Transcripts For CSPAN Tonight From Washington 20110208

gold -- barack obama and robert gibbs have done? >> what a surprise. the reason that president obama 's party lost 63 seats in november is not a message problem. he overreached his mandate. he enacted policies that the overwhelmingly majority of americans disagreed with. i do not see that as a communications issue. >> do you agree with that? >> no, not entirely. i think that the process of making legislation is compared to sausage making for a very good reasons. president clinton had some of the same problems. if you want to accomplish anything in washington, one of the ways to do it is legislatively. president obama came in and said, i want to do a couple of big things. i want to reform the financial system bred those are big things and they are legislative things. the republicans have adopted a strategy of the just say no. could be president have done a better job of intervening? of course. i think he had a lot of political capital and he took it out and he spent it. >> he went into debt with it. >> he was willing to do that. who would have thought two months after the midterms, and he would be in the same political shape he was then. >> they called ronald reagan the great communicator. is barack obama a great communicator? >> i think he gives a good speech. i do not think that is the same as understanding your audience and understanding the moment and the bait -- and being able to deliver on that. >> i think the ability of the president to use the bully pulpit to help move a country in a direction is so different today than it was in ronald reagan's time because of the difference in the media and technology and the way in which -- -- the way in which we reach people. people want to have an emotional attachment to their president and know that the president feels like a field and knows that the president understands what their lives are about. president obama is acquiring the art of doing that effectively. sometimes it was not prevalent in the first two years. there was a price paid for that. robert gibbs, who was instrumental the importance to the president, something that i am interested in my colleague's point of view, it is nearly impossible to be a decision maker and a key policy maker on behalf of the president and simultaneously do the job that we have to do. you almost have to be a fly on wall watching all of these actors play out their roles to watch the president makes deep -- watched the president make the decision. >> if you are a participant in the process, your colleagues know that you have a point of view. they want you to go out and do the briefing. i consciously and never tried to give the president my opinion on something. i gave him a point of view a couple of things privately, but not as part of the policy-making process. >> i totally agree with that. you simply do not have time. it is difficult to return all the phone calls. you have to be a hand holder to be a press secretary. >> do not be an adviser, ba press secretary. -- be it a press secretary. >> it is beyond the credibility. you have to go back to those people, who were just on the other side of a big fight that was important to them, and they will not be as reliable. you need to be an honest broker in side. >> i want everyone to -- i wanted to hear everybody's point of view. >> when i was press secretary, i had access to all meetings that i could manage. i've played that fly on the role to role. sometimes i was asked my opinion. i did have a sense -- you go down that road, this is what is going to happen. it does not mean that we cannot management. -- we cannot manage it. you had to deal with it. i go back to the state children's health insurance program. president bush vetoed that legislation twice. finally, we revealed the secret. [laughter] he wanted to -- he wanted the money to go to the poorest children first. we are crazy, right? we are going to veto it twice. >> nicely done. >> how about an example. when you go to the president, warning, warning, warning. when did you do that? >> i have a good one. >> you have the ear of the president to do this. george bush was the easiest. >> his dad had been vice president. he ran for governor. there is not a reporter that we had not tangled with. he had the highest tolerance for bad news. [laughter] >> clinton did, too. he did not have such a high tolerance for bad news. he would take it in any would blow off a little steam. >> we did not have that. >> there was one time when president bush had done a press conference and he was in the briefing room. after he left, i followed him and we went into the oval office. ne said, that was good. i said, that world war ii comment is going to get a lot of press. about 3:00 in the afternoon, i just wise to call and tell you that you're right. i love to hear. >> mindless somewhat similar. ---was somewhat similar. it was 2003, the war in iraq was winding down. all the sudden, the attack started up and we were losing a lot of our troops. the president was doing a news conference and he got ask about it. he said that if anybody tries to attack america's military, my message is, bring it on. we walked from the roosevelt room and i said, mr. peres -- mr. president, think of how bring it on is going to sound. he got indignant and he said, i have so much faith in our military, if anybody wants to tangle with us, bring it on because you will lose. he was sending a message to our military about the fate he had in the military. i said mr. president, it did not come out that way. he healed. >> mr. it -- mrs. bush repeated what you said then that helps. >> a question from one of my colleagues. i love this question. why did the democratic press operations have so much more trouble controlling the party's message compared with republicans? >> i will take a crack at that. if you scratch any professional democrats or people who worked in the party, they came up the 1960's and 1970's through movement politics. they were late -- they were union organizers, feminist, environmentalist. they worked in a movement politics and believe that the press was going to be on their side. they were in the business of speaking truth. republicans never had that fiction in mind. they started from a viewpoint that was more corporate, more fuel than public relations. it goes all the way back to nixon. it was more about mass communications. republicans were more adept at the skills, public relations from the beginning brayed democrats just mistakenly -- >> that is pretty plausible. bush had the advantage of watching all the mistakes made in his father's administrations. there were a lot of powerful individuals that fought against each other. they regularly linking against each other. bush watched that as a son and he made the decision that the people he hired would really be team players. i cannot tell you how many times i was in the oval office and it never leaked. the press loved the leaks. with our administration, white house is secretive. >> you are secretive and tight- lipped. >> congratulations. >> that is where we have the clash of priorities. when i covered the reagan white house and the bush white house, some of it was disarray. it made it a little easier to take the story to the public. >> each was fighting for his own turf. that is what did it. >> you are not going to stop turf battles between heavyweights in the administration. >> they seldom leaked in the bush administration. >> there is a myth that the republicans did not have message problems. if you look at the social security debate of 2005, that is not a cohesive message. >> is that the same problem that obama had at reelection time? that is debatable. when you take on these big issues, it is not necessarily -- you will not have a cohesive message. >> lightning round. i want to go to a few questions. with regard to the television series the west wing, how realistic was that? >> one of the funny things about that, the creator of the show had been in washington. he read a script for the movie american president. he asked me if i would read his pilot and consult on the show. all of my friends in washington started calling me. hollywood never gets washington right. the show is going to be a disaster. the first show came on and i got calls from all of my friends. two weeks later, i got a story idea for you. it was a -- it felt like the clinton white house. it was written during the clinton years. the culture was right, in some ways. events move fast and it was a way to depict the constant motion of events. the one thing that was least realistic was there was about five people that made the decisions. the sense that most people better working hard trying to do the right thing every day. the fact that just when you think you have the answer to one question, another issue comes crashing over. the kind of gravity about what people face every day and sometimes the little things that when the day or knock you off your course. all those things were realistic credit it was the characters that people related to. there is a sense of idealism. there are a good patriotic americans, regardless of party. >> the panel represents two decades of media relations. what'd you think are the most salient chase it -- changes? this one touches on the technology issue. >> in some ways, we have fundamentally different jobs. reporter weiser, you've lost a lot of that senior level talents and broadcast media. this is coming down in a couple of hours. i am thinking of having the president do this. we could have a conversation. there is a more cooperative relationship than you think. d.c. is not as partisan as it is made out to be. on the technology side of things, at first, i resisted. >> how many followers do you have? >> i think it is 30,000 now. i have a long way to go. >> how many followers to you have? >> i will follow you. >> here is a very interesting question. 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions around the world. high-resolution remote sensing satellites generating enormous amounts of data. more satellite news network's every day. how has this changed what a white house press secretary can do to set national and international priorities? is the essence of government itself changing? >> ask mubarak. >> one of the challenges that we are going through right now is how do we slowdown the transfer of information so that people can actually get information and use it, get a coherent information and use it effectively to make decisions. all the competition in the news business -- and this is based on speed. breaking news. something or other. every 30 seconds. we have got to slow that down so that people -- >> that is not going to happen. >> the spokesperson can slow it down. >> a can win the white house consciously says, you have to stop and get things right. one of the things that has eroded the confidence of the american people is all this misinformation that gets out there when there is a crisis. instantly, we had a congresswomen from arizona who was dead for two hours. wording how to slow down, at be thorough, it is something that both sides of this have to get better at. >> how is this change in the nature of governance? >> it is changing the press more than governments. reporters have got to respond to it. >> you do not think that it changes the nature of governance? and >> i think it has changed the press more than officials. you still have a higher obligation to get it right and figure it out. waseteran's day 2001, there a plane crashed on long island. it was two months after september 11. is this terrorism again? i was in a brief. i was coming in at 7:15. i heard it on my car radio. i stayed down there with the president and i did not come up to greet until noon. that five hours -- they were furious with me. i made some enemies on the press that day because i would not briefs until i was ready to. i slowed down. the press has to go live. is it terrorism? yes or no? >> if you get it wrong, and you have to correct it. >> the consequences of us getting a wrong is that we lose a job. we lose credibility. the consequences of you getting it wrong is you do a correction and you fix it. >> it is a little tougher than that sometimes. i also know that it does change the decision making function. and the role the people are playing. when you have pictures coming directly into the white house. i know that when the russian attacked, the white house was watching those pictures in real time. when you elevate that, put all that on steroids and attach it to the 20 billion web sites, that has got to change the way you are making decisions. is partnk it's -- that of it. look how difficult it is for the white house to sustain a narrative on the topic they want to talk about. the president wants to talk about jobs, and egypt blows up. the president wants to sell his health care message ne has 15 seconds to get that message across. no matter how trivial, no matter how unimportant it might be. we have to spend two days on it. >> it takes us to another question. what skills to rely on most as your role as press secretary? >> it is not necessarily a scale -- skill, but a lot of it is gut instinct. in some ways, it is falling your gut and knowing when there'll be a big story or when is not. >> you had training. >> i had worked as a journalist. when i say how important it was to defend the press to the president, that comes from having that bit of training. an understanding what it means when a journalist would call and they would tell you, i have this story. i have to sources. then i have 30 seconds before this thing hits the airwaves. you would tell the chief of staff. he says he has to sources, what am i supposed to do? a little bit of training from that perspective. a lot of it was trial and error. i had a wonderful chief of staff on capitol hill. >> he just got a new job. >> what advice would you give a former journalist applying for a job in the white house press job? >> good luck. it will be a great test. two years and he buys president's office. -- in the vice-president office. when you are a journalist, every skill you have is to cover the news. it is different than selling the news or promoting your boss. this will test him to see how quickly he can make that transition. he is smart, fast on his feet, a very good-looking. it is a great test. >> advice? >> i sort of disagree. i think a sense of humor will diffuse tense situations. >> if it is self-deprecating. >> correct. that is the most important thing. >> you escaped