quorum call:

mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to discuss the ongoing imprisonment of three young americans: joshua fatal from pennsylvania, and two other americans who have been imprisoned in iran with him, sarah shard and shane bower. these are three americans who have now spent more than seven months in solitary confinement in iran's evin prison, for

allegedly crossing a poorly marked border, the border between iran and iraq. since their detention along the iran-iraq border on july 31 of 2009, the iranian government has refused requests from their attorney for visits. the government of iran has delayed due process, rejected requests from family members to call or visit them. the iranian regime has also delayed requests for iranian visas for the families and stonewalled the swiss embassy's attempt to carry out diplomatic visits. the longer the detainment of these young americans continues, the more clear it becomes to the international community that the iranian government, the iranian regime is engaged in political games rather than seeking to grant them a fair and timely

judicial process. so on this basis, i request that supreme leader khamenei, president ahmadinejad and judiciary chief larijani and other iranian officials make the humane and just decision to release josh, sarah and shane immediately. keeping these three innocent americans in prison without due process violates the international human rights standards as well as iran's own laws. it has been more than two months since foreign minister mataki claimed that they would be tried in court, yet no trial date has been set. according to iranian law, no detain can be held temporarily for more than four months. thus, judiciary officials must either schedule a court hearing or set the three young americans

free. the only conclusion that the international community can draw from the iranian government's words and actions is that they intend to keep these three young americans in limbo for domestic or foreign policy aims. this has nothing to do, it has nothing to do with the actions or intentions of these three american tourists. who were simply admiring the national beauty of the kurdish mountains near the iran-iraq border. the world is a much worse off place when idealism, especially idealism held by innocent young people, is squashed by cynical politics. among ancient persia's greatest legacies is a transparent and efficient justice system. innocent people do not appear on the court docket. we ask the iranian government,

we ask them to send the world the unambiguous message that transparent, timely and fair judicial processes remain a cornerstone of iranian civilization. keeping josh, sarah and shane indefinitely in solitary confinement and without access to legal counsel or their family is unjust and is sure to color the visions of iranian society for young people the world over. don't make josh, sarah and shane and their desperately concerned parents wait another day before being reunited. supreme leader khamenei, release these young hikers now. madam president, in addition to that set of remarks about those young americans, i did want to spend a couple of minutes before

i know we may go out for the lunch hour, to talk for a few minutes about unemployment and what's happening across -- certainly across the country but in particular in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. we have 560,000 people out of work right now in pennsylvania. our rate is lower than a lot of places but we still have that many people out of work, a very high number. maybe not historic but close to a historically high number, 560,000 pennsylvanians. there are lots of ways to try to understand what people are going through and try to get a sense of what people are living through. i had a chance a couple of weeks ago to sit with eight of those 560,000 people in a -- what's called a career link, a job center in pennsylvania where people are filling out scores of

applications applying for jobs. and in the case of these eight individuals, they were all over the age of 50, many over the age of 60 and 70, some of the worst situations are those who are in that -- that age bracket, who worked for years, 20, 30 years at one job and did it very well and through no fault of their own, they're out of work. and listening to their stories gave me a better insight into what people are -- are up against everyday. a number of comments were significant and relevant and poignant, but one in particular by a woman by the name of debbie who said, something very simple but -- but telling about what is in her heart and what she's living through. she said simply, we just want to get back to work. very simple statement. but that's i think on the minds of a lot of americans who are out of work and their family

members. they just want to get back to work. and they also want to see that washington is not just legislating -- that's obviously important, and we'll talk a little more about that in a moment -- but that we're trying to understand what they're up against, that they do just want to get back to work. it's that simple. one of the ways that we can do that is by making sure that those who are out of work, those something like 15 million americans out of work through no fault of their own, that we do something to help them in the next couple of days just to get through the next couple of weeks literally with unemployment insurance and cobra health insurance and so many other ways. we should note that the eligibility for emergency unemployment compensation and for cobra -- known as cobra premium assistance -- really health insurance for the unemployed -- that both of those will expire this sunday, february the 28th. if an extension of the

unemployment insurance program's authorized by the recovery act is not passed, 1.2 million workers will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of march. so we've got to act now to prevent that from happening. it's unfortunate that it seems there's only an agreement to keep extending it from december to february and then from february into march or the end of march. we should extend it a lot further than that. i think we're going to have an opportunity to do that. but at a minimum, we have to make sure that uninsurance imaish unemployment insurance is ex-- unemployment insurance is extended and cobra health insurance. there are other reasons to do that as well and the most important reason is the people who will be positively impacted by those actions. but an extension of these federally funded unemployment compensation and cobra programs through december 31 of 2010, what we should do is extend it that far, but they're necessary for a number of reasons.

state labor departments will not be under pressure to constantly update their systems and inform constituents of changes in federal law. we should give them the kind of certainty and predictability that they should have a right to expect. certainly the state government officials but, more importantly, the families affected. pernts who were recently laid off will constantly be remended that their unemployment benefits may run out sooner than expected, especially at a time when there are six applicants for every one job. and, thirdly, it is important to take action on unemployment insurance and cobra health insurance coverage for a third reason as well: at a time when millions of people don't have health care coverage itself, failure to provide an awed adequate safety net to ensure people maintain affordable health insurance coverage will only add to the rolls of the uninsured in

america, in the midst of this debate on health care. and two off three other points before i conclude. according to the congressional budget office, the c.b.o. -- which we keep quoting in the health care debate and in so many other debates. the congressional budget office says that for every buck, every $1 spent, on unemployment insurance benefits, up to $1.90 is contributed to the gross national product. this is further evidence, in addition to what i and many others have quoted -- mark zandi from moo moodyieys.com -- you sa buck to help workers who lost their job. you not only help someone who lost their job, you also help our economy, literally by

jump-starting spending. we know that in the past couple of days we passed a jobs bill, the so-called h.i.r.e. the hire act. a good piece of legislation for creating and preserving lots and lots of jobs. but that jobs bill is not enough. we've got to pass these safety net provisions on unemployment and cobra health benefits. but we also have to 3u9 more job-creation -- but we also have to put more job-creation strategies on the table and get bills passed to create more and more jobs. the recovery bill is still having an effect, still having a tremendous impact in pennsylvania, still co have a we year left of spending and benefits of that spending in pennsylvania and a lot of other states. i see my colleague from pennsylvania, senator specter, with us today. he and i have been seeing that up close in pennsylvania.

a tremendous impact already but still more to go on the recovery bill stleeted for under great pressure not to vote for it, and thank goodness he did, because without his vote, that bill wouldn't have passed. and millions of americans lives would be adversely impacted if we didn't pass the recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. so we have a long way to go, much more work to do across the country and to have a positive impact in pennsylvania. one concluding thought on unemployment: unfortunately, it's bad news. when you playbook at pennsylvania, we might have a lower rate than a lot of states but we do have those 560,000 people out of work. but unfortunately more and more we're seeing in different labor markets in pennsylvania -- the eerie labor market, pennsylvania, is at 10%, allentown and that region is at

8%. my home area is at 9.7%. so even though our rate has not yet hit statewide 9%, we're seeing in different poblghts that number going way up. so we have to continue to put job-creation strategies in the pipeline, continue 0 have the recovery act to have a more positive impact and thirdly we need to make sure that we pass safety net provisions. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. specter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: madam president, i have sought recognition to talk briefly about two subjects -- a recent codel where i participated, and secondly on the passing of a beloved staff member. and i would ask consent that the time for business be extended until 12:45. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: madam president, from december 28 to january 7, i participated on a congressional delegation which visited in cyprus, syria, india, afghanistan, and morocco, and

have submitted a lengthy report, which is my practice, and i would ask consent that the full text be included after my extemporaneous remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: for purposes of comment at this time, i will focus on what we found in our trip to afghanistan and india as it relates to the current war in progress in afghanistan, which has, as a practical matter, been extended into pakistan, and a comment about our trip to syria and our meetings with president assad, as it bears upon the potential for a peace treaty between israel and syria. our visit to afghanistan was very revealing to get a firsthand impression as to what

is going on on the ground. and i approached the trip with serious reservations about the president's proposal to add an additional 30,000 troops there. and my concern arose in the context of why fight in afghanistan when al qaeda could organize as well in many other places -- in yemen or somalia -- and there have been such -- and there has been such a lack of success in efforts in afghanistan, it goes all the way back to alexander the great. there is no doubt we have to do whatever it takes to defeat al qaeda because they are out to annihilate us. but the question is, where? and where we faced reports that there were only about 100 al qaeda actually in afghanistan, we're really looking at a battle

with the taliban. in our meetings with general mcchrystal and the other team officials, th*epl they emphasized -- they emphasized the point that we shouldn't retreat and that it would be a watershed event if the united states did not provide whatever military force was necessary in afghanistan. our delegation replied that the nato support was lacking, that we really ought to rethink exactly how we're going to deal with taliban. the efforts to persuade the taliban to come back and support the car -- the karzai government because there are many who could be brought back if inducements were sufficient. the karzai government did not lend a whole lot to inspire

confidence. they had an election which was clouded with fraud. they have sustained reports about dealing in the narcotics trade with high-ranking officials, repeated evidence of corruption at the highest levels, hardly conducive to a stable government. when the president projected a withdrawal by mid 2011, that wat what president karzai suggested. he was quoted as saying that u.s. troops would have to be in afghanistan for 15 years. when our delegation had an opportunity to meet with president karzai, we pressed him on that issue. he said, well, two years would require an adequate presence of the united states military. never could define quite what

"adequate" was but said u.s. forces would have to stay for another ten years. more recently, in the intervening weeks, the war there has shaped up. we still have only committed a small fraction, 30,000, something like 5,000, perhaps it won't be necessary to commit the additional 25 thousand troops. we had a very productive meeting with the prime minister of india, prime minister singh. a point which we pressed was whether india and pakistan could enter into a reduction, an arms reduction pact, similar to the pacts which the united states and soviet union have had, which would reduce the number of troops for india, the number of troops for pakistan on the border to liberate more pakistan

military to help in the fight against al qaeda and the taliban. and prime minister singh said that he would certainly be willing to consider that. but pakistan would have to do -- would have to control the terrorists. we questioned him as to whether pakistan really -- the pakistani government really could control the terrorists, and his reply was very blunt: yes, the terrorists are the creation of pakistan, which is the way he responded to that situation. in the intervening weeks again, there has been unique cooperation between pakistani intelligence and the c.i.a., with many joint maneuvers. perhaps there could be a material improvement along that line. the written text which will be

submitted goes into some greater detail, which i shall abbreviate because of the shortness of time here. in syria, our meeting with president bashir assad and one which i shall say constructive. i had the first visit in syria in 1984, and this was the 19th visit there. and i have gone there repeatedly, as i have to the region generally and even more often to israel, because i have long thought that syria was the key to the mideast peace process. syria desperately wants to regain the golan heights. and only israel can decide whether it is in israel's interest to see the golan heights. but it is a different world in 2010 than it was in 1967, when israel took the golan.

the strategy is very different, and even the rockets, it is not quite the same situation. and there is a great deal that israel could gain if a peace treaty was entered into with syria. stopping syria from continuing the destabilization of lebanon, which syria denies, but i think happens to be a fact. for syria to stop supporting hezbollah and hamas could be very important to israel security. and to try to drive a wedge between syria and iran would be helpful not only to israel in the context of the iranian president wanting to wipe israel off the face of the earth, but would be good not only for the region but for the entire world if we could find a way to contain iran in their

determination to acquire nuclear weapons. secretary of state hillary clinton testified yesterday before the foreign operations subcommittee, and i asked her if she would consider a recommendation to have the president call the israeli leaders, prime minister netanyahu and the syrian president bashir assad to the oval office, be an intermediary there. the office of the presidency has great -- could have great force, some great weight, and the secretary was noncommittal. and the record will reflect the exact words which she used. the trip was very worthwhile. i find that when we leave the

beltway and leave washington and see what's actually happening in the field, wearing a flak jacket in a helicopter across afghanistan or talking to the foreign minister, who was the ambassador here for ten years, getting a feel for what is going on in india gives us much better insight into how we handle our foreign aid, how we handle our budgets and how we handle our military operations. madam president, i ask that the comments i have just made be labeled under a caption of "foreign travel" and ask consent that my following comments be labeled under a caption of "tribute to mr. kenny evans."

