favorable rate.
players. rupert murdoch appears to be the second on the list. he mentioned the with their. i am not sure why. can you help us with that? >> i was not in the meeting. i did see him prior to the meeting very briefly. again, very briefly, after the meeting. i was not in the meeting itself. >> there is a fascination about people going in the back door. i you able to talk about that? would it be a red herring. >> i think mr. murdoch may have told you. i think that is how it happened under the previous administrations. i think it happened automatically. >> would that be said for all of these people? there is a list of back door
people and front door people? >> i do not kn storeow these other people came through -- do not know which door these other people came through. >> i have to keep myself in detained. -- entertained. [laughter] >> there may be nothing in this point. is there a system where some people come in one way and other people come in another way? >> there were parties where guests would arrive to the back door. in terms of the meetings, i have no idea which doctor became through. had he asked to come through the back door, because he wanted to
park his car there, i'm sure that would have happened. >> in government, was it ever part of your role or your practice to brief against particular individuals that have been alleged or against some of your predecessors? >> my job was to brief in terms of the politics. in terms of people's private lives, i do not recall ever doing so. >> i am using the word brief in the se of a disparagingnse tax . -- in the sense of a disparaging context. >> i would not hide my political
views. i did not believe i did that. >> in terms of the discharge in your responsibilities, -- of you discharging your responsibilities, informing people what the government is up to. you never seek to influence, to cajole, to brief in any of those activities. >> defined brief? apologies if i misunderstood, i thought the question was did a brief against people on a personal basis. i do not believe i did. beyond the politics. did i have strong views? would i express those in conversations?
about gordon gunn or labor politicians, labor policy? i think i probably would in the toe way that i saought articulate as positive a picture as possible for the conservatives. >> you have been an observer of political life. do you think the things i have been describing are an issue that need consideration or not? >> in terms of-briefing? >> yes. >> i think that came to a head. when we were in opposition. it resulted in some very personal stories. stories which were published in news international paper's.
-- papers. >> ok. tell me about paragraph 53 of your statement. is it in the second sentence that you got involved in policy -- you say in the second sentence that you got involved in policy. do you fear there might have been excessive interest in how policy would play out in the media? >> possibly. it would be me as the person
responsible for communications. >> is this a problem which is a significant one or one which was overplayed? >> i do not think it is, i did not think it is a significant problem. i think that political party is have to with the modern media fight hard to get their message across. also, there is a personality aspect in politics that has increased over the years. that requires a lot of attention. you saw to make sure alternative uviews of david cameron were
being expressed. that would require a lot of work. >> you left in january 2011 certain factors, we are not going to discuss. can you discuss your departure with rebekah brooks or anyone else? >> if i did, it was after i had resigned. i am confident of that. i am trying to remember the exact chain of events. as you can appreciate, it was a difficult time. i cannot be absolutely sure. i did not think i told anyone i was resigning until after i had told the prime minister. >> you dealt with the case of
mr. driscoll. he received compensation from an employment tribunal. the hearing was after you left. the hearing was in 2008. were any arrangements made or were you asked to give evidence on behalf of news international d. ngn limite >> no, i was not. >> did you have any awareness the case was going on as it was going on? >> i am not sure i knew about it. it attracted some major attention once it got under way. i do not think i knew about it in advance of that.
i do not have any recollection of knowing about it in advance. >> with the attention of rose, did you think, i can give evidence here? >> i was working for the conservatives at that point. i thought about this since, was it the right decision? i do not know. i took the view it would only make it worse. idid not have the view othat could impose myself on the hearing at any juncture. i am not sure at what point the damaging comments in the judgment were made. i think it is possible the damaging comments came at the conclusion of the hearing. by then it is too late anyway. >> you appreciate it is important to let the litigation
decide who they want to give evidence. >> that is right. >> my understanding is the tribunal does have a process by which they could have asked. it is difficult to see why a tribunal should do that. >> in a system such as the inquiry, that is controlled by the inquiry. in a normal form of litigation, the parties decide who they call. it would be wrong for the judge to decide on his own volition to do so absent of a very special circumstance. you have left records behind. of your dealings with mr. driscoll, they were accessible. >> yes.
i think some of those records formed part. i have asked is international to furnish me with all of the background to this case in terms of witness statements, my own involvement, anything else. they have not been able to do so because i am an ex-employee. all i have to work on it is the judgment itself. the extracts of my own e-mails and letters. >> you referred to in the decision. it is under attack at 11. the decision is intricate. you have had a chance to study it. the complaint by the arsenal football club in relation to news of the world.