that day. >> you managed to preserve yourself some howl through that whole monica mess. >> thank you for reminding me. >> i try not to relive those days. >> i do not think i could devote -- did away with some of those trips i did now. they would all be on youtube. someone would start calling me out. >> you set on live television, let's go on backgrounds. he tried to put the president on background. >> i remember that. >> it did not work. >> is special did not work with at present. >> do you have a comment about the recent news that aol is buying huffington post? >> no. >> fascinating. >> it is whatever. just three months ago, and newsweek was sold for a dollar. the overhead costs, the legacy costs, not being able to keep up. the new media at is taking the world by storm. >> there is a real danger if we think that all information that we value ought to be freely available. if we do not value and pay for the content. >> the huntington post started as a liberal bloc. -- the huffington opposed started as a liberal bloc. -- blog. >> it is a proudly liberal organization. you look at -- this is the turn of the last century where in new york city there were 23 or 24 newspapers. we're back to an era where all news comes from a point of view. people did not expect anything else. the huffington post was established in 2005 and was profitable last year. that is pretty remarkable. >> can its aol? >> it has a good enough shot as anything. >> she is a creative -- she has created something. the other person who is running newsweek is tina brown. it is to be the other way. you take and on paper publication and you hitched a website to it. >> you had rupert murdoch announcing a new paper just for the ipad. he would not do that if he did not think he could make money. you have to be willing to pay for it. that will be $40 a year. >> every model under the sun is being tested. how do you make the news business profitable? >> you have had an incredible job. incredible view of history. an incredible opportunity to help shape it. as you look at our political process now, as you look in armenia and technology now, as you look at the nature of our civil discourse in this country, think about our students, many of whom would like to do what you have done. how do you define this moment in history? how should someone that is 21 years old lookit as look at how we -- look at how we are as a culture? i will let you take it wherever you wanted to go. it is a great weight to close the conversation. >> i am very optimistic about where we are going. we have a lot of dysfunction, bitterness, poisoned in the environment of our political culture. over time, i detect among young people a row pragmatism and desire to solve problems, a real hunger for real information that allows them to make choices and allow them to shape their own choices about the future. i think that will results in a new journalism with a new business models are affected. it will result in a new civil discourse that is really focused on solving problems. our generation has failed to -- in not answering honestly, how much government do we want? we're all celebrating ronald reagan's 100 anniversary, but it began when we made that faults bargain. you can cut taxes and not cut government. it happened during his presidency. until we resolve that and get serious about those fundamental questions, up we will be back into place for we can have a coherent government. the students here today are going to be much more courageous in addressing those questions. as a result, they will invent a new politics and a new journalism. >> talking to young people, it is more like asking them where are we as a culture. the things are changing so quickly and i think the tools are available and the view that is resulting from this technology age has totally transformed the world. what is happening in egypt is a facebook revolution. did never would've happened with a couple of facebook pages. to organize, to plan meetings, to save january 25 is the day. that is just the beginning of people organizing themselves. politics, we are in a bad place, but the next generation is going to jump over where we have been to create a completely new model. the model of the white house press secretary -- we're not going to have another network -- a generation of network news anchors. it is an exciting time. it is fraught with danger. with all that energy and that democracy, it is on manageable by anybody. the repercussions of its are completely unpredictable. but it has potential to unleash innovation, new ways of thinking and new ways of creating wealth for the country. it is mind-boggling to think of the potential. it is a very exciting time. >> i share the optimism. d.c. and politics is not as partisan as some people. we are showing that tonight. you can disagree on things and still be able to have a civil conversation. i got a chance to teach at gw last year and i really enjoyed that. i grew up in a rule environment -- rural environments and the internet has allowed to people all across the country to have a say in what is happening. that has made some people uncomfortable. people who never -- people from wyoming who are now online and participating and reading things in the did not have access to all this information. nobody is dropping off "the new york times at my grandfather's ranch in the middle of wyoming. now they can have access and they can participate. just a year ago, when scott brown won the election in massachusetts, at they were successful in getting small donations from people all over the country. it is a very interesting and exciting time. take advantage of being in d.c. and take the internship, the job, the one that does not sound very exciting. he starts in the credibility deficit. i took all of that -- i was able to handle that. always take the deputy job. i traveled on the weekends and all the holidays. i listen to so many young people who are so exhausted all the time. you have to take advantage of what is going on in washington. work very hard and meet a lot of people. you find that all over the city. it is a wonderful place to be. tw is a fantastic place to have this experience. >> i started 22 years old on capitol hill, right out of college. if you like politics, died then. this is what makes art -- dive in. this is what makes our country so great. there is also a lot of smart people who come together and work for a cause. as much as people will say tuftings or how bad things are, look around the world. we have settled their differences peacefully in this country. it is a noisy process, died in ve into it. it is right at your doorstep. capitol hill has more young people than anywhere else in positions of influence of power. you come to capitol hill and you can really move up fast and move up well if you are sharp, smart, a team player. the best town for ideas. so many people here are political communications majors. this is kind of like a rock concert. did better rock stars. that is my advice to you. [laughter] [applause] >> on that note, we are all privileged to have had a fascinating conversation here tonight. we've explored some of the cultural and journalistic and technological trendsetter altair. as well as some remarkable personal insights on the lives that you of lead. to our radio and television audiences on c-span and elsewhere, thank you for joining us. i have to see what our next conversation series on march 23. we will be talking to another pioneer of media. thank you for joining us this evening. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> david cameron talks about egypt. president obama encourage u.s. businesses to use profits to hire more workers. we will hear the president's remarks a moment. we spoke with a reporter about the president's speech. >> he really wants to work with business to move forward and revitalize the economy in a way that is going to increase exports and increase the amount of manufacturing. one of the things that the president talked about was the need for business to work with government. he called a social compact. he envisions business and government working together to restore the trust that he feels was lost due to the economic recession. >> what specifically does the press and want them to do? >> he is talking a lot about infrastructure investment and manufacturing. he really wants to work with business to get $2 million off the sidelines. that is the company that -- money that companies have. a lot of people have said that that is because of all the uncertainty that the administration has created in the economic environment. needless to say, the white house has said that they are willing to do what it takes to help get businesses involved in economic and trade deals with foreign comp -- foreign countries. to do what itg takes to get the money off the sidelines. >> some news outlets are saying that this speech could be a jfk moment. having covered the speech, how would you characterize it? >> it is a very good description. he veered off of his remarks a couple of times. this was one such moment. he said that this exactly what to jfk was talking about. he is almost the same phraseology. i ask what you can do for your country. he is really trying to frame it in a way that is about a sense of shared purpose. that is the new component of this message. we saw the beginnings of it in the state of the union. it was certainly more articulated the dissever been before. >> why is the president making this effort to mend fences? >> over the last two years, a lot of people in the business community have set up right that they felt that his administration is hostile towards them. they felt there was a lot of blame from around in the early days. there are a lot of disagreements that still exist, including the state of the health care law. they still want it repealed and replaced with something else. it is not all smiles and flowers with obama and the business community. there is still a lot of profound disagreement. the administration wants to move to the center and perceive that the american people appreciate people who are willing to work with business leaders to create jobs and reduce unemployment. >> covering the president. here is president obama now at the chamber of commerce. this is 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president of the united states, please welcome tom donohue, president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce. [applause] >> i am pleased to officially welcome the 44th president of the united states, barack obama. mr. president, your visit today continues a century old tradition of president addressing the chamber stretching all the way back to william howard taft, his suggested the creation of this institution in 1912. we're honored that you are here today to continue that tradition. you probably have noticed that next year, we will have our 100th birthday. before you and this historic call, at our representatives of companies large and small as well as members of our staff and our very distinguished board. they are here on behalf of 3 million businesses and organizations that make up the chamber of commerce federation. let me add, mr. president, that getting a seat here today is one of the hottest tickets in town. let me also reaffirm the american business community's absolute commitment to working with you and your administration to advance our shared objectives. first, the compelling need to strengthen our free enterprise economy, create jobs, and put americans back to work. our focus is finding a common ground to ensure america's greatness in the 21st century. america works best when we work together. ladies and gentlemen, in that spirit of cooperation, it is my privilege to present to you the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you so much. thank you. have a seat. thank you very much for the gracious introduction. i want to make a few other acknowledgements. the chamber board president, thank you for helping to organize this. there are some members of my administration than i want to make sure our introduced. bill daley is here. senior adviser is interfacing with many of you and has gotten a terrific advice from many of view. ray lahood, our transportation secretary, that ambassador ron kirk, our small business administration administrator karen hills, my director of national economic council, and they also want to make mention our export import bank chairman, the overseas private investment corp. president, and i wanted knowledge a good friend paul volcker, the outgoing chairman of the economic recovery advisory board. thank you for being here. [applause] it is good to be here today. i am here in the interest of being more neighborly. i strolled over across the street -- if we had brought over a fruitcake when first moved in, we would've gotten off to a better start. i'm going to make up for a period -- up for it. this is not the first time i've been to the chamber or the first time we have exchanged ideas. over last two years, i have saw advice from many of you as we were grappling with the worst recession most of us a better known. it is a recession that led to some very difficult decisions. for many of view, that meant restructuring and branch closings and layoffs. i know they were very painful to make. for my administration, a series of emergency measures that i would not have undertaken under normal circumstances. they were necessary to stop our economy from falling off a cliff. on some issues like the recovery act, we found common ground. on some other issues, we have had some pretty strong disagreements. i am here today because i am convinced that we can and we must work together. whatever differences we have. all of us share a deep abiding belief in this country. a belief in our people. of belief and the principles that have made america's economy the envy of the world. america's success did not happen overnight and it did not happen by accident. it happened because the freedom that has allowed good ideas to flourish, that has allowed him to thrive -- that had allowed cabalism to thrive. hard work should be rewarded. an opportunity should be there for anyone was willing to reach for it. at everyit happened juncture in our history, we came together to remake ourselves. we came together as one nation and did what was necessary. that is why i am so confident that we will win the feature again. that is the challenge that we face today. we still have, by far, the world's largest, the most vibrant economy. we have