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: kenny evans recently passed after being with me for some 30 years. i had known mr. evans in philadelphia for a long time, but when i ran for the united states senate in 1980, i asked him to be my campaign deputy in the african-american community. and when elected, brought him in as my key operative in the african-american community because of the urgency of having active minority representation. and he came to be known and loved and admired as a leading public official in the city; served longer than most anybody else had been in public office,

took on a great role in housing and in job training and in education, on civil rights issues and on immigration. when we had a proposal advanced by congressman fatah called gear up almost a decade ago with a $300 million price tag, i consulted with kenny evans, listened to his advice and recommendations and helped provide $300 million a year, which is now come to be in the $2.5 billion range not only servicing philadelphia, but really the entire country. when we had a controversy last summer about african-american children being excluded from a swim club which said they were

not welcome there, kenny evans took the lead in consultation and advice on how to handle it with the civil rights division, and action has been taken to correct a wrong there. he really was an unusual public servant and really an extraordinary man. i ask consent that the statement which was prepared by michael oscar, who's my executive director for southeastern pennsylvania, that mike oscar gave at kenny's funeral be included in the "congressional record" following my comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i thank the chair and yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, although i think the time has come for -- i leave that up to the parliamentarian.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold the quorum call? mr. specter: i do. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until

>> now to london for british prime minister's questions. gordon brown answered several questions on taxes on major steel mill than to shut again and a brittle in afghanistan. this is a 35 minutes.

>> questions to the prime minister. mr. jamie reeves? >> mr. speaker, before i answer the question, let me make another tribute to our troops. they are working with incredib incredibly, incredible bravery with fortitude and dedication. to defeat those that would bring terrorism to the streets of britain. by denying the terrorists both land and support by offering the population of helmand in afghanistan, a more secure and prosperous future. i know the house will join me in thank you be to the soldiers have lost their lives since the house last met. from first battalion guards, lance corporal hicks. from first battalion, lance sergeant david greene homered. from sixth battalion the rifles attached to the third battalion, the rivals, rifleman mark marshall. from the second battalion, the

duke of lancaster regiment, sean. from 36-inch in regiment, royal engineers, from first battalion guards, lieutenant douglas. from first battalion, lance sergeant david walker. these were men of exceptional bravery. of great courage and great skill whose loss is deeply felt. each and every one of them was a hero dedicated to their colleagues into their mission. we send our profound condolences to their families and loved ones. mr. speaker, this point i am eating in addition to my duties in the house. i shall have such meetings later today. >> i'm sure everyone in house want to associate himself with the prime minister's comments. my constituents never said in the own associate my constituents pay to bail out the banks.

what assurances will my right honorable friend give me that they will give their money back, that they will not allow corporate greed and that we will not ever squandered this investment on a half-baked public offer? >> mr. speaker, first of all we have imposed a 50% national insurance tax on bank bonuses which has to be paid by everybody paying cash bonuses over the course of the next year. and we've insist on the application of the jeep when rules which means cash bonuses of of a certain amount cannot be paid and can only be paid at a later date. we're also working for a global banking levy where we are in discussions with other countries and making progress on how that could be administered. at the same time, we are determined that the banks pay back every penny that it is owed to the british public. that is an essential means by which we reduce the deficit, and any time to get cut pressures would mean the deficit would be higher and the public would be denied the money that they

should receive. >> david cameron? >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i first of all join the prime minister in paying tribute to the seven servicemen have been killed in afghanistan since the last time that we met. lance sergeant david walker, lieutenant douglas, miller's, kingston dawson, rifleman mark marshall, lance sergeant david greene hall and lance corporal darren hicks. we are paying a high price for the operations we are undertaking and helmand province but it is an essential issue and our forces and their families need to know they have the support of the whole house and the whole country in the work that they are doing. while the report into the stafford hospital has only just been published i want to ask a couple of question to for turning to other subjects. hundreds of people went into that hospital, some with straightforward ailments and ended up dying because of the way they were mistreated. talking to the relatives as many of us have done, is absolutely

heartbreaking. does the prime minister understand that these victims will never be content with an inquiry that was conducted in private behind closed doors without any public hearings? does he understand? >> let me say first of all, that we understand both the sadness and the sorrow of all the relatives who lost their loved ones in the hospital trust. and we know that every single one of those cases where relatives have questions are now being investigated as individual cases. and i understand that there are more than 300 cases that are being investigated, and every one of these families deserve to have the answers that are necessary. so that isn't the first form of inquiry that is being done. the second form of inquiry is the francis inquiry which as the secretary of state for health will report a few minutes, will

continue its work on regulation and supervision of foundation hospitals, in particular of this hospital. what happened in this hospital was completely unacceptable. what happened was in management failure in this hospital. and when it comes to accident and emergency, i am shocked not only to read the stories, but to find or the should have been for consultants, there was only one. and what you should have been 55 nurses, there was only 37. this is a failure in management that it's got to be dealt with. i am grateful to the secretary of state for bringing together a series of recommendations, including a recommendation that where management fails just as with doctors, we will be able to strike off the managers from a list of those who are not acceptable for health authority. >> david cameron. >> is a one of the tragedies of stafford that people were dying because of this a bad practice not just bad management but bad clinical practice, and then over adheres to processes. year after year after year? death rates in the hospital were far too high and out of line on

2005, yet the healthcare commission only start investigating in 2008. is it clear the of primary care trusts, the healthcare commission, didn't bring this to light early in a? does the prime minister agree we need a better way of publishing results in patient outcomes in our hospitals we need openness, clarity and transparency to stop this happening again? >> yes, mr. speaker, but he should recognize the action we have already taken. a new quality test, new acquirement, quality care investigation, and reviews are already under way. we can remove the chance of the bored easily that there is now already an early work system in place. all of these have been done already but at the same time, the secretary of state will announce later today there will be an inquiry into mortality ratios on whether that is the best way of judging whether a hospital is being successful that will be proposals about the

dr position of foundation trust. and of course we know there are also disciplinary hearings under way. we've done everything that we can to insure that after, that after this has been exposed, after this has been exposed, we not only investigate the individual worries of families who are effective, but also learn every lesson possible so that this would not happen again. and we have a statement this morning from the interim chair of the healthcare quality commission. we have no reason to believe that there is another trust with problems of the scale and magnitude that existed. i want to reassure people that on that, but also we are constantly tracking this situation. >> mr. david cameron? >> just as we need openness and health service, so we need openness at the heart of government. >> [shouting] >> after the chancellor's extraordinary statement last

night, the prime minister said this morning, on gmt, and i quote, i would never and struck anybody to do anything other than support my chancellor. [laughter] >> try and stand up with a straight face and tell us that's true. [laughter] >> mr. speaker, it's not only correct, but this is the nearest he's ever got to talking about the economy and the last few months. [laughter] >> if you want to talk him if he wants to talk about the economy, we can talk. we can talk about -- >> order. members must calm down. leader of the opposition must be heard. >> we can talk about tripling the deficit, ripping the pension

system, about ruining the tax system, and about bringing this country to its knees. [shouting] >> but right now, right now six weeks before an election with a record budget deficit, the end of a long recession, i want to ask what the prime minister and the chancellor are at war with each other? >> this is what we are told. this is what we are told. [laughter] >> listen. any closer and they will start kissing. [laughter] >> david mcbride, gordon brown's spin doctor was spreading poison against the darling. he told every journalist who have access to a pencil that our stairs energy was a disaster. there was of the most poisonous briefing against him. last night the chancellor said that after he said what he said, number 10 downing street and i quote, unleashed the forces of hell. why does the prime mister think he said that?

>> i've already answered his question. i've never instructed a briefing against the chancellor. now when it comes to the question of the economy, which he has raised, can he and his party now explain why they were for reducing the deficit and reducing the deficit and our and now for the deficit again. none of his policies stand up, and that's why there has never any substance from the leader of the opposition. [shouting] >> it was this, prime mr. who put character at the heart of the election. it was the premise of as judges on his moral compass. why is it the moral compass always points at someone else rather than him? let me, this is a verbatim eyewitness account from one of the journalist. listen to this. brown's point men turn to the journalist and started laying -- >> order. if they do not stop shouting, i may have to bring some sort of

helpline myself. [laughter] >> or worse still, suspend the sitting. it makes an extremely bad impression, this sort of noise and ranting on the british public. i appeal to the house to have some regard for the way in which we are viewed by the electric. the house will hear the leader of the opposition. >> i gather things of gotten so bad at downing street even the security guards made protection. [laughter] >> let's just to keep it simple. will the prime minister -- [shouting] >> will the prime minister get to his feet and tell us he knew at building nothing about the briefing against his chancellor, in front of all these people who have worked with him for so long, after 27 ministry resignations, after three attempts to get rid of him, get to your feet and tells you knew nothing about the briefing against the chancellor. >> he is not doing very well.

he has asked me the same question three times. and i have answered him. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, i would rather be defending my chancellor than be in his position. [laughter] >> and the truth, and the truth of the matter is, the chancellor has been right on every issue of economic policy over the last two years. and the shadow chancellor and the leader of the opposition have been wrong on every issue in the last two years. >> if the chancellor was right why was he trying to get rid of them? the prime minister wants to talk about the economy. let me give you one statistic and safety will confirm it. figures out today show that gdp per capita is lower today than when this government begin. will he confirm this is the first government in 40 years to leave this country poorer than when it began? >> mr. speaker, the chancellor and ike confirmed that gdp is

higher ahead than it was in 1997. that is absolutely, that is the question he asked and that is the answer he will get. mr. speaker, you know, the problem with the leader of the opposition is that not one time does he ask any question about the substance of policy. he gets it wrong every time. people are now taking a hard, long look at the conservative party. and, mr. speaker, they are now seeing through them. [shouting] >> liz blackburn? >> i'm sure that members want to hear liz blackburn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i add my condolences to those of my right honorable friend, david green house that lived in my constituency and was a very brave young man. to receive a diagnosis of the counselor must be one of the most frightening expenses in

anybody's life. currently, 94.1 percent of patients see a counselor specialist within two weeks. can i welcome the government's intention to build on that incredible progress and make the two-week goal a legal entitlement. this for the reassuring patients with cancer and their families. >> mr. speaker, i am grateful to my horrible friend who has taken a keen interest in how we can progress against cancer in our country. and the truth is that if people get early screening and early diagnosis, there is a 90% chance of survival from both breast cancer and from other forms of cancer. and that is why we are so keen that everybody can see a specialist as quickly as possible if they have the fears. and everyone to get a diagnosis as quickly as possible. and that is what i would that is what will save lives. and i have to say the policy of having a guaranteed of two weeks and then reduce to one week is a

policy that has massive support throughout the country, and i cannot understand for the life of me why the conservative party is against these guarantees that we give to every patient in the country. if they want to show their commitment to the national health service, they should support the guarantees for cancer care. . . mr. speaker, the last time the prime minister wheeled out his slogan, a future fair for all, was back in 2003. then, just as now, the

poorest were paying more of their income in tax than the richest. is there is one big difference. since 2003 the gap between what the poorest are paying and the richest has doubled. how can he possibly call that fair? >> mr. speaker, as i said to him before, he has got to include the importance of tax credits, and he forgets that six million families in this country are getting child tax credits. the child benefit was worth only 10 pounds when we came into office. the child tax credit is worth anything from 30 pound to 100 pounds for a family of one or two. that is why we've been able to reduce child poverty in this country and because we support the policy of tax credits, that is why we will continue to reduce child poverty in this country. and parties that wish to cut child tax credits as the conservative party wants to do, parties that wish to cut that will put more children in poverty in this country and that's why we oppose their policy. >> nick clegg.