>> yes. >> that culminated in the proceeding. in october, 2005, and a warning. .4, ou look at paragraph 1 0 the managing editor, he wrote to you an e-mail that the tribunal had the contest. he stated the situation was not black and white enough to dismiss mr. driscoll. he said, we could still fire him and pay the going rate for that. mr. dunn tells me, it cannot be shut off.
the outcome of the hearing was made with the agreement of the editor. is that accurate? >> it is accurate in terms of what you are reading. it is not accurate in terms of the wider framework of the judgment. there is a misspelling. the words were attributed to me. it is wrong. they are mr. don's word. >> is that not what this says? does it not say, he tells me. i think there is a mistake. >> yes. my point, which may be off of your question, is it seems to
form a fundamental part of the judgment. as coming from me, being my words. >> i am not sure that is made by the tribunal. all they say is the words come from mr. dunn, the decision was made with your agreement. >> the judgment says it is pretext that my desire was to "get shot of." i never said that. >> paragraph 105. they had issued him with a warning. they wrote a letter to that effect. he was informed of criticisms made of him. he believes and to be unfounded. they decided not to be -- to appeal. the contents of his response to a very telling.
he stated, i disagree with the adjudication. in my view, your actions merit a dismissal. is that what you said? >> yes. if i can add briefly, i would like to have seen the full letter before i was asked to respond. i have not seen the full letter. all i have to work on is the judgment. on the basis, i do not wish to go on about this, on the basis that the judgment could not get my quote right, i am not willing to accept their interpretation of it. >> we have established that what you believe it is attributed to you is not, it comes from mr. dunn. >> i am referring to the latest judgment. >> they are setting out the citation from something you
said. to pare fis what a stock to paraphrase what else here later said he went on to say -- to paraphrase what else your letter said, you went on to say, if there was any failings for the disciplinary action may have been used. you offered no words of encouragement. this was a bullying remark. the simple question is, that is a fair point. >> i do not accept that. it was a reaction to a letter that the defense copy to me. i was irritated by it. i would accept that my response was in temperature. i do not accept that it is appalling. in any event, mr. driscoll went on to continue in his work in a
very positive way. i think that is documented. i think he wrote to him after with a message that was positive. that was supported. i was happy to support him. >> the tribunal found that was not so. this was the start of a downward path. whereas in formal terms, what mr. driscoll received as a warning, you were saying he should have been sacked. >> my view was that the issue that led to the tribunal was serious and should be taken seriously. yes, i expressed the view that in my view he should have lost his job over it.
that did not happen. i accepted the decision of the tribunal. there was no grudge. i did not, as the tribunal found, decide that that was the end of his career. i think both the tribunal and mr. driscoll pick different moments as to when i decided this. another part of mr. does bill's evidence, he said it started with these dory about the arsenal shirt. if i was making decisions about staff and their future on the basis of a failure of a story being lost, three-quarters of staff would have been on disciplinary. that is the nature of the newspaper. in any event, it was a story about whether arsenal would be wearing a purple shirt. it was not an exclusive about who was the next manager of england.
>> later in 2006, this is paragraph 130. do you see that? mr. wallace reported. he was instructed, he stated, i want him out as quickly as cheaply and possible. -- quickly and it cheaply as possible. do you remember that e-mail? >> so much as i have been reminded by it. i do not know the context of it was. i did not know what was before or what followed after. >> i think what the tribunal is saying is, if you marry up the
november 2005 e-mail with the 2006 e-mail, it is consistent. you want this man out. you are pulling him. >> it is not the truth. the first point is to make, i had supported him in trying to get mr. kristol -- mr. iscoll's relationship back on track. he had instituted severance negotiations. tisquantum out as quickly and cheaply as possible. it is in relation to that process. >> you disagree with the tribunal's findings. >> yes, i do.
>> that is as far as i can take that. >> the questions i had for you. was there anything you wanted to say? >> can i make one point in relation to the theory that there was some kind of deal between the news corp. for news international and the conservative party over the issue of b sky b. if there was a deal and there was a conspiracy, why was a one- man given a job? it is the prime minister's decision to decide to help with
brief in his cabinet. there was this conspiracy that david cameron was going to return the favor to news international, why did he give it to a competitive member of the liberal democrat party? >> mr. kimball was already the business secretary in may, 2010, was he not? the deal was before that. it was not announced until june. >> there is a conspiracy that suggests this deal was done before. >> it is an advocacy point rather than a factual point. can i ask a very different question?
you probably, as much if not more than anyone else, have reflected on the issue which is at the core of this particular part of the inquiry. which was set up by the prime minister in july of last year. the issue is whether the relationship between the press and the politicians has become either close or no longer
entirely conducive to good government, which ever way you want to put it. whether this happened many years ago, whether it is a constants of the involvement of those who have been very heavily concerned with newspapers into the heart of communications and government. i would like your view on whether that relationship has become too close so that it gets in the way. and how that should be addressed if you have a view on it? >> the prime minister has said he accepts that he got too cozy. i am not minded to disagree with
him. it is clear as a result of this process that relationships with the media got in the way of the message. let's put it that way. that is clear. what you do about it is much more difficult. i would hate to think that, i am not suggesting this is on your mind, i would hate to think that any barriers would be erected, more barriers would be erected between politics or politicians, politics, more importantly, and the press. you only have to look at the turnout at last week's elections, which was low, to say the least. people are disengaging with politics. if you make it more difficult for the media to report, if you make it more difficult for journalists to understand what you are trying to do, that is going to get worse. some people miss a turn up is
because of this inquiry. because of the reaction. i am not sure i buy that theory. i come from the perspective of someone who has worked on both sides of the fence. i hope, with respect, that the result of this part of the inquiry does not erect more barriers between what is already a difficult process. >> if you had heard what i said earlier today, you would know that i am very keen on insuring that politicians have a mechanism to identify what their policies are and in gates the public in them. and that journalists have the ability and responsibility to hold politicians and others to
account for what they do. the question is, hal to ensure that happens in an open, transparent, and appropriate way. it may be you have not got an answer. if, from your experience, working both sides of the fence, you do have a view, it is not going to bind me. you did not need to worry about it. i would be interested to hear it. if not, then not. >> it is difficult. one point that troubles me, if i can say this, is the idea that a french ship -- friendship is 0
is based on an ulterior motive. >> i am not sure that is fair. equally i have said many times that politicians and journalists are entitled to be friends with people. the thing is to differentiate and be clear about the difference between social relationships and any form of business. >> i think that what has happened over the course of the last couple of years, the last year or so, i think it is going to solve that problem for you. i think the possibility of politicians not being
transparent about their dealings with the media, i think the events that have come to pass will go a long way in dealing with that. >> if i can be insured that the very fact of the last seven months had achieved the purpose so that i could go back to productive judicial work, i might be quite pleased with that. >> i would not be so bold. >> already. all right. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i guarantee you i am standing
a little deeper than she was. this is where pocahontas stood when she was married. >> this saturday, tour the jamestown colony dick. since the 1994 discovery, the colony has yielded unique artifacts. take the tour starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern. join in the conversation answer any questions. live saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> in a few moments, a pentagon news briefing with leon panetta and general martin dempsey. in half an hour, a debate on a bill to replace automatic defense spending cut. then the justice department files a lawsuit against arizona's share of. >> on washington journal, we
will focus on the institute of medicine's report on the obesity rate. we will gb -- be joined by the food and nutrition chairman. the libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico, will take your calls. we will examine the population in the u.s. with a woman from the census bureau and the brookings institute. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> i remain optimistic about the future of indiana and the united states of america. the news media and political leaders spend a great deal of time talking about what is broken in our country. to some degree, that is the nature of their business. we should also have confidence
that the american experiment is alive and well. our political system can work. >> long time indiana republican senator lost to his primary challenger. look back at his six-term career on the senate floor. including his work in the 1990's on a nuclear disarmament program. all online, archive and searchable. >> good afternoon. let me -- let me begin with some
comments on the defense budget. i have spent much of this week, including two hours this morning on capitol hill, dinner last night here at the pentagon, reaching out to members of congress and to senators to talk about where things stand as congress begins to debate, mark up and consider the defense budget in earnest. my message to congressional leaders remains the same. congress passed the budget control act. it requires a reduction of defense spending of $487 billion over the next 10 years. as i've said, we do not have to choose between national security and fiscal security, but that does not mean that we do not have to make tough choices.
we do. and defense should not be exempt from doing its share to reduce the deficit. what that means is we have to make very difficult decisions -- difficult decisions that are tied to a strategy that achieves necessary and real savings, and at the same time protects the strongest military in the world. as you know, the military and civilian leaders of this department -- service secretaries, service chiefs, combatant commanders -- spent months developing a new defense strategy to meet our national security priorities and address our future security challenges. we then crafted a balanced plan that met the requirements of that strategy as well as met
the spending caps imposed by the budget control act. my concern is that if congress now tries to reverse many of the tough decisions that we reached by adding several billion dollars to the president's budget request, then they risk not only potential gridlock, because it's not likely that the senate will go along with what the house did, and if they did, they could force the kind of trade-offs that could jeopardize our national defense. the department of defense -- and, i believe, the administration -- are not going to support additional funds that come at the expense of other critical national security priorities.
and if members try to restore their favorite programs without regard to an overall strategy, the cuts will have to come from areas that could impact overall readiness. there is no free lunch here. every dollar that is added will have to be offset by cuts in national security. and if for some reason they do not want to comply with the budget control act, then they would certainly be adding to the deficit, which only puts our national security further at risk. when congress restores funds to protect particular constituencies that may not be critical to our national
defense capabilities, then they risk upending the kind of careful balance that we've worked very hard to achieve, and it could harm our ability to pursue the high-priority investments that we think are essential to the force that we need for the 21st century. some examples -- i mean, if we're prevented from retiring aging ships and aircraft that no longer fit strategic requirements, then congress would be forcing us to have to look elsewhere for these savings, areas like reducing modernization investments and burdening the services with excess force structure that would risk hollowing out the force. if we're restricted from gradually drawing down the size of the ground forces in the
years beyond 2013, congress would be forcing us to reduce readiness. we would have to cut training; we'd have to cut equipment, all of that very needed to support and again, it would guarantee a hollow force. if we're limited in our ability then congress would be making all of this more difficult to invest in new technologies that we believe are critical to thei don't think any of us in the administration or on capitol hill want these outcomes. therefore, i would strongly urge the congress to work with us to reach a consensus about our defense priorities, recognizing the budget realities that we would like to pretend are not there.
i understand from my own experience that congress has the right to question some of our decisions and to make changes. legislative process. but congress also has the responsibility to make sure that we protect a strong national defense. the bottom line is we cannot cut a half a trillion dollars from the defense budget and not cause some pain. but the price for that pain should be a 21st century force that can effectively defend our dangerous world. we can do this, but we have to do this together. let me say another word about sequestration. again, i'm grateful to the house for recognizing the importance of stopping sequestration.
but by taking these funds from the poor, middle-class americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our american constituencies, the guaranteed results will be confrontation, gridlock and a greater likelihood of sequester. again, the key is to work together. but the fact is that nothing will happen without compromise from both sides. before wrapping up, let me just general mark welsh to succeed air force chief of staff schwartz upon his retirement this summer.
general welsh is presently the commander of u.s. air forces in europe, where he is responsible for air force activities in the atlantic and arctic oceans. he's a command pilot who's flown more than 3,400 hours during the course of his career, and he's includes multiple combat missions during operation desert storm. i had the opportunity to work i served as director of the cia and he served as an associate and his counsel.
general schwartz. chief of staff. he came into the role at a very challenging time, but because of his leadership, the air force, i think, is much stronger today. under his watch, the air force has reinvigorated its stewardship of the nuclear enterprise, made important investments in the capabilities needed for the future, and excelled in a wide range of over
libya to supporting our ground forces in afghanistani greatly appreciate his counsel, his guidance, his friendship and his dedication to the air force and to the united states of america. >> good afternoon, everyone. on this day in 1775, a small by ethan allen and benedict arnold successfully attacked the british garrison at fort ticonderoga, new york. at the same time, the second continental congress wastheir task was daunting: field and fund an army for a war thatas we
sit here today, the 112th congress has its own daunting task: debate and decide on ai appreciate the difficulty of the decisions they face. secretary panetta and i faceit a comprehensive set of choices and reflect readiness and an offense -- and benefits. i would only ask to make sure it is the right choice, not for armed forces but for the nation. we know that it rests on the
economy. i am pleased to do -- please to join secretary panetta in applauding the 20th chief of staff of our united states air force. i know mark well. markets ready to join the ranks of david jones and also his predecessor. i have been privileged to know him as a fellow chief and chairman. he delivered, and as a consequence there are forced delivers for the country. -- air force delivers for the
country. i want to thank him for being our nation's leader. secretary panetta is prepared to take all of your questions. >> with your announcement that military traders are being returned to yemen, what is the prospect of a deeper military involvement in yemen? if i may ask, what are we to make of these latest revelations of anti islamic course teachings hamas doesn't reflect the thinking in the military that the u.s. is with islam? >> with regards to the yemen question, i have said time and
time again, we will go after about chitosan -- after al qaeda. one place they are located is yemen during good -- is yemen. the intelligence committees have gone after al qaeda. a recent threat concerned all americans about the possibility of taking down another airliner has come out of yemen, and it is for that reason we will continue to take all the steps necessary to try to go after those who would threaten our country and threaten the safety of the
american people. we have operations there. ignominious -- human has been cooperative, and we will continue to work with -- yemen has been cooperative, and we will continue to work with them. >> have they considered ground activity? >> that is not a possibility of. we have had a decades-long relationship. we suspended did during their civil unrest, and as he began to restore order to the situation, we are reappearing, but it is as the scribe, trying to muscle their capacity, not use our own. yo