the most productive workers. we have the finest universities and the freest markets. the men and women in this room are living testimony that american industry is still the source of the most dynamic companies. the most ingenious of intrapreneur hours. -- all entrepreneurs. the competition for jobs has grown fierce. the globalization of our economy means that businesses can now open up a shop, employed workers, and produce their goods whenever an internet connection exists. tasks that were once done by 1000 workers cannot be done by 100 or 10. the truth as, countries like china and india and brazil -- it is profitable for global companies to aggressively pursue these markets and to set up facilities in these countries. these forces are as unstoppable as they are powerful. combined with a brutal and devastated recession, these forces have shaken the faith of the american people. in the institutions of business and governments, they see a widening chasm. they wonder if the american dream is slipping away. they wonder if the middle class is in the midst of an exorable contraction. we cannot ignore these concerns. we have to renew people's faith and the promise of this country that this is a place where you can make it if you try. we have to do this together. business and government. workers and ceo's. democrats and republicans. we know what it'll take for america to win the future. we need to out innovate, out educate, out to build our competitors. we need an economy that is based on what we make and what we sell around the world. we need to make america the best place on earth to do business. this is a job for all of us. as the government, we will help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate and succeed. we will upgrade our transportation and communication networks. we will invest in education so you can hire the most skilled and talented workers in the world. we will work to knock down barriers that make it harder for you to compete. i want to be clear. even as we make america the best place on earth to do business, businesses also have a responsibility to america. i understand the challenges you face. i understand that you are incredible pressure to cut costs and cheaper margins up. i understand the significance of your obligations to our shareholders. and the pressures that are created by quarterly reports. i get it. as we work with you to make america a better place to do business, i am hoping that all of you are thinking what you can do for america. ask yourselves what you can do to hire more american workers. what you can do to support the american economy and invest in this nation. that is what i want to talk about today. the responsibilities be all have. the mutual responsibilities we have to secure the future that we all share. as a country, we have a responsibility to encourage american innovation. i talked about this quite a bit in the state of the union. companies like yours have always driven the discovery of new products and new ideas. you do it better than anybody. what you also know is that it is not always profitable for you to invest in basic research. it is very expensive plan and the payoffs are not always clear and not always localize. that is why it government has traditionally held invest in this kind of science. that is why we are making investments to date in the next generation of big ideas. biotechnology, information technology, clean energy technology. we are reforming our patent system so innovations can move more quickly to markets. steve case is heading up a new partnership called start up america. biggerso proposed a permanent tax credit for all the research and development your companies do in this country. that is a priority. we also have the responsibility as a nation to provide our people with -- with the fastest, most reliable way to move goods and information. the cost of business from outdated and inadequate infrastructure is enormous. that is what we have right now. outdated and inadequate infrastructure. any of you that had been traveling to other countries, you know it. you see it. it affects your bottom lines. that is why i want to put more people to work rebuilding crumbling roads, rebuilding our bridges, is why i have proposed connecting 80% of the country to high-speed rail. making it possible for companies to put a high-speed internet coverage in the reach of virtually all americans. you understand the importance of this. the chamber of commerce and the 8 -- the chamber of commerce did not agree on a whole lot. they're not facebook friends. [laughter] i do not think you are any way. [laughter] i did not check on this. but they agree. on the need to build a 21st century infrastructure. i want to thank the chamber for pushing congress to make more infrastructure investments. it should be determined not by politics, but by what is best for our economy. the third responsibility we have as a nation is to invest in the skills and education of young people. if we expect companies to do business and higher in america, america needs a pool of trained, talented workers that can out compete anyone in the world. the is why we are reforming k-12 education. that is why we are trending math and science teachers. that is why we are making coverage more affordable. recently, i visited ge in schenectady, which partnered with a local community college. while students trained for jobs available at the nearby plant, they earn a paycheck and have tuition covered. as a result, young people can find work, ge can build skilled positions, and the region has become more attractive to business. it is a win for everybody. it is something we are trying to duplicate across the country. to make room for these investments in education, innovation, in infrastructure, government has a responsibility to cut spending we cannot afford. that is what a promise to veto any bill larded up with your marks. that is what i propose we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade and bring this spending down to the lowest share of our economy since eisenhower was president. that is a long time ago it is not going to reject a long time ago. it is not going to be enough. we are going to have to do more. the driving force on our deficit is entitlement spending. that will require both parties to work together, because those are tough problems we will have to solve. i am eager to work with both parties and the chamber to take additional steps across the budget to put our nation on -- on a sounder fiscal footing. by stopping spending on things we do not need, we can make investments in the things we do need, the same with families do. if they have a fiscal problem, they have to tighten their belt. they do not stop paying for johnny to go to college. the cut out things they do not need. but they still make investments in things they need for the future. as a country, we have to make tough choices, but smart ones. in addition to making government more affordable, which are also making it more effective and more consumer-friendly. we are trying to run the government a little more like how you run your business, with better technology and faster services. in the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves competitive america. we want to start with the 12 different agencies that deal with america's exports. if we hope to help businesses sell more goods around the world, we should ensure we are all pulling in the same direction. frankly, with 12 different agencies in charge, nobody is in charge. we are going to fix that. as an example, we will make a government more responsive to the american people and american business. that brings me to the final responsibility of government, breaking down some of the barriers that stand in the wake of your success. as far as exports are concerned, that means opening new markets for goods. i will tell you i will go anywhere, anytime, to be a booster for american businesses, workers, and products. [applause] and i do not charge a commission. [laughter] we recently signed export deals with india and china which will support more than 250,000 jobs in the united states. we finalized a trade agreement with south korea that will support at least 70,000 jobs. it is a deal that has unprecedented support from business and labor, democrats and republicans. that is the kind of deal i will be looking for as we pursue trade agreements with panama and colombia. we have worked to bring russia into the international trading system. those are going to be our top priorities. we believe americans have the best products and businesses. we are out there selling. there is no reason we can't do better than we are doing now when it comes to our exports. another barrier i hear about from many of you is a burdensome corporate tax, with one of the highest rates in the world. you know how it goes. there are various loopholes and carpets build up over the years. some industries pay an average rate that is four or five times higher than others. companies are taxed heavily for making investments. companies are paid to use leverage. you have to many companies making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their factories produce. that puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. we need something smart, something simple, something fair. that is why i want to lower the corporate rate and eliminate these loopholes to pay for it, so it does not add a dime to our deficit. i am asking for your help in this fight. i think it can be done. we are trying to move outdated and unnecessary regulations. i have ordered a government-wide review. if there are rules needlessly stifling economic growth, we will fix them. we are cutting down on paper work that settles businesses with huge administrative costs. we are improving the way the fda evaluates medical devices, to get lifesaving treatments to market faster. and we have delayed greenhouse gas permiting rules. i have also ordered agencies to find ways to make regulations more flexible for small business. we have turned a tangle of fuel economy regulations and pending lawsuits into a single standard that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, save consumers money at the pump, and give car companies the certainty they need. that is determined by the stakeholders' without the need for congressional legislation. ultimately, winning the future is not just about what the government can do "for you to succeed. it is also about what you can do to help america succeed. even as we eliminate burdensome regulations, businesses have to be responsible to recognize there are basic safeguards and standards that are necessary to protect the american people from harm or exploitation. not every regulation is bad. not every regulation is burdensome on business. a lot of the regulations that are out there are things that all of us welcome in our lives. few of us would want to live in a society without rules that keep our air and water clean. they give consumers the confidence to do everything from investing in financial markets to buying groceries. the fact is, when standards like these have been proposed in the past, proponents -- opponents have often warned there would be an assault on business and free enterprise. we look at the history in this country. early drug companies argued the fda would practically destroy the sale of remedies in the united states. that did not happen. auto executives predicted that having to install seat belts would bring the downfall of their industry. it did not happen. the president of the american bar association denounced child labor laws as a communist effort to nationalize children. that is a ". -- that is a quote. none of these things tend to pass. standards often spark competition and innovation. i was traveling, when i went up to penn state to look at clean energy hubs that have been set up. i was with steve chu, my secretary of energy. he won a nobel prize in physics. when you are in conversations with him, you catch about one out of every four things he says. [laughter] you start talking about energy efficiency and about refrigerators. he pointed out that the government set modest targets a couple of decades ago to start increasing efficiency over time. they were well thought through. they were not radical. companies competed to hit these markers. they hit them every time and then exceeded them. as a result, a typical fridge now costs half as much and uses a quarter of the energy it once did. and you do not have to defrost that stuff, putting the warm water in the freezer and all that stuff. it saves families and businesses billions of dollars. regulations did not destroy the industry. it enhanced it and made our lives better. if they are smart, if that are well designed. that is our goal, is to work with you to think through how we design necessary regulations in a smart way, and get rid of regulations that have outlived their uselessness -- their usefulness or do not work. i also want to point out the perils of too much regulation are matched by the danger of too little. we saw that in the financial crisis, where the absence of sound rules of the road were not good for business. even if you were not in the financial sector, it was not good for business. that is why with the help of paul volcker, who is here today, we passed common-sense reforms. the same can be said of health insurance reform. we simply could not continue to accept a status quo that has made our entire economy less competitive. as we have paid more per person for health care than any other nation on earth, nobody is even close. and we could not accept a broken system where insurance companies could drop them because people got sick and families went into bankruptcy because of medical bills. i know that folks here have concerns about this law, and i understand it. if you are running a business right now and seeing escalating health-care costs, your instinct is, "if i have even more laws, that will increase my cost more." i understand that skepticism. but the nonpartisan congressional watchdogs at the cbo estimates that health care tax credits will be worth nearly $40 billion for small businesses over the next decade, $40 billion directly to small businesses who are doing the right thing by their employees. and experts not just from the government, but also commissioned by the business roundtable, suggest health insurance reform could save large employers everywhere from $2,000 to $3,000 per family -- $200,000 to $300 per family. that is your bottom line. there