>> mr. speaker he reels off the so-called record, he asks, to take a second look. what do we find on the mp tax rate, hitting hard-up families. on hike in national insurance, hitting people who work hard and play by the rules. tax injustice for the many. tax breaks for the few. isn't the truth, mr. speaker, isn't the truth, mr. speaker, given -- given what's happened last time the prime minister promised a future fair for all, this isn't a slogan. it is a warning. >> mr. speaker, i thought, i thought he would give better than that because first of all, we have been dealing with tax breaks at the top including the removal of pension tax relieves for those who are very wealthy. i hope he will continue to support our policy the chancellor signed an agreement with liechtenstein which will bring a billion pounds of money back to this country. as far as helping everybody, as far as helping everybody

is concerned, it is our policy to help the unemployed and to help people out of recession that is making the difference between poverty and people having sufficient to live on and that's why because of our policies, they're half a more million people in work than was even predicted at the time of the budget that what makes a difference to poverty. >> thank you, mr. speaker. would the prime minister and the whole house join with me in condemning the kidnapping and the brutal murder of beheading of two young men in pakistan by extremist taliban groups? and here with the house, what action the government is taking to assist the pakistan government in protecting minority groups in pakistan from tall ban? -- taliban? >> mr. speaker, the danger posed by both the afghan taliban and the pakistan taliban which both work from pakistan is something that becomes more and more obvious every day.

when he refers to the murders of people in pakistan by the pakistan taliban, he is referring to violent incidents that are happening every day as a result of the efforts of the taliban. we are working with the pakistani authorities so that we can make inroads into the taliban. there has been some success with the leadership of the afghan taliban in only the last few weeks. but at the same time, we will continue to work with the pakistan security authorities and we will continue to say to the pakistani people, we will help children with their education. we ask you to work with us so that madrassas can not have evil influence on the young people of pakistan. >> david amory. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister will know that government expenditure on advertising and marketing and self-promotion went up by more than 40% last year. and it isn't working will he cut it out? >> we've already announced we're going to half the

government advertising budget and consultancy budget. he should know that. >> mr. david clelland. >> is the prime minister aware february was designated by the office scoundrel awareness month? does he -- [laughter] does he, does he party officer who opposes government a party fit for government qualifies as one of the biggest scams in recent history? would he join me in logging on to amnesty.com to look at latest example? >> mr. speaker, there are party a led by the airbrush and they're financed, they're financed from offshore. >> [inaudible]. >> my constituent, steven oliver, at the age of 30 died in tragic and mysterious circumstances late last year. the family of steven are

very disappointed by the greek authorities failure to properly investigate his death, and furthermore, of the british government seeming acceptance of the situation. i'm now asking the prime minister to take a personal interest in this situation and try and get the answers to the questions that the family are raising. >> i'm grateful to the honorable member. gave me advance notice of this question. and i like he is very sorry to hear of the tragic death of steven oliver in october last year. i do send my sincere condolences to the oliver family. i understand counselor staff in london and greece are ready to provide advice and assistance to mr. oliver's family as appropriate, including how advice how to best seek further information about the circumstances of his death. and i will make sure that that is done and i'm sure ministerial colleagues at for common wealth office will look into any concerns the honorable member may

have. >> mark durk the in. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the prime minister confirm that he condemns not only the use of false u.k. passports in a criminal operation but any act of states sponsored assassination anywhere? and will he drop the government's plans to amend the law here in universal jurisdiction so far justified by the on basis of the need to protect israel's right to use diplomatic conduct and to proper intergovernmental engagement, standards for which the israeli government is currently showing utter contempt in disdain israeli foreign minister treated his foreign secretary this week? >> mr. speaker, i can assure him where there are questions about the misuse of british passports they have to be answered and we have set up and there is an investigation ongoing into the very instance that he has raised. i would not draw immediate conclusions without seeing

the evidence and i think it is important to see the evidence on this before any further conclusions are made. but i do agree with him, we do not support state-sponsored terrorism in any country. but i have to say to him the laws of international jurisdiction affect all countries and not just one country. >> stuart jackson. >> well-chronicled the prime minister had a fame mustly tempestuous relationship with his predecessor who described him as a big --. did he mean it literally? >> mr. speaker, once again, the conservative party can't raise an issue of policy. today, yesterday, we had an education statement. on monday we had a announcement of new investment and a conservative back bencher gets up with planted question from the front bench. can't ask a question even about his own constituency. >> gary painter. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, my right honorable friends

know that the whole of teaside are waiting for news about --. a company whose order book was 80% full in -- >> british prime minister's questions airs sunday night at 9:00 eastern. we're going to leave this now to take you live to the pentagon with spokesman geoff morrell. he just began briefing reporters. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> at the democratic policy committee luncheon. this is the second such luncheon he has been invited to attend and as part of his, really ongoing outreach and continuing engagement with the hill. there is no set agenda for this luncheon. it is an open, opportunity for an open and frank discussion between the secretary and the democratic caucus. when he returns to the pentagon later this afternoon the secretary will sit down with ahut barak, the israeli minister of defense. latest in series of ongoing

consultations with our close ally, reconfirming our unshakeable commitment to israeli security. over the course of the past year they have met four times and exchanged multiple phone calls. today the two will pick up their discussion on a range of important issues. such as bilateral security cooperation most notably ballistic missile defense, the middle east peace process, focusing on our continuing support to the process through lt. general dayton's work training palestinian authority security forces and of course, iran's nuclear program where we share many of the same concerns as israel and where iran's failure to respond to a year of sustained and genuine outreach left the international community no choice but to pursue a robust regime of sanctions. with that, i'll be happy to take your questions. ann. >> pakistan claim it round the up half the afghan taliban leadership and another report of cia strike on another high-value target.

what should we make of these captures and killings as they relate to the war? should we expect, do you see this something that will turn the tide of the war? >> well i can go through this again for you. i'm happy to. i'm not going to speak to any specific operation, any specific capture or kill. generally i will say to you as we been saying for practically the last year that the commitment that the pack taney government -- pakistani government, military, its intelligence forces have demonstrated over the past several months to combating this threat within their midst is commendable. we laud them for it. we are hear to help them in any which way they are comfortable as they continue to pursue this enemy that is just a threat not just to oust and our efforts in pakistan and the pakistani people as well. as to whether, as to whether or not this will be a game-changer, listen, time

will tell. i'm not in a position, i don't think anybody is in a position to tell you whether or not, this will, what's taken place over the past several weeks if not months, will change the course of events. clearly, the momentum, at least has been perceived to have been with the taliban in afghanistan, and, to some extent the situation is the same in pakistan with the pakistani taliban. and so, just as we are attempting to change the dynamic on the ground in afghanistan with the surge of american forces, the surge of coalition forces and we're now seeing signs that the deterioration that had marked the situation for months in afghanistan has now stopped, now halted, i think that people with regards to pakistan are

hopeful that the same trend is taking place there. that their efforts are paying dividends and that the taliban feels as though they are under more pressure than they have been under, certainly within the last few years and, and so we are hopeful that our combined efforts on both sides of the border will undermined the confidence and capability of the afghan taliban and of the pakistan taliban and that more of their members, low level fighters, will look to, will turn to us, lay down their weapons, respect the democratically elected governments in both countries and want to reintegrate into society. then ultimately at the upper levels, there will be an effort for reconciliation between the some of the taliban leaders. but the key, a you know, you've heard us say it time

and time again is changing the die ma'am you i can on the -- dynamic on the ground. reversing a downward slide in pakistan and afghanistan so the momentum is with the governments of both countries and that so the enemy feels enough pressure that they want to become a part of society. >> geoff, i would like to ask you about secretary gates's meeting with minister barack. >> barak. let's finish are we in the region? tom? >> tom wolff with the nato minute steeral with the secretary trying to getting a sense how they were doing on troop contributions. we were told repeatedly, ministerial is not where it happens the force gen conference held this week. not surprisingly the contributions were very disappointing. not nearly have half the trainers you need. is the secretary disappointed in the result of the force-gen conference

and what is the step for this building and the u.s. government to try to get trainers everyone says are the real key to success? >> tom, i have not heard the secretary express any disappointment about that specific effort that was underway this week with regard to the force generation conference. i can look to my nato counterpart that tells us there were commitments of another 600 trainers on top of the 1,000 previously committed. i think that is getting us closer to where we need to be with regards to making up for the deficit, the gap, the short fall, the in trainers. i think what we have tried to do and you were with us, so you saw this effort first-hand, what we've tried to do is work with some of our allies who have committed additional forces to afghanistan in the wake of president obama's decision to send 30,000 additional u.s. forces and work with them whether or not they may want to reconsider the mix of forces they're sending so that it more, so that they can

perhaps get more trainers over there rather than trigger-pullers. and i think, you saw the italians do it. i spoke to it last week. i think you've seen other countries who are looking at that right now trying to figure out, hey, if the demand really is the trainers, if that is the long poll in the tent, if that is the key to our ultimate exit from afghanistan, then, yes, let's figure out if we can provide more of them and i think we're heartened to see a number of countries are right now figuring out if they can send more. the yeah. al. >> with this change of attitude, policy and now action in pakistan, how satisfied are department officials about the role of the isi in all of this? >> listen, my eni don't know that i'm the best person to speak to the isi. i direct you to the, to the cia or to the dni. i'm just not familiar enough with them to speak to it. i mean i think overall obviously, i have spoken to

it several times. this is, i have noted the government's efforts, the military's efforts the intelligence efforts because i think they all need to work together in order to bring about the results and i think we've been, look, what's been done over the past several months could not have been done without the support of the isi but much beyond that, i'm just not capable of going into it. >> can you say whether there's a sense there is still playing both sides of the issue? >> i'm not just not the best person to ask that. donna. >> according to the events in marjah with the stand-up of the government, how do you see this supporting the military operations that are there and what's the significance of this ceremony today? >> i think, you're speaking of the turning over of government center? yeah, listen i think what we've seen over the last several days are things trending in a very positive direction. i would note to you that there, yesterday at least, and this is just anecdotal

but i think it does speak to how things are progressing. yesterday there were more suras taking place in marjah than troops in contact. and, i think there were five shuras in all that took place yesterday and fewer than a handful of troops came in contact with the enemy yesterday. that's the kind of progress that we have been looking for and we are heartened to see. i think the transfer of the government center is sim bolick where we are in this operation. we are transitioning from the clearing phase into the holding phase and i think that in talking to my colleagues in afghanistan, it looks as though much of marjah is now under afghan and coalition control and that the, the locals are, have been very welcoming of us. many of them are returning to their homes. the number of internally

displaced people who are signing up for assistance in the government is diminishing each day as more and more people return to their homes. bazaars are open again. and, they are full, i'm told, of goods which speaks to the fact there is clearly freedom of movement that allows commerce to reemerge. now, that said, all those signs point to progress, it is still clearly a very dangerous situation. i mean we are still losing troops. i notice announcement that went out today although wasn't connected to marjah i don't believe. but we're still losing troops and biggest threat to them remains ieds so we have to be very careful about how we progress into those areas that are not under afghan and coalition control, and so we're doing so in a very thorough, methodical way so as to alleviate any potential for civilian or coalition force casualties.

yeah. adam. >> can we switch to iran or is that -- let me. >> let me just finish one thought on this if we're going to leave afghanistan. i noticed some of the reporting, i guess it was over the weekend, some of, one bees in particular was taking issue with the performance of the afghan national security forces and i was a little bit taken aback by it because historically and i think most of the reporting reflects it, no one has ever had any beef how the afghan security forces fight or their willingness to fight or their willingness to engage in combat. i've gone back to people downrange, people in this building trying to get to the ground truth on this. what i'm hearing back is that our units do not have issues with their willingness to fight. in fact, these guys are every bit in the midst of this operation. they match us one for one on

the ground and they are, they are in the fight. the issue has always been with the afghan national security forces, all the other things. the ability to sustain themselves. intelligence, logistics, those kinds of things. we've known that we're building an infantry-centric force. we're trying to build a force to get as many people into the fight as possible so the afghans can take ownership of security operations in their country. we've always realized we're going to have to support them for quite some time on all those other support components to the fight and but, no one what is ever questioned their willingness or their ability to fight. what i'm hearing from our guys is that they are, they are every bit as in it as we could hope them to be. okay? >> [inaudible]. >> joe, let me just, mick

asked last week but how is that reflected in the casualties i think courtney he asked. if we're taking if u.s. forces are taking casualties and afghans aren't that would seem to be an indicator they're not in the fight. i guess the answer to that is the enemy has a say in this as well and that we are clearly a more prized target than an afghan security force member would be. and so i don't think, the fact that they have taken fewer casualties is a reflex on their willingness or ability to fight. and once more i think it also reflects the fact in terms of route clearance operations our units are out there forward. they're making sure the roads are clear and coming into more immediate contact with ied snooze i think the argument my colleague would make he is here -- >> he is welcome to attend. >> he is out today. but you just said the ieds are still the main target or the main killer of forces down there. ieds seem to be pretty indiscriminate.

they don't seem to choose a nationality. >> that's why i said to you our route clearance units are obviously comprised with people of technical expertise, engineering expertise. they're comprised u.s. forces. when they move forward to clear the routes, mostly u.s. forces going forward. when people come in contact with the enemy it is a misread in the situation to suggest unwillingness, lack of willingness on the part of the afghan forces to engage in that situation. okay? joe. >> yeah. let me go back to your opening statement. you mentioned the peace process. what in this building do you think can offer to help senator mitchell's mission in the middle east? and, second, given what we know about the israeli position regarding iran, do you think the united states is on the same page regarding how to deal with with iran? because we see that our, that sort of contradictions between the u.s. policy of

pushing the sanctions and the israeli policy of thinking about the military actions. so if you could answer these. >> so the first question was about what can this building do to support the peace process? more than it's doing now? i mean right now our primary focus has been through lt. general dayton's efforts in terms of building a palestinian security force that is able to, that is able to bring a measure of confidence on the israeli parts that indeed the palestinian authority will be able to maintain a level of security within their boundaries so that there will not be attacks from either the west bank or gaza that would endanger innocent israelis. with regards, and that's where the focus of our efforts is. i know of nothing beyond supporting general dayton and his efforts. with regards to whether or not we are on the same page with which is rail, i think that is fundamentally a question for the state department.

i, listen, i've heard, i think the israelis have been understanding, if not out right supportive of president obama's policy of trying engagement with the israelis or sorry, with the iranians. and, obviously we have come to a point where, those efforts, that outstretched hand, has not been reciprocated. in fact it has been largely spurned and that we are now, simultaneously, not closing the door on engagement but simultaneously pursuing the path of pressure. i think that is clearly welcomed by the israelis but i would note as i just did, even as we go down the pressure track, even as we go around the, around the world trying to solicit support from our allies to bring sanctions against iran to make them compliant with the international strictures

on their nuclear program, we keep that door open to engagement. so just because we're going down the pressure track doesn't mean the engagement track is closed off but we, time is clearly of the essence and we need to pursue pressure even as we keep an out stretched hand. >> [inaudible]. minister bark yesterday said in new york israel considers iran, nuclear program as an imminent threat. do you share the same point of view with him? >> let's let the conversation take place and you and i can talk afterwards to see if there are any points of disagreement. let let's let the conversation take place. david? >> has general odierno requested a combat brigade remain in iraq after the august deadline. >> general odierno has made no such, no such proposal

and nor has one been approved by this department. it is still very much our plan here in this building to meet the president's policy guidelines, to have our u.s. forces in iraq down to 50,000 by the end of august. >> [inaudible]. -- troops out, right? >> combat units, bcts out. replaced by advisory and assistance brigades. regardless of what the units are, the total number, as the president has mandated is no more than 50,000. that is what we are planning for. that's what we are on target for. and that's where we are headed. >> so it would be, if you had a full-up combat brigade remaining in iraq for august, correct? [inaudible] >> well there's two things. there's two things.

one, no more than 50,000. the other is, combat brigades out. i can tell you that come september 1st there will be no combat brigades in iraq. >> can i follow on that? >> yeah. >> if in fact general odierno does come back and say he thinks the situation in the north is not stable enough to let all the combat brigades go out, is this, is the secretary prepared to accept his recommendations and to go to the president say, you know, i endorse general odierno's recommendation we need to keep more troops in there? >> again, we're conflating things but, there's an issue about combat troops and troops. regardless there has been no request made. there's been no request approved. we're going to be at 50,000 forces come the end of august. as we can now foresee it. >> what would secretary

support general odierno and say that? >> would he support it? as i said a couple times previously. there would be no such request. let's see if there is such a request and what the response would be. how can i respond to something that has not happened and, and that is a hypothetical at this point. >> in the past you talked about not just iraq but in afghanistan when you talked about the situation, numbers of troops fluctuating, you have always said and secretary gates said as well it will depend on the situation on the ground and commander's best advice. so seems like a relatively straightforward question if general odierno comes back and say i know the president laid out this plan but again my recommendation -- >> the question is prefaced with and if. it is inherently hypothetical. i'm no position to give you an answer to something that has not been asked of us yet. what i would tell you the commander-in-chief is the one who can ultimately make a decision whether he wants to deviate from the course he has set but thus far he has set a very clear course.

come september 1st there will be no more than 50,000 u.s. forces in iraq. and there will no longer be combat units there. now, will there be men and women in uniform in kevlar, carrying m-4s and m-16s? yes. is self-protection critical no matter how many forces you have on the ground? yes. but the mission itself is going to transition come september the 1st. even more than it already has and it really started transition obviously back in june when we pulled our units out of cities and we've become much more of a support force. but it will become entirely, or nearly entirely a force dedicated to advising the and assisting supporting iraqi security forces as they go about providing security for their country. obviously as the president played laid out back a year ago at this point, back in february a year ago, we will still be conducting counter terrorism missions along with the iraqis.

there will still be a need to have the capacity to go after people who threaten innocent iraqis and the government itself and so that capability will reside with the units that remain after, after september the 1st. but the function of that force willing to be advise and assist the iraqis. mike. >> are the secretary and the chairman and the service branch chiefs not on the same page when it comes to "don't ask, don't tell"? >> are they -- listen, they have all now testified ad nauseum on this. so they're the ones who are best to speak to their, to their positions on this. what i saw was, fundamental agreement that the process laid out by secretary gates and chairman mullen is the right course. that before we do anything, before congress takes any action on this, we need the

rest of this year, or thereabouts, to review the potential impact on a change in this law on the force. and so, i saw, i think universal agreement among the chiefs that this time is necessary and i think you saw a few of them caution some members that it would be in their opinion, unadvisable to move before this survey, this review has been complete. this would mark a dramatic change and obviously how we do business. and it would come at a time we're obviously under extraordinary stress. so i think everybody involved believes that we need the time that it will require to conduct a review of this matter from soup-to-nuts to make sure we understand all the potential

implications of changing the law . . >> and i don't think he is closed to the notion of learning something through this process. and we don't know what's going to be at the end of this, what this review will tell us. the whole point of all this does is there are no dedicated u.s. military specific analyses that

have been done that can inform us yet about what the impact would be. we've had a lot of stuff done on similar organizations, foreign militaries. this'll be an entirely focused on our particular culture, our particular needs. and i think everybody is supportive of this process so that we can perhaps see what the challenges, what the opportunities may be associate with the change of the law. >> the secretary wants congress to hold off on acting on legislation and till the end of the reviews because i think the secretary made clear to you all when he testified that we need the time to review this. he has pledged this would be done before the end of this calendar year. i think he also said in testimony that he would then require some time for implementation. so i urge you to go back and take a look at that. but clearly, we need at least the time to do a thorough review

of the impact of the change in this, you know, now 15 year old policy. >> part b, not policy. has the secretary received or been briefed on general hams speak as anything else on this? are we all done with this? you had your hand up. [inaudible] it was on the social issue. general casey earlier this week told us that he supported, in combat, where's the secretary on this? is he may be going to follow suit and maybe start pushing for women and more combat positions? >> i think what general casey said was he thinks it's time to look at. i don't know that he expressed outright support for it. but a urge you to go back and

look at his words. your fundamental question though is this something the secretary has thought about or supports? [inaudible] >> frankly, i don't think it's something he has discussed with the general casey or any of the other chiefs for that matter. and i think, you know, they're the ones who are closest to it and should probably be the ones who you should address your questions do. i think he, like all of us, recognizes the enormous contribution that women in uniform are provided to our war efforts in iraq, afghanistan, elsewhere. and that even though the law prohibits them from deploying in combat units that are below the brigade level, clearly effectively, many women in uniform are in combat situations every day. be the helicopter pilots, be they medics, logistical support personnel, resupply missions,

whatever it may be, women find themselves in dangerous combat situations every day. and i think we've lost over the course of these two wars more than 100, i think 125 women in uniform. whether or not they are designed to be in combat, whether or not that is, what the law and what our policy is, is driven towards, they clearly are finding themselves in those situations. i know of no come have a set all that, i know of no movement internally to adjust the laws that currently constitute that would create more latitude for women to find themselves in these dangerous situations. [inaudible] >> she has not. >> sorry. >> again, going back to fort hood. has secretary received either in a written form or been briefed on general hams accountability

review? >> not to my knowledge. i think again, this is what the army is well. i think toby handled by secretary mchugh and i think once he renders a decision on how he wants to head of the accountability portion of this, obviously it will be shared with the secretary. but i don't think we're at that point yet. >> will be public? >> i don't know. i don't know. okay, most things in the stomach and even if they are not designed to be made public are made public. hopefully from your perspective. yes, yes, yes. let me go to chris and then go back that way. chris? >> the armed services committee investigation found the number of problems with contractors in afghanistan. in light of some of the problems that they detailed and the lack of oversight, does the pentagon need to take another look at continuing to work contracts to companies like blackwater? and another look at whether does exercised enough exercise --

oversight? >> we learned a lot of lessons over the past eight or nine years. and clearly, contracting oversight is one of them. we've made a lot of mistakes in both iraq and afghanistan. and we try to address those mistakes in a number of ways. one of which was in the 2010 fiscal year budget, the secretary has added, and i would have to get you the precise number, i think we nearly doubled our contracting oversight for professionals in the house to monitor the a warning and execution of contracts, to guard against fraud, abuse, waste. and i think, the fiscal year 11 budget has the same commitment that i think what we had problems initially, particularly in iraq, afghanistan was never as bad as it was an iraq.