will be incentives to improve patient safety and medical malpractice reforms. and i want to correct a flaw that has already placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on too many small businesses. i appreciate the chamber's help in doing that. but we have to recognize that some common-sense regulations often will make sense for your businesses, as well as your families and neighbors. your responsibility goes beyond recognizing the need for certain standards and safeguards. if we are fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. they have to be shared by american workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living as well as your bottom line. we cannot go back to the kind of economy and culture that we saw in the years leading up to the recession, where growth and gains in productivity did not translate into rising incomes and opportunities for the middle class. that is not something we can legislate, but it is something we all have to take responsibility for thinking about. how do we make sure everybody has got a stake in trade, everybody has a stake in increasing exports, everybody has a stake in rising productivity? ordinary folks and see in their standards of living rise as well. that has been the american promise. that is what jfk meant when he said, "a rising tide lifts all boats." too many boats have been left behind, stuck in the mud. if we as a nation are going to invest in innovation, that innovation should lead to new jobs in manufacturing on our shores. the end result of tax breaks and investments cannot simply be that new breakthroughs and technologies are discovered in america, but the manufacturing takes place overseas. that too break the social compact. it makes people feel as if the game is fixed and they are not benefiting from the extraordinary discoveries that take place here. the key to our success has never been just developing new ideas. it has also been making new products. when intel pioneered the microchip, they put thousands to work building them in silicon valley. henry ford perfected the assembly line and puts a generation to work in the factories of detroit. that is how we built the largest middle-class in the world. those folks working in those plants go out and buy a ford, they buy a personal computer, and the economy grows for everyone. that is how we will create the basic knowledge and skills that propelled the next invention and the next ideas. right now, businesses across this country are proving that america can compete. caterpillar is opening a new plant to build excavators in texas that used to be shipped from japan. in tennessee, whirlpool is opening their first new u.s. factory in more than a decade. dow is building a new plant in michigan to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles. the company called gl-e -- geomagic decided to move their r&d to the united states. these companies are bringing jobs back to our shores. that is good for everybody. if i have one message, the message is now is the time to invest in america. [applause] now is the time to invest in america. [applause] today, american companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. i know many of you have told me you are waiting for demand to rise before you get off the sidelines and expand, and that with millions of americans out of work demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like. we are in this together. many of your economists and sales people are forecasting a healthy increase in demand. i want to encourage you to get in the game. as part of the bipartisan textile we negotiated with the support of the chamber, businesses can immediately expense 100% of capital investments. as all of you know, investments made now will pay off as the economy rebounds. as you higher, you know that more americans working will mean more sales for your companies, more demand for your products and services. it will mean higher profits for your companies. we can create a virtuous circle. and if there is a reason that you do not share my confidence, if there is a reason you do not believe this is the time to get off the sidelines, to hire and invest, i want to know about it. i want to fix it. i have asked jeff from the heat to lead a new council of business exports -- experts. we will be holding our first meeting on the 21st, so you can get e-mails in early with your thoughts about how we keep moving forward to create this virtuous cycle. together, i am confident we can win the competition for new jobs and industries. i know you share my enthusiasm. here is one thing i know. for all of the disagreement we may have sometimes on issues, i know you love this country. i know you want america to succeed just as badly as i do. we will have some disagreements. we will see things differently as -- at times. but we are all americans. that spirit of patriotism and that sense of mutual regard and common obligation has carried us through for harder times than the ones we have just been through. toward the end of the 1930's, the middle of the depression, fdr, president roosevelt, realized he would need to form a new partnership with business if we were going to become what he would later call "the arsenal of democracy." as you can imagine, the relationship between the president and business leaders during the course of the depression had been rocky at times. it had grown somewhat fractured by the new deal. roosevelt reached out to businesses. business leaders answered the call to serve their country. after years of working at cross purposes, the result was one of the most productive collaborations between the public and private sectors in american history. some, like the head of gm, had not previously known the president, and if anything had seen him as an adversary. he gathered his family and explained he was going to head up what would become the war production board. he said to his family, "this country has been good to me, and i want to pay it back." i want to pay it back. and in the years that followed, automobile factors converted -- dr. is converted to making planes and tanks. a toy company made compasses. a pinball machine maker turned out shells. 1941 would see the greatest expansion of manufacturing in the history of america. and not only did this help us win the war, it led to millions of new jobs and helped produce the great american middle class. we have faced hard times before. we have faced moments of tumult and moments of change. we know what to do. we know how to succeed. we are americans, and as we have done throughout our history, i have every confidence that once again we will rise to this occasion. we can come together. we can adapt. we can thrive in this changing economy. we need look no further than the innovative companies in this world. we can harness the potential of your people across this country. i think there is no stopping us. thank you, and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] ["hail to the chief," john philip sousa] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and british prime minister david cameron talks about the need for political change in egypt and discusses the report on the 2009 release of the convicted lockerbie bomber. from the british house of commons, this is 55 minutes. >> the statement of the prime minister. >> with permission, i would like to make a statement on last year's european -- last week's european council and the papers related to the release of [unintelligible] taking the council first, three principal issues were discussed. first, the continuing efforts to tackle instability in the eurozone. second, the role of energy and innovation in a growth strategy for the you. third, egypt. first, the eurozone. eurozone members are looking at ways to resolve some of the underlying problems of the iraq crisis, including by strengthening economic coordination arrangements. my job is to protect britain's interests. it is in our interest that the eurozone sort out its problems. a strong and stable eurozone is in britain's interest. but there are three essentials for britain. first, we should retain our national currency and ability to set our own monetary policy in the u.k. second, we should make sure we are not dragged into a new mechanism for bailing out eurozone countries in future. as i described from the last eurozone council, we achieved that. third, while we should not prevent eurozone countries coming together to deal with problems, we must make sure this does not compromise the single market, which is an important british success story in europe and should remain one of our key interests. there is a danger that in developing stronger coordination eurozone countries start affecting things that are more properly part of the single market for all members. i make sure this was recognized at the council and received assurances to protect the single market. that will be available to members and makes that clear. next come energy policy. extending the single market for energy has been a long objective for all parties. this could add up to 0.8% of european gdp. if we make a 20% improvement on energy efficiency by 2020, it could decrease the pressure on hostile builds -- household bills. cooperation with the rest of europe is firmly in our national interest. the e.u. needs a fully connected internal energy market. that should be completed by 2014. major efforts are needed to modernize and expand it europe's energy infrastructure and to connect networks across borders. this is something britain should strongly support as we planned for the offshore north sea supergrade. -- supergrid. this should be part of the growth strategy in europe. we will propose more before the next european council in march, which will be specifically discussing that. in egypt, i was determined the council should not produce one of its unclear statements. i think the declaration we agreed on is strong. the egyptian authorities should meet the aspirations of the egyptian people throughout reform, not oppression. transition is needed to a democratic government. the declaration is emphatic this transition should start now. the european council was clear this should involve the building blocks of free and open societies, such as freedom of assembly, rule of law, freedom of speech, and fair elections. there is also a strong case that the e.u. needs to look hard at its role in this region. we have spent billions of euros of taxpayer money in egypt and neighboring countries with carefully crafted association agreements and action plans. we have offered funds, access to our the intelligent, there has been little or no progress -- in egypt. this has lasted for 30 years. i believe it is time for europe to take a more hardheaded approach, where the conditions for giving money are korea and acted upon. i was talking to vice president suleiman. this is irreversible, urgent, in real. finally, mr. speaker, let me talk about the release of the lockerbie bomber, al-megrahi. i have not altered my view, which i were suppressed at the time, that releasing him was a very bad decision. he was convicted of the biggest mass murder in british history, and in my view, he should have died in jail. >> hear, hear! >> the government should have condemned it rather than going along with it. there was controversy around the decision. there was an inquiry into it, and there were calls for a bigger u.k. increase, and there were concerns being put foreign -- for a bigger you great -- uk inquiry, and there were concerns being put forth in america, also. it was a decision taken by the scottish to government, a wrong decision, but their decision, nonetheless. all of the british government paperwork should be reexamined to assess whether they should be published, and i asked the cabinet secretary to do all of that. that is now what sir gus o'donnel was asked to do, and he was asked to look at three areas. one, whether there was pressure or lobbying for the release of al-megrahi. second, whether there was pressure for his release, and third, whether the libyans were told that there will linkages between the b.p. investment and the release of al-megrahi. the report and all of the paperwork, 140 pages, has been placed in the library of the house. all decisions on the declassification and publication of papers belong to the previous administration, where it was taken independently by the cabinet secretary. under the convention coverage papers of a previous administration, we have consulted the former prime minister. sir gus was assisted by richard thomas to provide an independent validation. he saw all of the paper, redacted and on redacted, and his job was to provide a report -- redacted and unredacted. he was also tasked with determining whether this was a fair and accurate situation. his release or transfer was one for the scottish government alone to take. he finds that none of the materials he reviewed contradicts anything contained within the former secretary's statement to this house in october 2009. he makes the same finding with respect to the current foreign secretary's letter in july of last year and in regard to statements made by the former prime minister on this matter. he notes that it is evident that the libyans made explicit notes between progress with u.k. commercial interests in libya and the removal of any cause in the prisoner transfer agreement, and excluding al-megrahi from it. he noted that after al-megrahi had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, there was an assessment that you kate efforts would be damaged if al-megrahi were to die in a jail. a key point was bound, and a " policy was developed that the government should do all it could while respecting note -- and that was the policy was development. it was developed that they should do all that they could do while respecting things. one of the foreign office papers released today, and i quote, direct contact between the libyans and the scottish executive is a key part of our game plan on megrahi. another from 2008 says, and i quote, we now need to go forward and discreetly assure that he is transferred back to libya, or failing that release, on compassionate grounds. frankly, i believe that this does tell us something that was not made clear at the time. >> hear, hear! >> we were not told about facilitating an appeal or contact. indeed, the cabinet secretaries report says that the policy was there for progressively devote that hmg should do all it could while assessing an appeal for his transfer were released