i think in fact when our inspector general, when things were not going well in iraq, went over and took a look at things. i think he came back with the believe that they had learned lessons in afghanistan without being told based upon the mistakes that were made in iraq. that said, klöden is room for improvement across the board. we are continuing to look for ways to tighten, titan our control so that there can't be any waste fraud or abuse. and we're constantly working towards that end. >> just to follow up though, i mean, it's one thing to say we learn from mistakes early on, but these were things guns being taken in 2007, 2008 and they weren't authorized to use it a fatal shooting were two contractors are now charged with murder. what, 10 months ago? these are in a very distant past. this is seven, eight years after the war started in afghanistan. >> what i would say is clearly

there have been individual cases where there have been problems with individuals, groups, small groups of people, and i think that those have been, those people have been held to account, whether it be by whatever oversight we have over them, by the host nation in which they are operating as well. because these people are not immune from prosecution to there. i think it would be misrepresenting the situation, chris, to suggest there has been a spate of occurrences that have taken place. a spate of violations of the law that have not been addressed. clearly there have been things that have happened. there have been unfortunate incidents, not to dismiss them by any means, but we have a lot of people doing a lot of work over a long period of time. and we've had problems over the

course of that time. but they have been addressed to the best of our ability, and when they haven't and we've had to learn hard lessons, we have learned them and hopefully tightened matter so that going forward we will be better when things happen. but as far as i know, people are being held to account for the mistakes, the violations that they have made. okay, tony? >> on the -- >> on the ticket, let me guess? >> you're wrong. >> one day store, and you are done. all right, here we are. one day after the release of the much-anticipated rfp and no question for tony. >> this is on a second engine. another one of your crisis appearing. ike skelton the chairman of the armed services committee -- >> yes. >> saying your business case that you set up, you, the pentagon, was sort cited. you're looking at the short-term benefits rather than the

long-term benefits. can you address his concerns? >> i haven't seen, i don't know what was sent up to him. so i would have to take a look at it. i mean, i think about what is the secretary has made it clear that you all and he is made it clear to the congress time and time again that the pursuit of a second engine in his estimation is a colossal waste of money. and that it will not result in any competition between, between companies, because what likely happened is that the different services will purchase their own engines, probably our foreign partners will likely purchase, you know, a rolls-royce engine. i think the navy and numbering core will obviously purchase one engine. so the only question with regards to competition becomes

the air force. so i don't think that he believes that this would result in a few competition between engines. i can to the so-called great engine wars of the '80s, which, despite how revision, history would suggest that resulted in some great savings to the taxpayer, i think actual analysis shows that there was a benefit, it was negligible. but bottom line is, you know, we have now added between the 1.3 billion that congress provided -- this is since 2007, congress has provided an additional 1.3 billion in funding for the alternate engine. and despite our recommendation that it be terminated, there is -- it's a complete, that engine would cost us another $2.9 billion. so you're looking at $4.2 billion being spent on an

engine that we believe is not necessary, and that likely will have the same problems in development that the engine has already had. and that this money can clearly be better spent buying capabilities that our war fighters do need. this is a luxury we cannot afford. and it is such a red line with the secretary that he announced to you up front when he rolled out this budget that it is no longer a conditional veto recommendations on his part. regardless of whether it impacts the overall program or not, in his estimation, if it is indeed include in the markup that's done on the hill, he will recommend to the president that the bill be vetoed. >> on all defense spending he raises -- >> he said very clearly to you all last month. earlier this month. >> skeletons point here is you focus on the short-term cost like you just did on the

4 billion versus the 20 year life cycle cost that you could get from competition. what's your response to that? >> i'd have to look at it, tony. i me, i'm not so sure i am armed with the lifecycle costs of this. but at the very least we already know that cost too much -- a solution to the tanker is to split the by. to split the by, and awarded to companies means that you have got to contract enough planes up front to make it economically feasible for both companies to want to produce these planes. which would then force us to buy more planes up front that we want or can't afford. so regardless of what the long-term impact of pursuing the alternate engine is, in the near-term it costs us too much. it is $4 billion that we can't afford to spend on things that we don't need, or our duplicate. we need the money to support our war fighters in the fight and they are in now.

that's what our focus is on. >> my jayhawk friend. what is out of? >> a former dean, doctor, recently wrote an article on u.s. relations to a magazine which he says in 1966, the u.s. military secretly transported nuclear weapons from okinawa to japan's main island. a flag or violation of the 1960 agreement. he was a u.s. government official been. and he knew what was going on. >> i wasn't here in 1966. >> according to your document speeders i was aboard, thank you. i wasn't born in 1966. [laughter] >> just barely. you know, i can't speak to his specific allegation. what i would do is repeat to you our policy on this matter.

you know, the government, we understand the special sentiment that the japanese people have with regards to nuclear weapons, and we have faithfully honored our obligations under the treaty of mutual go operation and security, and we will continue to do so. >> yes, in the far back as the. [inaudible] >> i think with ari spoken to this, but thumbnail sketch is that there is, there is a review team that is being built right now, headed by four-star general carter ham, from u.s. forces come u.s. army europe. and johnson was the general counsel here for the department and they're building a team that over the next you know, 10 months or so, the lesson that will be reviewing every aspect of the potential change in law.

and as i mentioned earlier, the potential complications or opportunities associated with such a change. and this is going to be an ongoing process and we're likely not going to be providing updates on where they stand in that review. we want to let them do their work and focus on it. and at some point probably in december we will get a sense of what they found. in the interim as you know, there's a 45 day internal effort underway to figure out whether or not we can do some things within, within the confines of the current law to apply more humanely, particularly two people have been outed by third parties. and that is something they'll probably be able to share with you in the coming days or weeks. okay, i think will be before the 45 days. okay? yes, sir. >> my question is about the

plan. one of the japanese parties, people's new party, as the japanese government to negotiate with the u.s. government with the new plan, which is building smaller -- >> i'm sorry? >> did you say helipad? >> and i am wondering if the pentagon has heard any new proposal or idea, including this new announced idea of japanese government. and what is your condition on this do i get? >> i think what i -- i'm not going to get into the business of responding to every slight development that comes out of, that comes out of different parties associated with this issue. what i would do is repeat what

i've told you now time and time again, that we are closely consulted with the japanese government on the relocation issue. we obviously respect the prime minister's desire to review this issue internally, and report back in may on what their views are of this. but our position on the replacement facility and the overall roadmap, the realignment road map have not changed. we believe that is fundamentally the best route to ultimately reducing some of the stress that is associated with all of our forces in okinawa. and while at the same time providing the security that the japanese clearly wish to have by having u.s. forces in and around. so let's just let this course

take its, falter over the next few months. i think it's on a couple of months away until may and we will learn more than. >> so you haven't received -- >> listen, as i said you are not going to get into what we have or haven't received our what this person says or that person says, this idea, that idea. the prime minister of japan is reviewing this within his government. in may he said he is going to report back. we anxiously look forward to hearing what they have, what conclusions they have reached. what i can tell you in the interim is, we still believe the realignment road map is the best way for both of us to proceed. and the best way for the region, for that matter. >> just something quick, housekeeping question back on the odierno issue. you said there was nothing being said to the secretary, nothing in the pipeline. is a secretary expecting anything from transfix? >> you're asking me to now look into his mind and foretell what

he is expecting. >> telegraphed? >> i will say what i said to you and this was first raised by mr. martin. no such proposal has been submitted, nor has any such proposal been approved. we are determined to meet the president's goal, his policy, that we will have no more than 50,000 forces in iraq come september. and that's what we are right now. and that's what our focus is on. [inaudible] >> i'm not comfortable getting into the commanders discussions with the secretary of defense at this point. >> just to be clear it's fair to say that at this point the pin is is a priority as opposed to the commanders on the ground recommendations. they will have no impact -- >> the command on the ground has made no recommendation, has made no request, has offered no proposal at this point. okay? [inaudible] >> lets you what happens going

forward. what i can tell you, all i can do is what the status is right now. and the status is right now that no plan has been submitted, no plan has been approved and we are on target to meet the president's goal of having 50,000 u.s. forces in iraq come september. louis martinez? >> on the 50,000 number, you stated is the administration school, the number six advisory is a number that's been associated belong under that 50,000 cap. is a feasible for odierno to work in without presidential permission or is just the number 50,000? >> listen, this is a significant transition in our seven-year effort in iraq. and so the commander-in-chief is clearly involved in

decision-making about force levels, composition of force and so forth and iraq going forward. as you noted, this is not something that is mandated by the security agreement with the iraqi's. this is a presidential palace he. but is one of the secretary supports. is one i believe, yeah, the chairman, the centcom commander and a commander in the field supports. obviously, you know, the commander, the commander-in-chief reserves the right to make adjustments based upon the situation. but he and everybody in this building are working towards what is his policy. 50,000 come the end of august. and that's where we are on track for, and that's where we're working towards. [inaudible] spent adjusting the cap under 50,000? >> whatever the composition of that force is, or will be, i can assure you will be a matter for

discussion between the secretary and the chairman and president of the united states. >> is it a firm six? >> i ask we don't know what the composition is. i think it is five, but let's see. i mean, the number is what the policy, the policy mandates the number. the composition of those forces obvious a the commander has, you know, latitude in dealing with. obviously in consultation with the secretary, said, committed, the chairman and of course the president of the united states. thank you all. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the senate is coming back in and about five minutes from now.

president obama and congressional leaders are returned from a lunch break shortly, and you can tweak us your comments about the summit. at c-span. that summit again continues on c-span3 when they come back into session.