on compassionate grounds as the best outcome for managing the risks paced by the u.k. -- or released on compassionate grounds as the best outcome for managing risks faced by the u.k. we have learned some new information, but i do not believe that these papers justified calls for a new inquiry. what they do provide is further evidence that this was, in my view, a flawed decision by the scottish, which we already knew, and they point to, i believe, some broader lessons. it is clear that the last government did badly underestimate, in fact, failed even seriously to consider except as an issue to be managed the reaction both in britain and in the united states of the release united al- megrahi, let alone those who have lost loved ones. insufficient consideration was given to the most basic question of all. was it really right for the british government to facilitate an appeal by the libyans to the scottish government in the case on an individual who was convicted of murdering 270 people, including 43 british citizens and 190 americans and 90 other nationalities? that, for me, is the biggest lesson of this entire affair. let me repeat, for my part, i believed it was wrong. the lockerbie bomber is to day living in liberty. this only serves to underline that. mr. speaker, i give this to the house. >> hear, hear! >> i want to thank him for his response. i believe the egyptian people are continuing to show enormous courage and consistency in their desire for fundamental and lasting change, and we support the call, as i said last week, for a clear and credible and transparent transition to power. condemning any attacks on peaceful demonstrators, urging the authorities to allow the people of egypt to continue to exercise their right to free and peaceful protests. on the transition, since the prime minister spoke to vice president suleiman today, can he update us on the talks involving the vice president and tell us whether he thinks these can potentially laid the ground for the transition? also, the latest thinking of the european union and our allies on the difficult role of president mubarak during the transition. on the nature of the transition itself, does the prime minister agree with me that must include not just the provision of free and fair elections but other democratic structures? from the free press two divergent political parties to an independent judiciary? updating the house on the steps he has taken since last week to ensure the safety of british nationals in egypt during the current turbulence. let me turn to the other matters discussed at the european council last friday. on energy policy, we welcome the conclusion of the internal markets of gas and electricity and the grade. we also welcome the plan for the improvement of europe's energy infrastructure. this will make us more resilience in the face of potential supply disruptions, as we saw in 2008, 2009, in the dispute between russia and ukraine. let me also talk about how this relates at home to europe. there are the conclusions of the renewable energy. there is the implementation of a crucial part of his renewable energy strategy, which was to come into force in april of this year but has now been delayed. can the prime minister tell us what it will be? and then with energy investments, across europe, can i ask the prime minister about the progress with the drina investment bank? he is committed to build on our plan, " and he planned to be a full-fledged bank, as many have argued it should be. on the wider economy, including the euro zone, i welcome the council's conclusion. there are the prospects for european growth next year. the conclusion at the summit, they say that the overall economic outlook is improving. i have to say, mr. speaker, it will not feel that way to many families in the u.k. i wonder if the prime minister shares this, and whether this is coming too far and unifest.-- and too fast. let me turn to the case to mr. al-megrahi. the lockerbie bombing was a terrible atrocity, destroying hundreds of lives and scarring the families left behind. reportbinet secretary's into his release, we will study them in detail. there are three significant conclusions to the report, it which pertains to vote al- megrahi's the eventual release. first, you can government was worried about the impact on british interests of al-megrahi dying in jail. precisely as the foreign secretary said in 2009, october. the report makes clear that there is no evidence that, and i quote, "u.k. interests played a released onmegrahi's compassionate grounds." indeed, sir gus concludes, and come again, i quote, they made it evident not communicating. sir gus concludes, al-megrahi's release was a decision that the scott this minister's -- the scottish ministers could and did make. i note -- know -- he can say whether he agrees or not. the bombing of pan am flight 103 must live in the memory of this country and the united states. we must take all steps to assure it does not happen again. >> heawr, hear! >> the prime minister. >> on egypt, i think he is right. i do believe, no one can ever be certain with every statement made with the eu, but i think actually on this issue, saying the egyptian government must choose reform rather than oppression, as i think the behavior of the army in egypt has been encouraging in that regard -- the answer would be good enough to lead to transition. i think it is an extremely difficult question to answer. the point i was making to vice president suleiman that the more they can do to demonstrate that they are, for example, bringing some opposition leaders into a transitional government, the more they can convince people they are trying to reform and change and deal with the constitutional issues, so our advice has been to try to get ahead of the event. i do not think they are doing enough to respond to the aspirations of the egyptian people. i think he is right to say the transition is not just about the date of the election. in terms of u.k. citizens, all of those who wanted to leave have been able to meet. we should continue to keep travel to advise under review >> -- keep travel advice under review. the green investment-banking is moving ahead. one of the things you can do, because we have promised structural reform with dates of implementation, is that things do not happen in the week that they are meant to happen. on the economy, he mentioned the issue of sitting around the european council table and talking about the impacts of cutting budgets. the overwhelming impression i have is listening, and we have been at some length, to reports from greece and portugal and spain about what their economies are going through, and i see what they have had to cut, and you see the difficulties they are in. the warning i take away from that is do not go back into the dangers of where those countries still are. on the issue al-megrahi, i set it out as best as i could in my statement. it is clear to me, those who think there were some kind of conspiracy between bp, the british government and the scots, that is not right. it was a scottish decision. as i say, i do think we have learned something today, in terms of what we were told in this house by ministers. i do think we have, and when we look at what was said in this house and what we now have seen in these papers, i think they will agree with me, and i tried to be very reasonable about this. we were not given a complete picture. >> may i say that i had to visit lockerbie on the night of that disaster and saw the terrible consequences that flow from it, and i have always been appalled by the release of the convicted murderer. >> hear, hear! >> the cabinet secretary says that the previous government wished to do all in its part to facilitate the release of mr. al-megrahi, is it not the case, i ask the prime minister, that the documents show that the minister met with his libyan ministerial counterparts, also with details of the release on compassionate grounds, how it might be obtained, and indeed wrote to his ministerial colleagues in october 2008? does this not concern that the previous government was up to its neck in this business? to see the release of mr. megrahi, and it therefore must share responsibility with the scottish government for one of the most foolish and shameful decisions in recent years? >> hear, hear. >> my right honorable friend rawley brings wisdom and experience to what he says. we were not told by the last government what they did want for this invitation of his release, and that comes over and over again. in the end, this man was convicted of the largest mass murder in british history. that should have been the thought coursing through ministerial veins and brains when they made the speeches. >> mr. jack straw. >> we write fully understand his concern -- we fully understand his concern. but having read the cabinet secretaries report in full, which i have here, i think it was wrong of tampa -- of him to equitation's from the secretary -- to have quotations from the secretary with his own gloss on it. as i believe my honorable friend in the opposition has spilled out, the secretary has concluded that nothing in the material that the cabinet secretary reviewed contradicted anything that my honorable friend the previous secretary told this house on the october 12 in a very detailed manner, or anything that my friend the former minister said on this issue. the continued assertions made by the former prime minister and myself, as has been admitted, there was no pressure from b.p., on the scottish government, that we acted properly at all times, and at no stage did we ever suggest to the scottish government, what decision they should do it. let me just read to the house, mr. speaker, explaining to libya and factual terms about the transfer and informing the scottish government -- all known before, and nothing in contradiction to what was said at the time. >> let me make two points gently to the right the honorable gentleman. firstly, while the cabinet secretary quite rightly, mind you, said that there is nothing in this report that contradicts what the foreign secretary did say, my point is this. , what was not in that statement. because when you look at what is in the report, it is very clear that there were all sorts of things accommodation plans, that we were not made aware of, and in terms of the conclusion, and i do not want in any way to misquote sir gus, but i would just read it up for the house. "policy is developed that hmg should do all that it could to facilitate an appeal by the libyans to the scottish government for al-megrahi's release or on compassionate grounds." they will be able to make up their minds, on what we were told was a full and complete fiction. everyone can make up their mind. and i am sure that is what a reasonable person will come to. >> mr. speaker, the emphasis in these matters has always been on condition, but's it seems to me there was more to take into account. first was the crime, and the consequences of the crime, and third the sentence imposed by the court. had they taken proper account of these factors, then i doubt very much that they would have reached the conclusion which it did, and if i may put the word liberally, wrote the government. -- the government. there are the consequences of the crime and the sentence imposed, then he surely would have found those, which far outweighed any issue of compassion. >> i think the gentleman put it extremely clearly. the fact is that while al- megrahi was allowed to go home and die with his relatives, that was a luxury he did not afford to anyone on that yet, and you have to take into account the nature of the crime when you look at action. when we get away from all of these details and just stand back and think about the big picture, as i say, the lesson to be drawn, i think, you have to keep focusing on the picture, which is the he is crime, the lives that were taken, the families that were wrecked, and someone has to take the consequences for that. >> this does not any way oblige the members. mr. ben crenshaw. -- bradshaw. but this added urgency " to the peace process, and what did the prime minister do to personally do that? >> i did have discussions with their nests -- baroness ashton, and i had a meeting with secretary clinton. there is progress on the peace process that will be made more difficult, but we should keep the pressure up, and it means pressure on both sides, pressure on israel to make progress on issues like settlement, but pressure also on the palestinians to return to meaningful talks. britain will play a very key role in this, and i commend the actions. >> this is lamentable historically. we are way down the list compared to our european partners. will the prime minister do more to make sure that the u.k. plays a leading role in helping british companies to increase trade with countries like tunisia and egypt to support democracy there? >> well, he makes, if i may say, a good point, and we will be going to to mischa later today. we do want to have a good trading relationships with these countries -- we will be going to to mischa -- to tunisia. we should have had a line about what was and what was not appropriate. this is absolutely what we're trying to put together. >> the prime minister with president of the united states and other foreign leaders. it is interesting, why it over the past 25 or 30 years have they been says stymied over what has been happening in that country, including the authoritarian rule, the denial of liberty, things taking place in prisons? these are the sorts of questions that should be asked. >> i think the honorable gentleman makes a good point. as i said in my statement, the eu does have leverage in terms of the aid it gives, and it should be tougher in asking for conditions in return for that aid. i just do not accept that there is, on the one hand, a regime, or on the other, standing up for the tough man, the dictator. we must be encouraging these countries not necessarily to have free elections just like that at the flick of a switch but to put in place the building blocks for generally free countries and open societies that will actually make sure they have lasting democracies when they reach that goal. >> there was the report by sir about the release of al-megrahi, and that is bad enough, but there is the impression created by the last government. >> i think it is for ministers themselves to explain what they said and what they did not say, and, clearly, they can rely on the report on being