>> it is a guidebook to travel if you will, but is also kind of a mini history book of a biography of each of these presidents. a resource guide to every presidential great site. the story of their final moments, and insights about their lives. who's buried in grant's tomb now available at your favorite bookseller, or get a 25% discount at the publisher's website. >> and while we wait for the senate to come back in, for more work on the travel bill, some

news today. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke told the senate banking committee today and his second day of testimony on capitol hill this week that interest rates will have to stay low for a lengthy period to counter a weak job market. the u.s. central bank chief prepared remarks were virtually identical to those delivered yesterday to the house financial services committee. and cheaper nike also told lawmakers that goldman sachs and other wall street firms may be looking into a sophisticated instrument investment instrument to make bets that greece will default on its debts. also about the healthcare summit which you can see live on c-span3 and c-span.org, a story from yahoo news saying that a consensus on how to rein in spiraling healthcare costs seem to be emerging as president obama some that the president agreed with assertions by oklahoma republican senator tom

coburn that abuse them out account up to a third of the cost of a time of programs like medicare and medicaid. and is a major barrier to worldwide insurance coverage. senator coburn said that the cost is the chief reason millions of people do not have health insurance. that in yahoo! news as we wait for the senate to come in. mr. president. right now there's a meeting at the white house that's been covered extensively by the media live and much anticipation about the meeting between the president and a number of members of congress equally divided between the two bodies, the house and senate, the two political parties. it's a chance for both sides to listen to each other. we all -- the media have decided

by and large this is going to be unproductive, but i watched a good bit of it today. at least people are being open with what they believe and what they want. there clearly is, there are major differences between the two parties when it comes to health care. it goes back, goes back for a couple, three generations. it certainly goes back into the mid-1960's, to 1965 especially, when the senate and the house down the hall and president johnson signed the medicare bill. in those days, most, an overwhelming number of republicans opposed it. an overwhelming number of democrats supported it. it wasn't as partisanly charged as this, but it had the same interest groups around it, the same insurance company opposition, the same accusations by, it was a john birch society then. today it's the tea parties who opposed it saying -- they didn't talk about death panels back

then. perhaps the society wasn't quite as creative as are the tea party people. but they said that it would be a takeover by big government of health care and they said -- the government would stand between the patient and the doctor. none of those things have happened with medicare. the kinds of accusations and charges and scare tactics used by the insurance industry and mostly republican opponents in the 1960's to medicare are very similar to the opponents po health care today. i say that, setting the table, that there are major differences between the two parties. i was speaking to a couple of school groups recently, one from lakewood ohio and the other from the university of miami, a school in southwest ohio. they asked about partisanship. one woman said it bothers me -- and she said i'm neither republican or democrat -- a young person arcs 19-

20-year-old college student. she said i don't understand why they're blocking appointments, why you can't agree on that to have a vote. the partisanship is surely more charged today than has been. i explained to them it's not so much party as ideological differences, that democrats are believers by and large in things like medicare. republicans think let the insurance industry do it. that's fine. that's a legitimate philosophical difference. the republicans side with the insurance industry and the democrats believe that medicare, that government can play a positive role, not an overreach, but a positive role in people's lives by running a program like medicare. the government can run a program like social security. the government can run a program like student loans. as the government can run things like the environmental protection agency, which has made our country significantly safer and people's neighborhoods significantly safer. so, i mean, there are some republicans like -- some people

on the other side of the aisle that just want president obama to fail. i don't think that's a majority of republicans. i think it's some number. let's ignore that for a moment and think there are philosophical differences between the two parties. i say that, mr. president, because i think there is something more going on here, and that is that on a lot of these things there has been bipartisanship on this bill. i sat in the health, education, labor, and pensions committee. we did our markup of this bill starting back in may. it's clear this hasn't exactly been rushed through the congress, rushed through reconciliation, pushed through -- the bush administration on its big initiatives did them in a matter of four or five months and pushed them through quickly without nearly as much debate as we've had. nonetheless, we sat in the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, mr. president, and you know this, we accepted 163, i believe, 160-something, 163 republican amendments. 163 of them. i voted for probably 155 of

them. i agreed with most of them. at the same time the finance committee had negotiations, three republicans, three democratic senators -- i think they took too long, but the fact is they would negotiations for months. it was may -- it was discussions in may and june and july and august and september. finally chairman baucus in frustration said let's move forward. this doesn't seem to be working. there is plenty of republican input in this bill. there's been plenty of bipartisanship. as i said, the republican amendments give it a bit of a republican flavor and certainly bipartisan flavor. there's a couple of things specifically. the republicans wanted to allow health insurers to sell across state lines. the bill has provisions that accompany in -- a company in indiana can sell insurance to residents of -- i'm sorry, a company in indiana can sell insurance to residents of dayton. a company in ohio can sell insurance to somebody across the

line from van wert in fort wayne or richmond or indianapolis or anywhere else in that state. we listened to that. we included that in the bill. another big, big example. that's one the republicans always talk about, if you let us sell across state lines, this would be a great thing. that's what we did. we agreed to that. the second issue, is republicans allowing trade associations and big businesses to pool together to sell insurance so they can acquire health insurance at lower prices much the way large corporations and unions do. we did it. we set up exchanges, mr. president, as you know, exchanges that are basically clearinghouses, companies that individuals can go under these exchanges and buy insurance and spread the risk out among millions of people, or small businesses can take their companies, a company that -- a small business may have 25 employees. if one or two gets really sick from cancer, that small business will either, at best that small

business' premiums will go way up. at worst, they'll get their insurance canceled. this allows them to go into this huge pool. if you only have 20 employees, if two or three are sick, you're in a risk pool of millions, so your rates don't spike up. that's the whole point of this. we thought the republicans are right about that. let them go into pools, and we did that. my point, mr. president, is that there is republican phraeufr to this bill. -- republican flavor to this bill. there's republican input, not just input -- negotiations, input and successes in this bill. there are 160 republican amendments out of the "help" committee this -- in this bill. there have been unending discussions in the bill. yet the republicans to a person oppose the bill. the only reason i can figure that ourbgts mr. president, not that -- figure that out, mr. president, not that it doesn't have bipartisanship to it. the only reason i can figure out

is what the senator from south carolina said, if this bill goes down this is the president's waterloo. i'm not accusing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of wanting this to fail to damage barack obama's presidency. i'm not accusing them of that. i just wonder. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. brown: mr. president stph-p. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to, that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. brown: i again notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

as the house of representatives are meeting with the president of the united states and members of his cabinet at the blair house to discuss the current health care reform proposal and where we should go forward to improve the health care of the people of this country. i come to the floor today to talk about a specific portion of this discussion concerning health care fraud prevention. today my colleague from oklahoma, senator coburn, brought up with the president of the united states the issue of health care fraud prevention. and as a senator from florida, this is something that i have great concern about because, unfortunately, we are the capital of fraud, of health care fraud for this country. and i have put forward a proposal, mr. president, senate bill 2128, the health care fraud prevention act, to go after this very problem. today senator coburn brought up

the fact that we believe that one out of every three dollars spent on health care be through medicare or medicaid or other public programs -- $1 out of $3 is fraud, waste or abuse. a shocking number. in fact, mr. president, the belief is that $60 billion a year in the medicare system alone -- health care for seniors -- $60 billion a year is waste, fraud, and abuse. unfortunately, we don't have systems in place to go after and prevent that waste, fraud, and abuse. what we do in the federal system is when we think there's fraud, we send prosecutors and law enforcement folks out to combat the fraud. these folks are doing a very good job, and there's been a lot of good work done in my home state of florida. but the truth is that that's going after the fraud after it's already happened. and oftentimes there's no money

left to collect. so, what we need to do, mr. president, is what the health care fraud prevention act that i've proposed, senate bill 2128, accomplishes. it stops the fraud before it starts. i was happy today that the president agreed that we need to prevent health care fraud. he said that we've already incorporated all of the good ideas on this. now, i hope that means that we are going to pass senate bill 2128. it is a bipartisan-supported bill. it is a bill that will stop the fraud before it starts. now, it is not in the senate bill that we passed in december. when i tried to bring this measure to the floor as an amendment, it was objected to. since that time i have worked with my colleagues on both the democratic side and the republican side of the aisle to move this measure forward. spwaus and i have spoken -- senator baucus and i have spoken about it. in the 11-page memo the

president put forward, it references doing in part what senate bill 2128 would accomplish. i hope that in the new proposal, we will put forward senate bill 2128 and pass it. quickly, what does the bill do? it does three things. one, it creates a chief health care fraud prevention officer of the united states, and that person appointed by the president would work at the agency for health and human services. and their only job would be ferreting out fraud. when there's $60 billion in medicare alone, potentially that much in medicaid, and across health care, we think a quarter of $1 trillion a year is fraud, waste or abuse. it's worth having one person whose whole job is to try to prevent that fraud. remember, if this money is recovered, we can use it to provide health care. we can improve the quality of care because there will be more money going in to actually helping our seniors, helping the poor, helping our veterans.

the second thing the bill does is it takes a model from the private sector, borrows a page, if you will. because we have an industry in this country that does an excellent job of preventing fraud, and it's the credit card business. we've all had this experience. you go somewhere and use your credit card, and you get a phone call or an e-mail from your credit card company, and they tell you some transaction has just occurred. did you really mean to have that transaction? did you authorize that purchase? and you call them up and you either say yes or no. i have a young family, mr. president. as you know, when i got appointed to the senate, i brought my kids and my wife up here so that we could be close. i've got three children six and under and a baby coming in a month. so we are here in washington, d.c. most of the time. i had to do what any good dad would have to do. i had to go buy a television. i went to best buy and used my credit card. i live in tallahasee, florida. before i left my credit card company sent me an e-mail and

said did you really mean to buy that television? you live in florida, is what this system is doing and thinking. you're buying a television, which is a highly suspicious purchase. and you're doing it in washington, d.c. i tell them, yes, the transaction goes through. if i tell them no, they don't pay best buy. they don't pay unless there's a verification on the front end. we can use that same technology in health care to set up predictive modeling systems to prevent the fraud before it starts. i call it the worldwide head of fraud prevention for master card and said can we do what you do in health care? he said sure you can, and i'll help you. there's no reason why we can't stop billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse. mr. president, before we go on to all the other issues in health care that we can't agree upon, we should call this bill up and we should pass it. we would get 100 votes, i bet, in the united states senate. and we could save what one group

here in washington thinks is $20 billion a year. $20 billion that we could go to pay maybe down the debt and the deficit or put it back into medicare, which is hurting. it's going to run out of money in a few years. we could do good things with that money. the third thing that this bill does is it requires a background check for every health care provider. can you believe that we don't check the criminal records of people who claim that they're providing health care to our seniors? we don't check to see if they're felons. we had a guy in miami who was a convicted murderer who claimed to be a health care provider. so this would require that we do a background check. and if you're a criminal, guess what? you don't get to provide health care. you don't get to dupe the system. so, mr. president, i hope that we will take this bill up. i was appreciative of senator coburn. i'm glad that the president recognizes that this is something we can all agree upon. if we can all agree upon it, let's get something done. let's call the bill up, and

let's pass it. mr. president, i now am going to change topics. i ask that this next discussion be a separate entry into the "congressional record." pro*eup without objection, so ordered. -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lemieux: mr. president, i had the opportunity to go on a congressional visit to haiti a couple of weeks ago. actually it would be two weeks from tomorrow. we were there on the one-month anniversary of the tragic earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people. 200,000 people died in haiti. myself and the other members of the senate and the house who went there were able to see some of the tragedy. we visited the cathedral in haiti. you often hear president clinton talk about this wonderful catholic cathedral in haiti that stood the test of time but could not stand the test of this earthquake. in fact, really the only prominent part of this cathedral that still stood, unbelievably,

was the cross. and we talked to the people who were there, and they are a wonderful and resilient people, and it is amazing that they could go on with the tragedy that they had experienced. i had the great honor to visit the operating hospital staffed mostly by american doctors and nurses, some from miami, some from older in my home -- from older in my home state of florida. we met with the president of the country and the prime minister and the ministers of the president's cabinet. we talked about what are the next steps. i authored a letter to the president of the united states, and i ask, mr. president, that this letter be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lemieux: this letter is cosigned by myself, senator nelson, my colleague in florida; senator klobuchar, as well as

senator lautenberg, all of whom were on the trip with me. the letter basically asks the president to do four things in trying to focus our help and relief to this country. we have been involved, mr. president, in trying to help the haitian people for decades, and the american people have opened up their hearts and their wallets to help the situation in haiti. but the situation is dire. i cannot think of a more complicated, difficult problem than trying to bring haiti forward to a sustainable place. haiti was already in bad shape, but it had a path forward. progress was being made. and now as you drive the streets of port-au-prince, it looks like a bomb area. it looks like a war zone. you'll randomly see three buildings standing as if nothing had happened, and then a building is completely and utterly destroyed. camps of people right now, thousands of people are huddled

together in these makeshift camps in low-lying areas. my great fear for the future in the short term, mr. president, is that when the rains come, which they will -l come in the next weeks in haiti, there will be another great tragedy. so we have to be focused in our help. so i, along with my colleagues, sent this letter to the president and asked that the president do four things: one, create a long-term sustainable plan for haiti and put in charge of that plan, on behalf of our relief efforts, a trustee along with ann specter general -- an inspector general, along with a board of advisorses to work in partnership with the haitian government to make sure that the money is spent wisely. we cannot just send billions of dollars into haiti and let the money evaporate in short-term solutions. there needs to be a long, sustainable plan. second, we have to provide funds to the haitian people directly.

small businesses need micro loans so that they can provide jobs for the people of haiti. we can't just give the money to third-party contractors. third, we have to be focused on this orphan issue. we have to make sure it's done legally, and where it is done legally, we have to make sure that we get those children to their adoptive parents as quickly as possible. fourth, we have to make sure that port-au-prince is not the center of the entire population for the country of haiti. we are putting too many people in one place when tragedy strikes. we need to encourage development throughout the country. i had the honor of having the president of world caribbean cruise lines in my office yesterday, a floridian, adam gold stein, and we talked about tourism in haiti. there is a beautiful citadel in haiti that would be a wonderful attraction for cruise ship

tourists. there has been difficulty in building a road to it in making sure it is safe and secure. we need to find ways to get people out of port-au-prince, create jobs outside that have city so that that fragile humanity is not all focused in one place. finally, we need to make sure that the die as pra of -- the diaspora of haiti, we have about 250,000 haitian-americans in florida, they need to be involved in the rebuilding of haiti. they need to be welcomed in. they are dying to get involved. they are hungry to get involved in this process of rebuilding their home country. so, i hope that the president will put together this commission, put a strong leader, a colin powell or someone of that magnitude as the trustee to work with the haitian people to rebuild the island of haiti. and i hope we can get effort and energy behind that proposal quickly so that we don't have any other significant challenges

in the coming months ahead for the haitian people. with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. mr. ensign: mr. president, i rise today because our economy is struggling. unemployment remains high. the recession's hold on cities across america is as strong as ever. my home state of nevada has been one of the hardest hit, and our tourism-dependent economy is barely hanging on. unfortunately this is true for tourism-dependent cities across our country. during these difficult economic times, it simply isn't enough to try to stimulate domestic spending by passing one massive spending bill after another. we need to incentivize tourists from across the world to visit our truly unique destinations across america. from one coast of this country to the other, there are endless

opportunities to tour historic sites, take advantage of recreational opportunities, observe great architecture, visit theme parks, dine in some of the finest restaurants in the world, view natural and manmade miracles and soak up everything that is so uniquely found in america. we all know that we live in the best country in the world. now is the time for people across the world to enjoy all that we have to offer while repairing our economy at the same time. my colleague from north dakota, senator dorgan, understands the importance of reasserting our tourism industry on the world stage. together, he and i have sponsored the travel promotion act which is before us today. this bipartisan piece of legislation would help to make our travel and tourism industry more successful and more competitive internationally.

so i want to thank my colleague, senator dorgan, for his great leadership on this important issue. tourism is our country's truest form of economic stimulus. the average overseas visitor to the united states spends roughly $4,500 per trip to pay for hotels, transportation, dining, shopping and other things. tourism took a massive hit on 9/11. it has not recovered yet. this has been made worse by last year's recession. if the united states had managed to keep pace with global travel trends, 68 million more travelers would have visited the united states between 2000 and 2009. these travelers would have generated an estimated 250,000 new u.s. jobs in 2008 alone. now at a time when unemployment is at record high numbers in this country, we cannot afford

to throw away anymore tourism-related job creation. we can take a cue from canada on successful ways to spur this tourism that we need so badly. if you've been watching the olympics, you've seen these ads about british columbia. i don't know about the rest of you, but it's made me want to actually go up and visit. and it isn't just watching the olympic, it's actually the ads have been the most successful part of making me want to go to that part of the world. they have beautiful things to advertise to show you, wow, doesn't that look like an incredible place to go and visit? well, think about all that we have here in america that we can advertise. that we can say to the rest of the world that maybe you haven't thought about. i didn't really think about going to vancouver or british columbia. but those ads spurred my interest in it and i'm sure they

have many americans and other people around the world. well, tourism-related jobs can be created simply by spreading the word about the wonderful destinations that will literally scattered across the united states of america. we can do it without raising taxes on hard-working american families or by digging ourselves even further into debt. unfortunately the united states has dropped a ball when it comes to tourism and the industry has been virtually left behind. declines in visits to the united states since 2000 have cost our country an estimate estimated $500 billion in lost spending. and at least $30 billion in lost tax receipts. my speech today isn't all gloom and doom, however. instead, i stand here to offer a solution. a solution that can help get our hard-hit tourism industry back on its feet. what we need is a comprehensive strategy coordinated by

public-private partnerships between the government and the expert leaders from our travel and tourism industry. this effort needs to center on a major initiative that will make the wonder fful destinations throughout our great nation known to foreign audiences. we don't just want them to be aware of the magnificent places, we want them to feel compelled to visit them. 9/11 changed our country and the security measures along with it. but we need to tease potential visitors about the new security policies of today so that they can travel to and from our country with ease. the bottom line is that the united states stands to make great gains economically and diplomatically if we strengthen our travel and tourism industry. so how do we go about doing this? the travel promotion act, which is before us today, would create a public-private corporation for

travel promotion to promote the united states as a travel destination to overseas travelers. this corporation would develop and execute a plan to do the following: it would promote the u.s. to foreign travelers by using coordinated and advertising campaigns and other proportional activities -- promotional activities similar to what we see in the olympic with canada. the core promotion would identify and correct misperceptions about u.s. travel policies. it would also help provide travel information to foreign visitors to the u.s., like entry requirements, fees, and documents. lastly, the corporation would focus its efforts to ensure that all 50 states benefit from overseas tour sism including areas -- tourism, including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers. understand this, no taxpayer funds to be -- would be used to finance the travel corporation.

let me repeat that. no taxpayer funds would be used for the travel corporation. it would be by user fees paid by some international visitors. this would finally put the united states on equal footing with many other developed countries. this legislation would be a true lifeline to my home state of nevada which depends so heavily on travel and tourism. i mentioned earlier my state was one of the hardest hit. but i don't think that description does the situation in nevada justice. the tourism industry in nevada, especially las vegas, has truly been crippled by the economy. nevadans struggling through home foreclosures have been forced to carry the burden of the economy, construction, waitresses, are drowning in this recession because americans are not traveling like they used top

these workers are barely keeping their heads above water and some aren't even able to do that. they're losing their homes which is truly anile lated the housing market in my state. boosting overseas travel will provide for growth in and otherwise shrinking segment of the economy. it will heal local economy around the country. this will in turn greatly advance the overall economy at a time when we can't afford to turn away potential of hundreds of billions of dollars. with domestic travel and convention travel down, overseas travel could be a silver lining that we all need. at a time when our country faces record deficit and spending levels, i know that this money may seem like a lot. believe me when i say to you that i take my pledge of fiscal responsibility very seriously. i vote against spending bills that come across this floor all the time because they simply are

irresponsible waste of hard-earned taxpayers dollars. however, this bill is a responsible use of dollars. it doesn't apply a government spending band-aid to tough economic situation. it creates a solution that will greatly benefit our economy. and it does it without taxpayer dollars. the travel promotion act, which is the overwhelming support between democrats and republicans is a relatively small investment that will significantly boost our economy, create jobs and make us more competitive in the world. the bill will not increase the deficit. this bill does not increase the deficit. but it could spur billions in additional economic activity benefiting americans all around the country. the congressional budget office, nonpartisan, the official scorekeeper around here confirms that it will not place

additional burden on the taxpayers. people in my state and across the country have had to make difficult decisions when it comes to their own family's budgets. in fact the legislature in my home state of nevada is coming to terms with steep spending cuts and slashing services across the board as we speak in a special session because it's just too far in the hole to sustain the current spending spree. so americans are looking to us to boost the economy and so far we have not been able to do that. yes, we spent money, and a lot of money at that. in fact, but our economic situation remains the same. i'm asking that we look to the tourism industry as a lifeline for our economy, and i -- as i know it will be for my state and so many others. the travel promotion act will be that lifeline, it will create jobs, opportunity and show the

beauty and diversity of america. each one of us who represents all 50 states know that we have incredible places to show the rest of the world. my home state of nevada, we're actually the gateway to the grand canyon, which is located in arizona. we have lake tahoe, we have, obviously, las vegas. we have so many other places to visit around our great state. but every single senator can tell those stories. but what we need to do is tell them in a way that makes foreign travelers want to come here to america. the travel promotion act is going to help us do that. and let me remind folks, if you've watched the olympics, just ask yourself these questions, when those commercials about british columbia come on, does that make you more or less likely to go? especially if you can afford it. i thinks answer's pretty obvious. they make an attractive case to visit their country. this is the united states of

america. one of the most beautiful places. some of the most incredible places to see. are you telling me can't advertise this in a way that makes people want to come here? of course we can. we can have tourism boosted like never before in this country and all americans will benefit by doing that because foreign travelers come here, spend money, boost the economy, and -- and boost every single state in this country. so, mr. president, i encourage this senate to pass this bill as quickly as possible. get it over to the president for signature so we can get on with boosting the economy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. webb: mr. president, may i ask what is the pending business in the senate? the presiding officer: we're in morning business, senator. travel promotion bill. correction. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes as if in