contradicted. they have to ask themselves the question, given that i was receiving memos about a game plan of facilitating contacts, given that i was signing off on those memos, should i really have said to the house of commons and elsewhere that it was not just that we did not want this man to die in a scottish jail, that we acting with the libyans to secure his release? i think they should have said something more along those lines. in a sense, asking what is there in terms of what we should of been told in terms of when those questions were asked. >> mr. speaker, when it comes to our foreign policy, i hope i can persuade the prime minister to adopt some of this liberalism but in return note -- liberalism when it comes to russia. the united states congress is now considering banning some from the united states of america. will the prime minister consider doing the same? , or will he make sure that those are expressed to the minister when he comes next week? >> i think he makes a good point, and i would be glad to say that i am glad that that liberalism is catching on. that is the approach we have taken with russia, and we do raise questions, including the ones he race, when we hold meetings with president veddas and others. -- president medvedev and others. >> thank you, mr. speaker. there are several key figures in egypt to have made pledges to have a referendum on bill longstanding peace treaty with israel. would my right honorable friend, talking about an earlier answer he gave, agree that one of the key factors in determining whether or not we get a good outcome in egypt will be whether or not. government pension is willing to stop building more settlements and be serious about coming to the peace table? >> he makes a good point, but we should also be clear with the opposition figures in egypt that we see progress on the peace process is absolutely vital for the prosperity in that region, and, frankly, again, we should be making sure that just as this is in return for those things that we care about, we will be standing by agreements. >> mr. roberts. >> i am grateful for a copy of the statement. there has long been a different view taken on compassionate release. the scottish government or the international observers, like nelson mandela, but what is new is that these official u.k. documents prove that in the autumn of 2008, u.k. ministers, supporters, mr al-megrahi being released, they were saying one thing in public and another in private. is that not hypocrisy? >> i have made my view clear, and i tried to state it in a column and reasonable way, because i do not believe that there was a conspiracy -- i try to stay in a calm and reasonable way. nodding. scottish mp's i think they should look back and think, should i have done more? >> i welcome the strong position of support for the egyptian people, particularly with regard to the transition to democracy. however, building the new structures should not be rushed. could i ask the prime minister about the expertise and organizations that the westminster foundation for democracy and another group, both of which have expertise in democracy and are working in egypt? >> the lady makes a point about civil society organizations that can work with one's in egypt. the point i would make about the transition starting now is because the egyptians say there are problems with amending their constitutions, because of that, they should be examining what can they do to build covenants with people on the streets of cairo that they are generally changing. looking at including opposition members in a transitional government and getting signs of what their intentions are would make a difference. >> al-megrahi, there are two statements, he should of been separated. many of us have to hold down our -- can you say something about indicia? it is a small country, highly educated, looking to europe for help. what can we do to bring it closer to europe? >> the gentleman makes a good point, and that is why the foreign secretary is going to tunisia and putting in place the building blocks of a free and open society. one of the problems is the massive level of corruption. that has anchored their population, and we need to work with them. going back to the issue of libya, everyone had to hold their nose and taught the people that we did not want to deal with people. governments were frank about what we were doing and what we were doing it. >> it is important we do nothing to talk up the prospect of wider stability in north africa. as my friend should share my dismay at the reports in the western press that seeks to conflict inherently unstable countries like egypt and tunisia with countries like morocco that have a far more enlightened states. >> an important point. we should not assume every country is the same. the point i would make is genuine stability should be based on the progress of realization of the goal of the more open society and the building blocks of the sort of civil society recognized. you cannot pretend that you saw these problems by holding elections. we should be clear as people who believe in these rights that there are things that we should achieve elsewhere. >> the prime minister referred quite rightly to the efforts of the work of baronnes ashton. in that context, what is his understanding of the united states' added to the changes going on in egypt? is it united states policy to support the view that president mubarak should stay or to support the e.u. feud that there should be an early transition? >> very well put a question. the u.s. and u.k. are absolutely aligned on this. i spoke to the president over the weekend, and we're pushing for the same thing is, we want transition, we wanted to be real, start now, it should include some of the things we have been discussing here today, like opposition figures into the government, like this for a road map for elections, make sure that they deal with some of the abuses of the past. in terms of what the chairman said, the way he put his words was not a for reflection of the government view. >> thank you. given the important speech on the weekend, does he not agree with me that the last government's facilitation of the release of al-megrahi gave the wrong signal to dictators across the globe, because of it represents a setback? would you take steps to ensure that we are not faced with this situation again? >> a good point, that a bad message was sent about what we stand for in the u.k. in terms of the response to such a heinous crime. as i said, i do not think enough thought was given to that. the most precious of all judgments the minister should make. >> can i agree with the prime minister that he should have spent the rest of his natural life in prison? does he agree with me that however the considered our game plan on al-megrahi maybe, that it must not obscure from the fact that this was a decision that was taken and could only have been taken by scottish government ministers? there was no collusion, no coverup, no conspiracy, just a bad decision. >> i go along way with the german. -- with that of lead. the problem was that in memos submitted, they were put things like facilitating direct contact between the libyans and the scottish executive is the key part of our game plan. that was a submission that was agreed by the minister. that is the point, the language about facilitating contacts that was put into this, agreed by ministers, including the former foreign minister, and were not told about that in the house of commons. that needs to be addressed. >> one-fifth of the egyptian population are christians, mostly copts. with my friend agree that pluralism and human rights needs to be at the center of any dialogue in the future of egypt, and a litmus test whether egypt is going forward in the 21st century will be the treatment of minorities such as christians in the weeks and months to come? >> my friend makes a good point, and when you consider how much money the do you has put into a country like egypt, like 500 million euros, it is exactly the same thing that we should be insisting on, and what i think is the test of a civilized society. >> the 17 member states of the euro stoner will be comfortable safeguarding the euro in the future. 60% of our trade is with the european union. i urge him not to treat the union, it must also cover immigration and security, many things. >> i do not agree with that gentleman. 50% of our trade is with the eu. we want a healthy euro zone. if he needs to have to join everything, this is concurrency, frankly, it cannot be had. >> is it not for her that we have a prime minister that goes to europe and put britain's interest first? would the prime minister clarify just one point. he said he will not be dragged into a mechanism to bail out the euro zone countries. are we ruling out a mechanism that will not help bail out the euro? >> a good question, with a complicated answer. because of the decisions of the last government, we are still at risk of the european financial mechanism that was set up at that time, that was used in part to help ireland. we have a risk of that happening again. what we have achieved in terms of the treaty change that has been proposed is to make sure that the uk cannot be pulled into a feature mechanism to do this since. that is the position we have managed to secure. in europe, if you secure these things, you have to make sure you damn well securities things for the future. >> the prime minister said that it is time for europe to take a better approach for the conditions in which we give money are real and insisted upon. the baroness asked about whether the union will insist on conditionality. could the prime minister tell us whether the u.k. insisted on this and your cannot agree on this? >> what we discussed at the european council was a specific declaration on egypt, and i made sure that in that declaration there was language about association agreements that we entered into and making sure that they were real and tangible. it seems to me important, and i am sure the baroness in looking at the conclusion is that we reached, will recognize we did agree that should be the case. >> could the prime minister tell us if the eu council took note of the fact that marco, that is embracing a human rights agenda, has not broken into unrest? can we encourage other nations in the area to take part in negotiations of the future of the sahara? >> that is important. all the things that will help encourage stability and progress and peace rather than strike. just to come back in terms of the association agreement, the declaration on egypt says that we agreed the basis for the eu's ship with yves must be the principle set out and the commitments made. european leaders agreed with that statement. >> were there discussions of the council concerning yemen? we are aware of how important this is, and the excellent talks between the foreign secretary and the yemeni secretary -- is he satisfied with a packet of mayor is -- the stability of yemen is vital if the government falls, i that will be the winner? >> an important point, yemen is vital to the security of our world, as there has been such a lot of activity in that part of the carribean peninsula. in terms of what was discussed, yemen was mentioned. in terms of the action that the president has taken, we want to see it in detail, we want to see it put in place. i think that he has had something of a wake-up call in yemen because of the incredible successes and problems that country faces. we to work with them. i have met the president, spoken to him on the phone. the foreign seniti has had meetings. we need to help that country with the foreign pergola, said that it becomes more stable and able to dance -- to deal with al qaeda. >> does my friend believe it is kunzel an incidence despite numerous assurance from the government that mr. ronnie biggs will remain in government until -- in prison until he dies, or release him on compassionate grounds weeks before al-megrahi was released? >> he is putting me into territory where i should not go. it is a good medical record that people released from prison on of keeling over than last a very long time. >> in the morning where our papers are full of stories about the predicament of british banks, that are vulnerable to loans they made over recent years at the same the new newspapers are full of bankers bonuses, was there a discussion about the perilous state of our banking system across europe and the fact that the bonuses are still being paid out at this level? >> we discussed what lies at the heart of the euro stonecrest, part of which is a number of banks that are overextended. what we are doing is having a conversation with the banks were returned to sort out what we want to see -- paying more tax, doing more lending, and a smaller bonus pool than last year. i am confident we shall be able to achieve that. >> we know the truth of this, if al-megrahi had come from a -- he would still be in prison. imagine the pain of the mothers and fathers of the people killed in this fight today, can the prime minister on behalf of the british people say sorry, apologize, an articulate the few that we will never again appease dictators in the interests of politicians? >> i would say to all those who lost loved ones in that appalling terrorist act that we are profoundly sorry for their loss and for how they have suffered. when one of them said i am not able to spend christmas at home with my loved ones in a way that this man is, i did they spoke for everybody, and we have to understand that when there is a crime committed like that, it is not some sense of retribution just to say that that person should not be released from prison. they have to basically committed a life sentence on all of those families. >> should open doors -- will the prime minister recognize and address concerns of the weakness of his policies for growth so that jobs are created in the u.k. and small businesses can properly apply for and get jobs in the supply chain? >> i cannot accept that the gentleman says. this is going to be helpful for the onshore and offshore wind industry and other renewable industries. here in the uk we have provided specific grants to portis to update their infrastructure so they can manufacture wind turbines and provide offshore wind. i have spoken personally to comment -- to companies who are doing that. >> the prime minister has highlighted a significant insignificant -- inconsistency. it is obviously the focus should be on the victims of this crime. once a -- what assessment has the prime minister made as to the defect of the relationship with parts of the administration? >> i give as good. i discussed this issue with mr. clinton when we met at the weekend, and had been grateful for the very strong and clear view that the government has taken about the surrounding the release of al-megrahi. this goes to what my hon. friend said, we want to have good relations, not just with america, but with libya and other countries. you have to have some pretty clear lines in your mind about what is going to be part of that relationship and what is not. i think it is possible to have good relationships if you're clear about these things. >> i spoke briefly with one of the victims of the lockerbie bombing is. the families of these victims will be interested to read the report issued today. i wonder whether my friend is aware of whether any previous ministers from the government tried to meet with these families, to represent these victims, to explain policies that have come to light today? >> i know a number of victims families will be interested in the report, and some will be seeking meetings with the government or with others, and to be frank with the hon. gentleman, not all of the families take the same view about how al-megrahi and what happened and whether he was responsible and all the rest of it. i think we have to be clear that he was convicted after a properly constituted and thorough trial. had an appeal which was quashed, and on that basis, the decisions that were made were clearly wrong decisions. in the cabinet secretary's report, he noted that former secretary contemplated the merits of offering the scottish government a letter of support to release al-megrahi. it was clear it was going policy not to put any pressure on the scottish government. >> to be clear, i'm not trying to defend him, but it says and the report that he considered making a contact to the scottish executive and then decided it. that is one of the pieces of evidence where it was not what i would call the great conspiracy, that some particularly, and i met with senators representing victims' families, thought might happen. it is easy to think that might have happened, if you see what was saying, but i do not think that was what the evidence that's up for. there was no conspiracy. it was a scottish the system. this highlights the report of what we were told of how we were told it. should economic migrants come to the eu, cannot send them back to greece. how can we get them to secure their part of the front here? >> wheaton not discuss the migration issue at this council, but we discussed it often, because they are often the doorway to mid 70 migrants come. we need to make sure we are able to return people, and the range of jean britain and france are good. the second point i will make is one of the reasons we should not have a common immigration policy is i do not want our population to be dependent on decisions made at the border of other countries. that is why i think this is an area that we should keep of national competence. >> up next, a conversation with former white house press secretaries. after that, the president addresses business leaders at the chamber of congress. -- commerce. then, british prime minister david cameron at the british house of commons. tomorrow, gerry connolly talks about the present house speech to the chamber of congress --, spirit alexander young on the global economy and the u.s. stock market. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern. then more about the political unrest in egypt. live coverage from the hudson institute begins at 10:00 eastern. >> cpac has been held annually for 30 years. search and watch and share any time. it is washington your way. >> now a discussion with former white house press secretaries. george washington university school of media and public affairs hosted the defensevent . it is about 90 minutes. >> please welcome the president of george washington university. >> welcome to the historical lisner auditorium. we provide our friends and neighbors with a front-row seat with a theater of history, and tonight is no exception. we're delighted have four former white house said batavia's secretaries. i am pleased that one of them, for dana perino, this is an extension of her classes at the school of management. i am pleased to welcome ed henry. the program, is part of a conversation series hosted by frank cescno. ladies and gentleman, please welcome me in -- please join me in welcoming frank. >> i want to thank the president and the support of the university for helping to make this conversation series possible as well as the dean of the college of columbia arts and society -- sciences. i would like to thank the great faculty and students of the school of media and public affairs. a word of thanks and recognition to the graduate school of political management. they have been great partners this is produced by the center for innovative media, and periodically we meet with people in this public sphere of life to discuss with them the direction of the country, the role the media plays and connecting citizens with those who are governing, and the way we communicate as a society. our guests have included hillary clinton, robert gates, tom ridge, walter mondale, and we examine this remarkable intersection of media, political communication, and public affairs. we study, teach, and explore political communication, the fundamental connection between the government and the governing and to the role that journalism and media play in making that happen. tonight is an ideal conversation to explore this strange intersection, and i am happy to say it is being broadcast live on c-span. it will air multiple times on satellite radio. it will be aired on the podus channel. i am also privileged to have as one of our visiting fellows ed henry. i watch him with a close eye, having been in the white house correspondent job at cnn knowing what he does every day, and every day he reports to work at the white house. it is not a bad address. he teaches a course here at the university this semester, along with joe la carte, who is -- joe lockhart. he is unfortunately not able to be with us tonight. he has just gone home. i am happy to say he started physical therapy and he sends his regards and is sorry not to be here. it took a broken leg to keep him away. and it teaches with joe, and i have asked him to get us started with a few remarks on what is at stake every day when he goes to work in that place called the briefing room in the white house. please welcome ed henry. >> thank you. it is great to be here with frank because we have a new blog at cnn. we did this tribute to ronald reagan. when i grew up, i did not know much about ronald reagan himself. when i learned i learned from the judd request from the journalists covering him. they set the standard of keeping politicians on the spirit the care they took to the craft of of journalism is what inspired me to become a white house correspondent myself. i was impressed with their work, especially frank, because he tells me he is only 45 years old. that means he was covering ronald reagan when he was 15 years old. today i got an e-mail and fighting need to a farewell party for robert gibbs. the nation's highest-paid kindergarten teacher is finally leaving the classroom. i thought was funny and all i thought was an insult to my colleagues in the media since we are in that robert room every day. i have been on the speed since march, 2006, and having sparred with the guest at a coming out, ari threatened to turn this around and and have the former press secretaries asked me questions. i can tell you having done this for five years, this is not to the guard. when cnn assignee, i admitted i was scared. this is a big beat. capitol hill is big. it has a narrower scope of domestic politics. when i was covering leaders by a slight dick armey -- the first time i went out on the north lawn, every word i uttered is dissected here and abroad. people in dozens of countries watching these reports. with the social media and the way it is growing, there is more pressure to get the store force. the pressure that we have multiplied that, when you talk about these press secretaries who are at that most public podium. the world is watching them and words can come back to haunt them. we have seen me lies back and change history. they are catching these missiles, every day, every hour as they come in from bloggers. the work we have to make sure to make sure we get our reports right, we have to make -- their words can literally topple the government. that is why have the respect for the people who will come up here in a moment. i will leave you in a moment. it is a story i passed along from the white house. it was when tony snow was the white house press secretary. he left behind a lot of lessons that can teach us about how to carry ourselves prepared he and i got off to the wrong foot a little bit because he came from fox news to the bush white house. there was already that. i was pressing him on the war in iraq. one time it reached a boiling point, and tony snapped at me and said, "zip it." a few days later i bumped into him on the north lawn and we work in close talking to speak -- talking to each other, but his assistant saw us and thought we were so close we were about to become the blows. he came over and said recent i'm going to have to buy you guys some boxing gloves. tunney said something that i never forgot, which was this is not personal. and as a job to do and i have a job to do, and it is something for us to remember, when we get into these debates, tough things that happen, decisions of enormous gravity that presidents have to make and press secretaries have to be the public face up. there needs to be a healthy dose of respect on what we call both sides of the body. i will bring back frank. >> thank you. our guests have seen, shape, and give voice to incredible history. from black hawk down in somalia to the impeachment of a president to 9/11 and the war in iraq. their job is a complicated and may be impossible one, to represent the president, to articulate administration policy, to communicate with a skeptical world, to manage the media, let me think about that for a minute. manage the media, to tell the truth, or at the very least, we hope, and trust, not to lie, and to do it for radio, television, facebook, local news, for news, and hostile news. when deedee myers to the podium, there were 50 active web sites. when dana left the job, there were about 200 billion websites. how times have changed. yet some things to not change, and that is whether we believe the information and whether the information is credible. only three years since we have had something called twitter. we will explore the role of the white house press secretary, with people who have seen an articulate it and shape this remarkable history set against this phenomenal media backdrop, that we all share and -- in one form or another, here and around the world. i would share one story with you, and you will hear many more. after 9/11, within days after, i was the bureau chief at cnn, and ari fleisher was the press secretary. he said, we are in a different time now. the country and the world have changed. what you must understand that i am sure you do is what you say and broadcast will be seen in afghanistan, at the same moment it is seen in albany. he had some special instructions, which we will talk about in a bit, but fundamentally he was asking us not to report on the whereabouts of the president or the cabinet assembled at the time. it was a sobering moment, and we know the world changed then and the world continues to change in a remarkable and sometimes unpredictable way. let me start by bringing out to you a man who was the press secretary to bill clinton had a rather compelling time in his presidency. mike mccurry, press secretary from 1994 until 1998. [applause] someone i hope many of you know with your experience directly in class or listening to her and apparently she is a twitter phenom. when she tweets, the world listens, dana perino. [applause] ok. >> wow. >> are a fleischer -- ari fliescher was the press at a remarkable time, 9/11, and now he is deeply ensconced in sports. ari fleischer. and finally, as i mentioned, when she became the first female white house press secretary, dee dee meyers took a job at a very important time and a very sensitive time. we're off to a great start. he has got my back. ladies and gentlemen, dee dee meyeres. -- meyers. i am going to sit down and be safe here. well, how many watched the super bowl last night? how many green bay fans do we have? how many steelers fans do we have? i will not put you on the spot. and of us raised our hands because we learn not to take sides. >> i did, packeres fans. >> before the game, barack obama sits down with of all people bill reilly of fox news for another contest, good idea, bad idea? >> crape idea. -- great idea. everybody in america is in a good mood. bill o'reilly knew that, and i thought president obama answered wonderfully, and that was a likable person you remember from the 2008 campaign. >> it was not dignified, he does not belong there? >> he went to the lion's den and showed that he could take on bill o'reilly. >> we have a real time crisis in the world, which we're watching closely and it takes shape tremendously by some of what is and the this town white house. the white house and the president have called for a transition, and they have said it should be now. but there has been confusion over what now really means. the you know what the policy is that is communicated? >> not really, but i anderson is somewhat evolves because of circumstances and events and the kids of foreign policy. i think one of the problems after they was having two different spokes people from the administration, plus, president obama speaking at the top at the same time. but you should probably be all synched up. >> this is one of the great examples of the complexity of this job in the global world we now live, because if you are a white house press secretary you are speaking to local and -- multiple licenses and sometimes you have new wants messages that you are delivering. the ambassador has a specific message he is delivering to his friend hosni mubarak, so it may not be the message that you want a global audience to reach. how deep you target these messages and a time when everything is instantaneously global? it is a challenge. >> mubarak has to be there, but meanwhile we have people, the secretary of state, saying that the transition has to be now. confusing? >> this is the reality when something is so sensitive. you are hearing tense focused on the subtleties of it. i happen to think -- did not tell anybody this? but barack obama is handling this quite well. this is one where you want to be slow and steady, slowly said goodbye to the president mubarak, and slowly pushed for reform. if you think what you're watching now is chaotic, just wait until there is a power vacuum and the army and police decided to settle it, then it gets messy, with a lot of loss of life. he knows that. he is trying to walk a tight rope, which all presidents and presser carries half to watch. >> i will watch but i will let you watched a little bit of what robert gibbs is clarifying, what now means by transition, and courtesy of cnn, which cut this thing for us, let us let you take a look at this. how you define now, because now means they, not september? >> now we met yesterday. they are in the here and now, and now was as to pay. the time for transition has come, and that time is now. you're asking me if now is september? it is unseasonably warm, but it is not september. [laughter] bring back memories? >> the meaning of the word is -- [applause] >> each of us could probably name a hundred times in which we could do it over and to explain more articulately, particularly with hindsight as our co-pilot. it is hard when events breaking and you are trying to walk that fine line, trying to send messages to the all right audience, and do it as best you can and. >> and usually you have your best thoughts at 1:00 a.m. >> that is the role, which in my office, the worst thing for me to happen was for me to be surprised at the podium. i could remember a few times, but pretty much a constant -- [laughter] >> because of 24/7 news cycles, reporters are asking questions all day long. by the time he got to the briefing room at noon, they have been asking questions since 4:00 a.m. he knew and you could tell where robert gibbs was looking, that is her ed henry is. they know where they are generally trending. >> what he was trying to do was defuse the moment. >> that is a good example of something important. these briefings are the raw ingredients of news coverage of the white house. they're not news in and of themselves. it was an idiot who allow the tv cameras to go in there. >> that would be me. >> when you are trying to nuance and tease out a calibration of what a statement makes that a president has made, it is not supposed to be carried live on national television. it is supposed to be what reporters used to test to go on to other sources and inform the composite, which is the story the present to the american people. >> you brought cameras to the briefing room on a regular basis? >> good idea in 1995. bad idea when monica lewinsky came along. >> let's come back to the crisis and talk about this moment, because this is a serious business of your job. sending messages from the white house podium kamal ari, i know you were there, 9/11, you were there when the war started and took place. what role did you have in sending messages, and were you conscious that you were the messenger? >> yeah. on september 12, that was the first time that george bush used the word "war" publicly. that night when he addressed the nation, he spoke more of reassurance and hope, and the next day ratcheted it up and use the word "war." for me that changed everything. he realized things are starting to move, and that sent dramatic signals around the world, that the purpose changed after 9/11. in iraq, it was my job to make the statement that said, has 48 hours. >> you essentially issued the ultimatum. was that a deliberate strategy? how was that decision made? >> it was a last-minute summit in the azores with prime minister blair. we were hoping that saddam would the of the country. it was a last-ditch hope that we could say he has 48 hours. when i said so, has 48 hours to leave, otherwise the consequences would would be immediate, reporter is jumped from their seats and ran. >> do you know you were going out there to make that? you must have realized. did you push back, coral those who said we want you to go out and say this? >> they knew it was going to happen one way or another, so for six months i was getting ready. >> signals the views and deliberately from the podium? >> boy, you caught me. i did not have to send in the forests of dom abizaid. the signals i was thinking today, when president clinton in his first year was putting together his first budget, and one of the things we were doing, the country was coming out of recession, and we were sending signals to the financial markets that the president was going to take seriously about balancing the budget, which he did. we tried to send those markets so we could push congress to say that markets are responding positively. that was an example of a more the interesting situation. it was successful her. we were able to use this positive feedback we were getting from the market that this was a strategy that would work. >> you have multiple audiences, who you are talking to, and how deep you calibrate this messages to reach those different audiences? >> when you are the press secretary, you can look into the briefing room, which is a lot smaller than it looks like on tv. in some ways he can get caught up in answering questions to the 20 people assembled there, and you forget people overseas are listening to you. i remember being surprised that there were two places i was recognized more than anywhere else, and it was south korea and israel. i think that was because at that time the north koreans were quite aggressive in their form of diplomacy, i guess, and the south koreans would watch every day, because they want to know, is america still with us? that was the same with israel, and particularly during the 2007-2008 timeframe when we were looking for a way to get prime minister -- president abbas and prime minister livni come to the table. don't forget that there are people around the world watching, because they want to know where the leader of the free world stands on their issues. >> mike, you are very unusual in this group because you had experience at the state department, a totally different dynamic. >> i told president clinton right now because of the two great job to give me, that was a far more interesting one to be at the podium of the state department because it was harder work. part of the reason is because it is a much more substantive press corps. they did not go for a lot of the silly stuff that happens of the white house sometimes. as one of the problems that you have, you have to rise up and express righteous indignation from the white house podium on a matter of critical foreign- policy substance after you have just been engaged in some kind of political sparring back and forth about what the republicans are doing with the democrats are doing, it is jarring for the american public because they do not know which at you are wary, or political pugilist working for the president or an official spokesman working on behalf of the united states government. with a lot conflict in this role for the press secretary that needs to be resolved. probably all of us agree that we were better off when we brought other people in, the secretary of state, the people who were responsible, into the briefing room so they could actually speak on behalf of united states government. i have been concerned that too many of the political actors who worked for the president migrate into the role of being the official spokespeople on a critical matter. i am not sure that is the role. >> the briefing in the modern area since might allow the cameras in and started covering briefings live, it has become a tv show. it is not the substance between the work of the press corps and the spokesman. a posture and give the answers. it is a tv show. the real work is when a reporter comes in, closes the door, and tops the one on one. >> i conclude the american public might not be very well served, because if you think reporters and you are posturing, what is becoming to the information coming from the podium who, they get their news from edgemere december of corrections, and the white house briefing is but one. the mao one of the things -- >> we are in the 20 as first century now and we are using a 19th century format. no matter what person, that person can do a briefing for the press corps, and all the news funnel to the white house and it is a totally a man -- and acquitted way. we have to reinvent the function of public information within government, and i think marginalize the role of the press secretary. limit the role. >> i would like ad, every day you see that press secretary defending the present. what you do not see and what i did a lot of and what my colleagues did is defending the press to the president and to the senior staff. is never seen unless you are trying to make sure the press corps can get into a meeting. one of the most important roles of the press secretary was to protect the role of the press, to remember they had a job to do. ed said that tony snow said on the record about that. it is an important role, to remind everybody that while they might drive you crazy, it is their role and -- >> give us an example. i would have liked have a camera there. mr. president, you have to think about -- the law the press always wants access. a press secretary best job is to fight for as much of that that is reasonable and the level. e september 13, 2001, that ma president was going to new york the next day. normally, that would be a private phone call the president would make. i suggested that then see this phone call. >> what was your motivation? >> it would be good for the president to be seen talking to the two leaders of the city that was hurt so much. >> that was where he got emotional. he feels like i do. >> a reporter asked him, how do you feel about what is going on? how are you getting to this? for the first time, with the cameras rolling, an emotional man asked an emotional question, he shared out, and said, i am a caring kind of guy. my job is to care for the people who are the victims and not for myself. he physically walked out and was about to lose it. >> there are those who would say and justifiably that to bring cameras in to a moment like that is stagecraft. >> and reporters who asked questions like that, to bring the pressed into a moment where there is right in the oval office, people yelling about bascothat, of course, no. >> we solicited questions of mine from those who are attending and others who might be interested, and they were voted upon. i will incorporate them. this is from aaron, and he asks, when is it ok to lie or knowingly withhold information on behalf of the president? >> never. >> those are two very different questions. >> i famously got in trouble once. sometimes the art is telling the truth slowly. >> i listened to you do a lot of that. >> all of us have had a situation where we know things that are going to happen, but we cannot talk about them because sometimes you might put someone's life in jeopardy. there are other times when the political and diplomatic protocol and not allow you to acknowledge something publicly at that moment. but you can never consciously lied because that destroys the credibility, the trust that is elemental about serving the president and serving the press corps. dana made a good point that you are caught in this weird position, and the geography, for those of you who watched "the west wing," the real west wing, the back door of the office that all four of us had, you walk out of it, you turn right, and 25 feet you are in the oval office, with the president yelling at you about how the press is. you are juxtaposed between these actors. you have to keep both have as of that equation happy, and it is a very tricky thing to do, because usually will not make your colleagues and the white house happy, you can never make the press corps happy, because they are always bitching and moaning about something, and it is a formula for have been to establish a way in which people get your queues of what you are trying to say -- >> d. you feel you live on behalf of the president during the monocle lewinsky think? >> i said here is the statement i have, i am not going to go beyond that. i was very conscious because i was not aware -- ipo famously sd i would am not going to parse the statement. it was a very uncomfortable thing. i prided myself on other circumstances on being on top of the information and giving it to the american people. it was a matter that was clearly being investigated by a very determined, aggressive prosecutor. president had some privileges, very few of when which remained after a executive privilege and attorney-client privilege, that we could not put in jeopardy. we did not allude the environment by saying, hey, is the deal between you and this check? -- chick? >> you were asked any number of time to define things. other reports that were out there. this all came to you, and a lot of them you got or talked around. you ultimately -- the line was that this was a political mine that the special prosecutor was pursuing, and that was the implication, and the president was the ninth these things was the ninth these things happen, and

Related Keywords

Brazil ,China ,Portugal ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,United States ,Ukraine ,Arizona ,India ,Egypt ,Morocco ,Massachusetts ,Wyoming ,Hollywood ,California ,Libya ,Ireland ,Panama ,South Korea ,Spain ,Greece ,North Sea ,Oceans General ,Oceans ,New York ,Japan ,Germany ,Armenia ,Afghanistan ,Texas ,Colombia ,Michigan ,United Kingdom ,Tunisia ,Cairo ,Al Qahirah ,Iraq ,Tennessee ,Israel ,North Korea ,Somalia ,Capitol Hill ,Yemen ,France ,Americans ,Egyptians ,South Koreans ,Russian ,North Koreans ,Libyans ,Egyptian ,Britain ,German ,British ,Libyan ,Yemeni ,American ,Ronnie Biggs ,Robert Gibbs ,America ,Dee ,David Cameron ,Ronald Reagan ,George Bush ,Walter Mondale ,Gerry Connolly ,Mike Mccurry ,Deedee Myers ,Al Qaeda ,John Philip Sousa ,Hosni Mubarak ,Joe Lockhart ,Rupert Murdoch ,Dana Perino ,Ron Kirk ,Tom Ridge ,Ben Crenshaw ,Scott Brown ,Henry Ford ,William Howard Taft ,Steve Chu ,Monica Lewinsky ,Barack Obama ,Dee Meyers ,Tina Brown ,Richard Thomas ,Tom Donohue ,Nelson Mandela ,Ed Henry ,Dick Armey ,Ray Lahood ,Hillary Clinton ,