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. i today would like to speak for a few minutes on behalf of justice barbara m. keenan who is the nominee to serve on the fourth circuit court. and i would like to respectfully request in the name of good governance and the proper functioning of our constitutional system that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle allow a prompt vote on her nomination. justice keenan was voted out of committee in october of last year by a unanimous voice vote. her nomination is noncontroversial. she's been a dedicated public servant, a fair and balanced jewist and her nomination has had -- jurorist. there are currently four vacancies on the fourth circuit, more than any other circuit and the seat that justice keenan

would fill has been jake ant now for more than -- vacant now for more than two years. justice keenan is an extraordinary choice to fill this vacancy. she has been a state supreme court justice since 1991. she has been a trailblazer for women in law throughout her career. she was the first female district court judge in virginia when she was selected for the fairfax county bench in 1980. she became the first female circuit court judge when she was promoted to that court in 1982. in 195 she was -- 1985. she was the only one -- she was selected to the -- for the state supreme court, the second female justice to ever serve there in 1991 and she was, in fact, the first judge to have served on all four levels of virginia courts. and, mr. president, i'd also like to point out that when

governor mcdonald was recently sworn into his office he he specifically requested that justice keenan deliver him the oath of office. so there's a wide bipartisan consensus inside virginia about the quality of this nominee and i'm very hopeful that we can move forward in an expeditious way. i'm mindful of the senate's constitutional role in confirming executive nominations. it is vitally important and a robust vetting process is appropriate. we have conducted inside virginia in our delegation that kind of vetting process which resulted in justice keenan's name being moved forward. so now in the spirit of pragmatic bipartisanship and good governance, i believe it's time to move past these procedural delays that seem to affect us and get on with the business of governing. i'd like to point out that out of 876 federal judgeships, there

are now 10 100 vacancies. these delays affect the administration of justice. these sak vacancies diminish the right to a speedy trial. it is my understanding that justice keenan has brought support in this body, the vote in the judiciary committee is evidence of that. in fact, i would be very surprised if any senator were to vote against her confirmation. so, again, i'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they might allow this nomination to advance in a timely way. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kaufman: i ask to speak as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kaufman: thank you. i rise today to support the engineer, education for innovation act or e-squared for innovation act. i'm proud to cosponsor this bill with senator gillibrand introduced today along with senator snowe, cantwell, klobuchar and murray. this bill will help us meet the engineer education challenges i've often spoke about on the floor here by awarding planning and implementation grants to states to integrate engineer education into their k-12 curriculum and instruction. it also funds the research and evaluation of all such efforts. i believe we are at a crucial moment for science, technology, engineer and math or "stem, education. today'today's engineers have a o play to help our economy recover and promote real job growth. in turn, we must promote

policies and programs that help to generate greater interest in stem and actually lead to the production of a greater number of engineers. last year the national academy y of engineer and research released their report on k-12 education. doing their report, k-12 education can improve student education in science and math and increase the student's technological literacy. it can also increase awareness of the engineering profession and boost interest in pursuing a career in the field. the report stressed a need for greater coordination among key stakeholders to develop common definitions and grade-level appropriate goals for engineering education. it also emphasized the need for more research on the impacts of engineering education and potential models for implementation. e-squared for innovation act

seeks to address this in three ways. first, the legislation awards planning grants to state educational agencies to review any existing engineering education resources in the state and to development implementation plans to integrate k-12 education into curriculum and instruction. grantees must coordinate these activities with a number of partners including the governors' office, institutions of higher education, teachers, and administrators at public, elementary, and secondary schools and other relevant players in the state. second, the e-squared for innovation act provides implementation grants to state educational agencies to carry out a number of activities including developing academic standards, curricula, and assessments that include engineering, recruiting and training qualified teachers to deliver engineering education and investing in after-school engineering education programs.

prior tpriority will be given to populations that serve populations underrepresented in engineering. fourth, the bill charges the institute of education sciences with conducting research and evaluation on the grants awarded. these studies will determine the effectiveness of the program activities and improving student achievements in stem education and assess how successful these programs can be replicated. mr. president, the e-squared for innovation act is supported by a diverse list of 77 organizations. to name a few, the supporterings include the national center for technological lit a circumstance the america society for engineering scearks the delaware foundation for science and mattics education -- mathematics education, i.b.m., intel, the university of california, the national society of black engineers and the american

society of academy engineers, just to name a few. i am pleased at the wide-reaching support for this bill. the former c.e.o. of lockheed martin expressed strong support for the e-squared for innovation act adding, "one of the reasons our nation does not seem to attract young people in engineer something because many seem to have no idea what an engineer does." although we attempt to teach math and science in k-12, seldom do we expose students in engineering." unquote. many in my home state recognize this problem and consequently support for stem programs is growing in delaware. governor jack marquel recently released a stem education program in delaware to bring together higher education representatives and others to focus on innovative stem programs and curricula that

engage young people in delaware in stem education. the council will consist of federal grant applications for stem-related programs and support effective professional development programs in stem areas. in stem-focused schools across delaware, students are learning how to extract d.n.a. from fruit, build robots that can throw balls, perform forensic investigations, make slime and lip balm, and more. it is through these types of comprehensive, hands-on activities that we will get young people interested in tackling and learning stem subjects and eventually pursuing stem-related jobs. the e-squared for innovacation aght is just the program we need to bolster these activities in delaware and ensure more students nationwide have access to these exciting engineering opportunities. i cannot stress enough how much i believe that this nation can

at the crossroads in stem education and that is our opportunity to push forward and to create an environment that will cultivate and encourage our next generation of engineers. they will foster the research and innovation that will help us solve the challenges like clean drinking water, lifesaving cures for cancer and disease, renewable energy, affordable health care, and environmental sustainability. our country is counting on these future engineers and the e-squared for innovation act is a step in the right direction to support and encourage them. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. burris: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: madam president, i'd like consent to speak as in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: thank you, madam president. as i address this chamber, president obama is hosting the leaders of both political parties in a summit on the issue of health care reform. he has asked for all serious proposals to be brought to the table once and for all, an effort to bridge the gap between the house and senate legislation and pass a final bill. he even provided his own proposal for how we can reconcile these bills with one

another. i think, madam president -- i thank the president for his leadership on this issue and his continued commitment to the issue of health care reform. i'm glad he has called republicans and democrats to the table once again in yet another effort to reenergize this debate and move forward on behalf of the american people. i remain confident that we will, and we can still, get this work done. that is why i come to the floor today to reaffirm my commitment to comprehensive health care reform and to urge my colleagues to join with our president and the leadership of our respective parties to find a real solution. in fact, i recently joined many of my colleagues in signing a letter urging this senate to

pass a bill that includes a public option, something everyone in this room knows that i have supported since the beginning of this long, long debate. and no matter what comes out of this afternoon summit, i will judge our final proposal based on its ability to accomplish three goals, the same three goals i've called for time and again over the past several months. our reform bill must restore competition to the insurance market. it must give us the tools to hold insurance companies accountable. and it must provide real cost savings to the american people. madam president, i'm confident that we can pass a measure that is capable of meeting these goals. i remain confident that after nearly a century of inaction,

the american people demand, deserve nothing less. every president, every congress and every ordinary citizen in the past 97 years has had to wrestle with a health care system that is broken and inadequate, a system that our predecessors consistently failed to fix, a system that has deteriorated badly over the last few decades and that remains unworthy of this great nation. today 47 million americans are without health insurance, 88 million do not have stable coverage. and as a result of our broken system, madam president, 45 million americans die every single year without -- because they had no health insurance. madam president, these shocking

facts should never be far from our minds as we debate these issues. there are more than statistics. they are ordinary americans who desperately, desperately need our help. as i address this chamber today, we stand on the verge of correcting the oversights of the past century and getting these people the help they need. legislation has been written, amended and rewritten. we have compromised and compromised again. each chamber of the congress has passed a comprehensive bill. neither bill is perfect, but both represent significant progress. we are so close to doing this, madam president, so now is the time to finish the journey. late last year both house and senate voted for health care

reform with a strong voice and a clear majority. at this point we've all -- we've only to reconcile the differences between these two bills. and just this week president obama released his detailed proposal outlining exactly how we can get this done. i would urge my colleagues from both chambers and from both parties to strongly consider this option. but regardless to how we choose to proceed, after today's bipartisan health care summit, let us come away with a definite plan of action, madam president. let us come away with a plan to get this done, a plan that includes competition, cost savings and accountability. madam president, it's time to

realize the promise of the last 100 years. i urge my colleagues to finish the fight that teddy roosevelt first waged more than a generation before any of us were born. now is not the time to lose our nerve. now is the time to act with conviction. let's not allow the obstructionist tactics of a few to undermine legislation that garnered 60 votes in this chamber and 220 votes in the house. i refuse to accept that a handful of "no" votes invalidate 280 votes. i refuse to accept that the minority party can stifle the voices of millions of americans and hundreds of members of congress who have demanded that we win this fight. madam president, i call upon my colleagues in both chambers to look past our differences and carry out the will of the

american people. they sent democrats to congress with the largest majority in decades. they elected a president who has pledged himself to this cause. as far as the american people are concerned, this debate was over a long time ago. this issue has carried the day. this is a measure that the american people voted for in 2008. and my fellow democrats, this is what our party is all about. now is not the time to shrink from the fight but to engage in it. now is not the time to falter or to second-guess the wisdom of the folks who sent us here. now is the time to take bold action, to forge ahead to, carry forward with the ideas and principles of our party by delivering real results and delivering for the american people a health care plan that

will give them protection and not see their interest rates -- their premiums going up 39% and be 40%. madam president, comprehensive health care reform would extend quality coverage to 31 million americans. it will reduce premiums and prevent insurance companies from abusing their customers or discriminating against people who get sick. can you imagine you get sick and think you've got coverage today, and they cancel your policy and you have no coverage? the majority leader stood on the floor yesterday and told stortry about -- told the story about a young kid with a khreuft lip -- cleft lip whose father paid $90,000 in insurance policy. that is intolerable, madam president. the senate bill could even cut

the federal deficit by about $1 trillion over the next two decades. so i ask my colleagues: what are we waiting for? this is about values, not politics. our country deserves better, so let's make it happen. in politics, it's easy to find excuses. it's easy to wait,,o to place blame with another and throw up our hands. that is not leadership, madam president. that is not what the american people have called upon us to do. and it is far less than what they deserve. the american people have been waiting for 100 years, and i, for one, think that that's quite long enough. colleagues, it's time for us to lead. it's time to take up the mantle of teddy roosevelt and, yes, teddy kennedy, and everyone in between, because this isn't just

about health care. it's about creating jobs, helping small businesses and keeping america on the road to economic recovery. these are issues -- these issues are not separate, as some would have us to believe. they are tied inextricably together, fixing the american health care system will reduce the deficit, make it easier for small businesses to meet expenses, create jobs and to provide health coverage to more americans than ever before. so, madam president, the way i see it, we cannot afford to wait any longer. so let us act with a strong united voice. i urge my colleagues to join me in passing a final health care bill and sending it to president obama as soon as possible. yesterday would have been all right. let's win this fight. let's stand up for what we believe in and succeed where our

predecessors came up short. the stakes are too high to settle for anything less. and so i say to you, madam president, to those who are meeting today with the president, we must come up and out of this summit with a plan that's going to give health insurance to the people of america, not tomorrow, not next week. but right now. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor, and i ask -- the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ey quorum call: