quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today our body, the senate, is going to vote to confirm the 15th judicial nominee for this year. now if it seems to my colleagues and to the faubel we've been vote -- that we've been voting

on a nominee every week, well we have been. both on the committee and on the floor, judicial nominees have regularly appeared on the senate's agenda. we've taken positive action on 34 of the 61 judicial nominees submitted to this congress by president obama. we continue to hold hearings every two weeks to examine the nominee's record and to receive testimony. the committee meets every week to report nominees to the floor. so far the committee has reported 27 nominees, which is ahead of the 23 reported by this same time in the 108th congress. this demonstrates my commitment, the commitment of republicans on the judiciary committee to cooperate with the chairman to move forward on consensus nominees.

even as we do so we continue to thoroughly examine the records and the qualifications of all nominees which is the responsibility of the united states senate. i would note that the number of judicial nominations and at least one executive branch nomination, which remain on the senate's executive calendar, are controversial in nature. in other words, not the consensus approach that i've spoken about other nominees to the judiciary. i appreciate the efforts of our leadership to move in a timely manner the nominations which are consensus nominees. today we will vote on the nomination of jimmie v. reyna to be united states circuit judge for the federal circuit. mr. reyna received his b.a. from

the university of rochester and his jurist doctorate from the university of new mexico school of law. after graduating from law school, the nominee served as law clerk for a firm and as an associate at the insurance defense firm in new mexico. it was in 191 that mr. reyna formed his own firm and practiced plaintiff injury, civil rights, and criminal law. he moved then to washington, d.c., area in 1986 and worked at an international trade firm eventually making partner of that law firm. mr. reyna continues to specialize in international trade matters with the firm of william, mullen where he directs the international trade and customs practice group in the latin american task force.

the american bar association has rated this nominee unanimously well qualified. and, of course, i'm pleased to support that nomination. the federal circuit is unique among the courts of appeal. it is not geographically based, but has nationwide subject matter jurisdiction in designated areas of the law. in addition to international trade, the court hears cases on patents, trademarks, government contracts, certain money claims against the united states government, veterans benefits, and public safety -- safety officers benefits claims. of particular interest to me this court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases related to federal personnel matters. that includes exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the merit system protection board which hears whistle-blower

cases under the whistle-blower protection act. and if anybody wonders why this senator said that i had a particular interest in this court and what it does on federal personnel matters, it's because i've been a long-time advocate for whistle-blower protection legislation and have been involved with my colleagues in this body in passing some of that whistle-blower protection legislation. i congratulate mr. reyna and his family on this important lifetime appointment. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado.

mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: and i ask for the yeas and nays be ordered. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question's on the nomination. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

is vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, it's 86 yeas, no nays and the confirmation is approved. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: i ask unanimous

consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i rise to speak about the rallies that have occurred all across this country. today americans in all 50 states are gathering at hundreds of rallies and events to stand together in unilateralty in defense of the collective bargaining rights of public employees, rights that i believe are now under attack in wisconsin, ohio, and other states in this country. and that those demonstrations have been held today is no mere coincidence, for on this day 43 years ago, the reverend dr. martin luther king was killed in memphis, tennessee, while standing up for the rights of 1,300 public sanitation workers. working men and women gathered early today in wilmington to declare "we are one." and within the hour of this speech, thousands more will gather in madison, wisconsin to protest what in my rue is the scandalous move by governor

walker to strip wisconsin's long-standing collective bargaining rights from public-sector employees. before coming to this body, i served as the county executive of new castle county, delaware, for six years and before becoming governor of wisconsin, governor scott walker was also a county executive, in his case of milwaukee county. i understand the difficult choicechoices that executives fe when they must adopt a balanced budget even in the tough et of economic and fiscal time, for i as countrcounty executive facedy difficult choices. but i rise today because i know from my sneerns cutting spending and in balancing budgets, that it can be done, without stripping american workers of their fundamental rights to organize and collectively bargain. i know it because i've done it, through collective bargaining and without resorting to blaming and draconian anti-union legislation. new castle county, delaware is a

mid-counsel sized county government. as a county executive, i confront add growing and real budget problem. our housing boom had amass add deepening deficit, deficits that were unsustainable even before the economic collapse in 2008. as our national and local economies tumbled, our government's revenue did as wesm i'd already spent my first few years cutting spending each and every year and the simple kits had given away. we had only fundamental cuts left in front of us, we had already reduced brother hours and made difficult choices that many state governments face today. that wasn't enough. as with many state and local governments, our budget was three-quarters personnel costs and we could not allow those costs to continue to grow, as health care and pension costs boomed. we needed to cut our people costs to get our budget under control. in our case, in the case of the county i formerly served, more than 80% of the county workforce

is represented by organized labor, mostly by the f. o'p. and i.t. b.w. and we needed all groups to come together and shairt sacrifice. mr. president, it was just two weeks ago -- two years ago last week that i rose before our county county and delivered the hardest budget address i had ever given, one in which i laid out that we had two paths forward. one path would involve having all the suffering focused on about 150 to 200 employees who would have to be laid off to balance our budget. and the other was sharing that sacrifice across our entire mostly unionized workforce. ultimately, after many meetings, many negotiations, very hard talk and debate and, yes, even at one point some layoffs, every bargaining iewngts in our counsel d. unit in our county government came to the table and helped us reach the goal of cutting 5% of our total costs not just one year but as the

recession continued and deepened, a second year as wevment many of these great and dedicated public employees saw health care costs shift and benefit passages change as we will. they were willing to work in the best interests of our county and public and to acknowledge that we are one n some ways seeking a legislative solution such as has been done in wisconsin trying to simply strip away the right to be organized, to be at the bargaining table might have seemedz easier. working together, as you know, mr. president, as labor and mafntle is not an easy path. no one wants to hear that they have to do more with less, especially when it comes to their own paychecks and public employees in delaware and all across this country are in my view not just the backbone of our community but the backbone of our middle class. they are the policemen, the paramedics, the 911 call takers, the emergency sewer repair mern, the librarians, the health service workers, the prison guards, the folks who keep our

community safe, healthy and prepared for the future day in and day out. and in my view, where public employees come together to organize and seek collectively representation on workplace issues, we ought to respect those choices. collective bargaining serves as a critical check on our system and its long and store rid history -- storied history is a part of american values. it led to child labor practices, led to the 40-hour work week and ended legal sweatshops. it is a critical check against excesses and overreach by management and by the marketplace. mr. president, i stand here today to remind all of us that labor unions and hundreds of thousands of public employees they represent in this country are not the enemy. we all know that this country faces a significant, almost devastating national debt and annual budget deficit, and we are going to have to make shared

sacrifices and tough choices to get through these next few years. but that does not require that we strip the collectively bargaining rights of the hundreds of thousands of public employees who serve our nation at each and every level of government. more often than not, they do the dirvetion the dirty, and the dangerous jobs that keep us safe and make our communities strong. and they simply, in my view, do not deserve to be demonized but, rather, to be listened to, respected, and partnered with as together we seek solutions to the challenges facing our country now and in the future. in my view, passing new laws to eliminate their basic collective bargaining rights is wrong and we can do it better by working together. so today i join with all those who are standing up for these fundamental rights of the american worker and join them in declaring "we are one." mr. president, i note the lack of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: would the senator withhold miss suggestion? a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i came to the floor for about the same reason senator coons d i appreciate the comments from the senator from delaware and his -- in his first -- the beginning of his first term in office and he obviously understands the importance of worker rights shall the importance of collective bargaining. he recognizes, and i do, that in my state when collective bargaining passed 30 years ago that we no longer saw blue flu where police officers called in because they had no ability to bargain, organize and bargain collectively, they call in sick the same day, they had no other way of expressing themselves. we've seen significant labor peace when we didn't always have labor peace on a lot of these issues prior to the early 1980's in my state, where you have collective bargaining. we also for my colleagues that have followed the news -- and i think people are very aware of this in my state -- we have seen governor kasik recently sign legislation to take away those

bargaining rights. that's why i come to the floor, in part to celebrate "we are one," an organization that believes that we are a people of faith, people who care about economic justice, people who support strong community, local services, police, fire, nursing, teaching, come together to honor both dr. king,, who as senator coons said, dr. king who was assassinated 43 years ago today because he was standing with workers in memphis, tennessee. sanitation workers, some had been crushed to death by heavy machinery on the job, and no ability to bargain collectively, no ability to fight for them, most of them african-american, most had no real right to job safety, decent wages, decent benefits. dr. king understood that worker rights is a human right and that that's why he stood up. the debate -- yes, the debate in statehouses across america -- in wisconsin, ohio, and other places -- is about collectively

bargaining, but it's really also about the middle class. the middle class didn't happen by chance. those aspiring to the middle class had to work hard and play the -- play by the rules in order to enter it. the middle class was created after people worked together to deand in a minimum wage, safe workplaces, pensions, social security, basic fairness. the middle class in many ways in this country was a direct outgrowth created with the passage in this body some 70-plus years ago of collectively bargaining, the right to organize and bargain collectively, guaranteeing both ultimately private-sector workers then, later public-sector workers. now, last frawl we heard many of the -- last fall we heard many of the winners, particularly republican winners, in the election in my state and i think across the country, the loss of jobs. the job loss that began during the bush administration when president obama took office, we

were losing 700,000 jobs a month. we're now beginning to gain jobs. we've done that the last 12 or 13 months, especially in manufacturing. we know manufacturing jobs create a middle class. but after winning these elections last fall, in my state, instead of focusing on gorks as they did during the election, too many politicians are governing by ideology and seeking to settle old scores. at a time when the middle complas is struggling more than at any time in my lifetime, when workers see their productivity going up and up and up but seeing their wages flat or see their hours even cut back, american families are burdened by new attacks on their rights. about a month and a half ago i had a round table in an episcopal church in columbus listennings to teaches and firefighters and nursing and other public employees. what struck me is that as i heard -- what struck me is i heard outside -- and "outside"

meaning from politicians -- concern of politicians who wanted to cut off collective bargaining rights. take those rights away. those people making accusations that these firefighters and teachers and police fighters were lazy, overpaid, had too much time off, had too big a pension, had too big a health care benefits. as i was hearing that -- i was hearing that from critics but i was listening one on one to these public employees. a teacher told me -- a young teacher who's been teaching only about ten years, when she goes to the bargaining table, she doesn't just talk about wages and benefits and all of that. she's also negotiating for smaller class size. a police officer i talked to wasn't just talking about pensions and pay. he was negotiating for a bulletproof vest for him and his men and women who were also police officers. so these aren't just -- these negotiations are not just for the -- for more money, for public dollars spent on behalf of these police, fire, feerches,

and nurses. -- teachers, and nurses they're also about helping society, improving society,,spangdzing on the middle class. but it's clear that those apakistanning collective bargaining are more interested in taking rights away than creating jobs. and it's clear, as it is in ohio with a bill nasd the house of representatives, which would give ohio the most restrictive voter registration laws in the nation that they would seek to limit our basic freedoms. restrict worker rights, restrict the right to vote, restrict -- cut back on women's -- women's rights. that's got something to do -- i'm missing this. that's got something to do with creating jobs and strengthening our economy? let me for a second, mr. president, for a couple of moments put a human face on all of this. i have a friend who is a firefighter named george in willabee, ohio. he wrote me this letter after the governor signed this legislation, taking away his

rights, taking away bargaining rights for a huge in my judgment of police officers and firefighters and teachers and health care workers and nurses and others. he said, "i join my proud profession knowing i would never be rich. i truly joined knowing i would be helping people. i joined knowing i would be able to raise a family. i joined knowing i would have a pension in the end. as a 20-year-old kid -- 21-year-old kid entering in profession, i weighed heavily on the helping people and the pure excitement of the job. now as a 41-year-old firefighter who has been beaten down both physically and emotionally, i'll admit that my pension now plays a role in my driving force to go to work every day. i've always been the firefighter that the bosses looked to when a task needs to be dofnlt i'll soon ab42-year-old firefighter in my 231st year of service. i'm six and a half years from being able to retire. hathis job has torn up my knees, requiring surgery to one of them. this swob ha job has injured byn

several occasions, twice requiring extensive time off for rehab. i'm doing everything possible to avoid surgery. this job has caused memories that will stick for me the rest of my life, the kind of memories that make you go home and hug your wife and kids and thank god that they are safe. i mention all of this because we as public servants, as you know, are being attacked in ohio. we are being attacked in our profession as well as our retirement. our fundamental rights, the foundation of our profession are being attacked. collective bargaining is the only way we've been able to improve safety as well as maintain a quality of life for our families. this system provides both the taxpayer and the public servant from leaders on both sides who choose to rule with an iron fist. i'm now one of our beat-up senior firefighters who's rapidly approaching retirement age. where do threats of pension changes leave me or the many other like me if i'm unable to finish my years of service queue do to injury?

where do those changes leave me if my employer decides it's hiss fist cli responsible to lay off senior firefighters to keep lower-paid younger firefighters." i'll get back to the letter in a second. but understand, mr. president, under the legislation -- my understanding is that under the legislation that governor kasich signed, that management then would be able to say, well, this firefighter's more likely to get hurt, he's older, we're paying more, we've got to lay off five firefighters so we'll lay off five of them in their 40's who are paid more and get the younger ones and that's just too bad, they're not going to have enough years to retire. that's what taking away collective bargaining rights, that's what busting the union for these firefighters or police officers or teachers or nurses can do. back to the letter, mr. president. "in willoughby, due to economic conditions, we've not replaced firefighters who have died or retired. in 1990, we ran 2,100 incidents per year. in 2010, we ran just under 5,000

incidents." in 20 years, went from 2,100 runs to 5,000 runs. "i'm not sure -- i'm sure we're not the only city who continues to operate understaffed, with higher volumes. i consider myself a moderate when it comes to politics. i've always voted for those who support me as a public servant. that's what true public servants do." that was george, a firefighter in lake county, ohio, in willoughby, just east of cleveland. mr. president, when -- what -- again, this is not just about collective bargaining, it's about what we want our country to be. dr. king, whom we honor, who was assassinated 43 years ago, as i said, today, dr. king delivered the 1965 commencement address in antioche springs, ohio, where coretta scott attended many years before. on the moral question of confronting poverty, dr. king said, "there's no deficit in human resources. the deficit is in human will." yes, we all care about budget deficits. we know we need to move towards a balanced budget.

we know our first focus needs to be creating jobs. we want to invest smartly and cut wisely. but we also care about the education deficit. we care about the infrastructure deficit. we care about disparities in education and health care based on class and race and gender. we care about the lack of economic mobility for millions of americans in underserved urban and underserved rural appalachian areas, like much of the presiding officer's state which borders an underserved rural area in my state. we care -- these are the deficits, we care about these deficits and our nation. but what is greater is our deficit -- what is greater is our deficit and the lack of will to close them. the question becomes, mr. president, then, do we have the will to do the right thing, do we have the will to -- to fight back in ohio, when -- when the governor and legislature have eliminated collective bargaining, now effective in 90 days? do we have the will to fight for the middle class? do we have the will to

strengthen our country as we cut the tbowg move towards a balance -- cut the budget to move towards a balanced budget but not cut the things to matter for a productive, strong middle class, for middle-class americans and for all those people in ohio and west virginia and around this country that aspire to join the middle class? mr. president, i -- i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, april 5. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority the final half. and that following morning business, the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 4, 109 repeal under the previous orde order -- 1099 repeal under the previous order. further, mr. president, that the senate stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president,

senators should expect two roll call votes at approximately 10:00 noon in relation to 1099 repeal. we're working to reach agreement on the small business bills. senators will be notified when additional votes are scheduled. mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow

>> as much if anything, what troubles me is this is just kind of sucks the options out of so many issues before the federal communication commission. we can chew gum and walk at the same time i guess, but this affects so much of what we're doing.

>> earlier today, white house press secretary, jay carney told reporters president obama has invited congressional leaders to the white house tomorrow to discuss government spending for the rest of the fiscal year. a spending bill that he passed by midnight friday in order to avoid a government shutdown. this is 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations] sound [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i want to begin with a couple of scheduling announcements or updates.

first, regarding some energy events this week for the president. the president this week will make two trips begin directly with americans about his long-term plan to protect consumers against rising oil prices and decrease oil imports as well as key components of his broader energy plan. on wednesday, as you know, the president will travel to philly adelphia -- rather the philadelphia area to hold a discussion with workers at gamesa technology corporation. this was built at a former u.s. steel industrial state. on friday, the president will travel to indianapolis where he will tour the facilities at allison transmission before speaking to workers they are. allison transmission is a leader in hybrid technology and the world largest manufacturer of fully automatic transmissions for medium and heavy-duty

commercial vehicles, tactical military vehicles, in hybrid or potion systems. in june 2010, allison announced the dedication of the new hybrid facility, which once fully operational, will have the capacity to produce 20,000 hybrid propulsion systems each year. separately, i would also like to inform you that earlier today, invitations were expounded to speaker boehner, senate majority leader reid, chairman dan inouye and chairman hal rogers to a meeting at the white house with the president to discuss ongoing negotiations on a funding bill to bring us to the end of this fiscal year. the president has made clear that we all understand the need to cut funding and significant progress has been made in agreeing to fashion a green we can now work off the same number, $73 billion in spending cuts in this year alone. but the process running short on time, the president will urge leaders to reach final agreement

and avoid a government shutdown that would be harmful to our economic recovery. though semi-announced that. i will take your questions. truly. >> quickly in a meeting tomorrow, is the president confident that congress can reach an agreement on the budget by friday it would shut down? >> he remains confident that if we remain together, ropers sleeves and get to work very quickly, that we can find a compromise that reduces spending by $73 billion, protects the investments that are so key to our future economic growth, allowing us to out innovate, and educate and help build the rest of the world -- yes, he believes that can get done, but time is that the offense, and that is what he calls the meeting for tomorrow and it is why he made some calls over the weekend to speaker boehner and leader reid. >> surely be weak came out here, other organizations reporting the administration is going to

try khalid sheikh mohammed in a military tribunal at one time of day, not in new york rather a civilian. now that the president is running for reelection, how does he explain this reversal to his supporters, many of whom voted for him in part because it is amended to closing guantánamo, joining the military tribunals? >> well, as you know, julie, those expected in the case of participating in this heinous attacks be brought to justice. that is his primary concern. for details on the decision, i think you are going to hear from the attorney general at 2:00 p.m. today. we'll have a lot more to say about this, so i direct you to that press conference. >> the president will say to his supporters to look at this and say he's going back on a promise he made during his 2008 campaign, what is his message going to be? >> again, i would refer of the attorney general statement later today, but i think the president's primary concern here is that the perpetrators, the

accused perpetrators of that terrible attack on the american people be brought to justice as swiftly as possible and as fairly as possible. >> and if i could ask one more in reelection. as the president said on friday when the job numbers came out, there is progress on the economy, but it is not progress fast enough for him. if the administration is even saying that, how can you expect the american people to reward him with reelection is not progress hasn't come fast enough? ..

the economy is showing real signs of strength with the numbers we talked about, the significant private sector job creation we saw friday, the revisal of words of members from the previous two months and the fact we've had some 13 straight months of private sector job creation and we started in a deep hole. there's more work to be done and that is the president is focused on. >> just a couple of questions. khalid sheikh mohammed seems complicity or confirming that attorney general holder -- >> i'm simply saying the principal of what the attorney general said that the principal of the president approaches this way is the need for justice. estimate will attorney-general holder -- >> i would urge you to wait for the attorney general's statement. >> on the budget negotiations, you did say you're somewhat confident of the deal being

reached in the president is going in extra mile with the lawmakers and house talk. but are you actually seeing a substantial narrowing of the difference already before the president sits down with these folks? and can you talk a little bit about the economic consequences of a government shutdown? >> there was work over the weekend, including phone calls that the president made but others have been working rolling up their sleeves and working including representatives of the white house, the administration, people on the hill. the president made those phone calls and is calling the meeting precisely because he's concerned we need to reach a final agreement. time is of the essence. and in terms of -- i don't want to speculate and out the consequences of not getting this work done except to say that nobody believes that it's good for the economy, good for the kind of recovery that we've seen

taking root to run the government in a way where it stops, starts funding is dependent every two weeks on these kind of negotiations. we need to get this work done. >> there's quite a bit of talk about the u.s. government having shifted stands on its -- yemen's president and that its now quietly decided that he must leave office because he will not -- could not be trusted to bring about necessary reforms. is that fact the case? >> we are obviously concerned about and monitoring the situation in yemen. we've seen reports of further violence and that is a concern and we have been very clear about our views on the needs to restrain from violence, that there be an open process that addresses the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people. we support the dialogue, a political dialogue of the president saleh has publicly

indicated his willingness to engage in a peaceful transition of power and we believe the timing and a form of the transition should be accomplished in the negotiations so we urge that process to continue. >> the white house has repeatedly said the allies when it comes to combat terrorism especially in fighting against al qaeda in the arab peninsula if the administration is now supporting a transition process in yemen, how confident is the white house, how concerned is the white house, that whatever comes next will not be as helpful to the united states and fighting terrorism? >> jake, the opposition with regards to working with the government of yemen on counterterrorism efforts is that it is not and has not been focused on one person or should it be. we are obviously concerned in this period of political unrest that al qaeda and other groups will attempt to take it is

vintage of that power vacuum and that's one of the reasons why we urge political dialogue to take place and a timetable for this transition that the president has talked about to be begun, but we believe that we can and will work with the government of yemen on these important matters and like i said they are not focused on one individual. >> the psychiatry defense told me a week ago yesterday that the concept of the post saleh yemen is of great concern to the united states. >> yemen is of great concern to the united states and of great concern to the united states which is why we've put so much work in our counterterrorism efforts with the government of yemen and those who can be partners around the region in the world in combating the terrorist activities. >> on the president's promise to shut down gitmo and try as many as can be tried, the civilian

court, has there been any conclusion as to why that promise wasn't able to be carried out? the consideration of congress, why is this and the promise that he's not been able to fulfil? >> you know the history very well about this process, and congressional reaction to some of the goals that were set out. what i'd ask you to do is listen to what the attorney general has to say about this particular decision to be today and then just tell you the president remains focused on everything he can do every day to get the economy growing, jobs created, the pretty the american people set for him and he takes very seriously. >> he covered it in 2008, this

was a big issue he brought up on the campaign trail and is obviously a failure. >> i would say that again what has transpired over the last several years with regards to these issues is well known to everyone, congressional opposition to the decisions creates an obstacle that made it very hard. it became very hard to overcome and the president is very focused on the need for justice to be brought with regards to those who are accused of participating in the planning of those attacks. >> on the shutdown, is the white house raising were preparing for a government shutdown? >> as you know, there are procedures that have been in place since the 1980's for this kind of situation. there's nothing unusual the government and administration is doing with regards to the

situation that we are in now. so, i wouldn't say bracing for because at the white house the president believes that there is ample room for compromise for finding common, and we believe strongly that what the american people want us to do and we take seriously the expressed sentiments of congressional leaders of both parties that they believe a government shutdown would not be good for the economy, for job creation, for the american people, so with all that at work here and the fact so much progress has been made towards an agreement that everyone can live with we believe that we should get this done and get it done because there are bigger challenges that we need to work on together. >> you're not expecting a shut down? >> no, we believe that there is still ample room for common ground to be found if people

roll up their sleeves and get this time. >> is the president troubled though that he's ruling out what they expect to be a billion dollar campaign at a time when many americans are still struggling to stay in their homes to get jobs? >> the president was elected as you know to address those three concerns. he was elected in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression. a terrible job loss shrinking of the economy, the potential collapse of the financial sector. all of these things were challenges he confronted when he was elected and when he took office and is addressing each and every day. that is his job and what he's focused on. the formal process of filing papers and announcing the campaign is separate from the work he is doing here every day for the american people. >> i know you're taking a lot of the questions to the 2:00 press

conference with attorneys general. but can you tell us beyond the timing, why this happened on the day when the president was willing of his 2012 campaign? >> this is a process and a decision the was undertaken by the gentry general and the justice department, so why would most certainly refer you to them on the timing. >> can i follow on that? to the president of any involvement all? has he had any conversations with attorney general told her about this recently? >> i believe there are conversations about heads up and that sort of thing, but nothing substantive. >> how about the white house counsel's office? >> why don't i refer you to the justice department? i don't want to get out beyond areas what i know, so while we wait for the justice department to speak on that? >> on the potential shutdown, there are still surveys that show there are still a lot of people out there who are concerned that things like, things like the social security checks and whether going to doctors under medicare or medicaid. could you just reassure people what will happen with regards to

those kind of government programs if there is a shut down? >> i don't want to get into the details about or speculate about what might happen in the scenario that we believe can and optimistic will be avoided. i can't guarantee a lot of things what will happen if it does happen. >> on the different programs and how they are affected in the circumstance that could entail should an agreement not be reached i think would have to be spelled out by the agencies involved. so, what we have said, what i've said is that a shutdown is not something we want. the leaders of congress have said it's not something they want. we believe that it is bad for a number of reasons but most importantly because it would have a negative impact and send the wrong signal without the economy and have a negative impact on the job growth in the future. by itself is a reason to look hard to prevent it from

happening. >> you can't even tell people don't wear your social security checks. speed you can go for the tells how that mechanism works and i wouldn't want to give a complete information about how the various process he's worked when there is funding stoppage of funding on the government programs this would happen because i don't have all the details. >> of the president's reelection, he has spoken often about the impact of money on the election process and he's talked to the most expensive of the reelection. do they give him any pause at all? >> i will ask you to take those questions for now to the dnc and then shortly i believe to what will be a campaign headquarters

in chicago, but i don't have any comment on that from here. >> let's look at prospects for a political support to be launched by the president's former press secretary. mr. obama sharply criticized. will he give this group its lesson? >> again, i don't have anything for you. first of july don't know any specifics of where you are talking about, but i would urge you to take those questions to the dmz and once it is stood up to the campaign. >> is this going to be your response to all the campaign related questions? >> i'm not drawing lines in the sand by just saying at this point the answers to those questions could be found there and also the president is focused on his work for the american people that he was elected to do and that's what he does every day and that is what the staff here is doing and he set up this structure or is setting up the structure in

chicago precisely or in part to allow him to focus on the work he needs to do from the white house to the american people and there is a lot on his plate. what is on his plate is also on our plate so we are focused as well. >> it's announced today foley a month or so earlier that his predecessor announced his reelection. >> i would refer you to those who make the decisions about the campaign announcements. i did -- i didn't make the decision. i guess what i will say is the timing of setting up the filing papers you can go to the people who are going to work on the campaign and find out what went into that process. i know that the president today over the weekend, this weekend and forward will be focused on the work of the presidency and that the american people expect

him to do precisely because there are so many challenges facing us that need to be addressed. >> to pick up, does the attorney general consult with the president -- >> i have to take that question. i don't have any specifics on it for you and the starting point today will be a statement by the attorney general but i will take that question. >> you mean you don't know? >> i don't know. >> as the president agreed with the attorney general's decision? >> the answer is yes, but i for details on that i think maybe wait for after the attorney general makes his statement, and then you can come back i will be taking questions are short on this and other issues but i don't want to get out ahead of the attorney general. >> as the president still believe that a military commission is an interior method of trying the terrorism suspects?

>> again that is another way of trying to get me to address the statement and the announcement -- >> but his opinion has changed. >> it could have and i would point you to some of the answers i gave earlier about the president's concern here. the primary concern here is justice be served and that this process move forward given the obstacles that are out there that we all know about. >> and the last thing on the campaign video what should anyone draw that there is one shot president obama -- >> i wouldn't draw any conclusions on the first week of april, 2011 about a political campaign that in terms of his engagement is way down the road, and the structures that are built support that need to be built because of the way things

unfold, but his focus is on the job he was elected to do and there's a great deal on his plate and that's what he is focused on now. >> tomorrow paul ryan will be unveiling of the budget and i wonder what your reaction is to his plans for medicare with the government-run program is the one individuals would get support to pay premiums to the private companies. >> well, i haven't seen his proposal. i don't think any of us have yet because it hasn't arrived, and obviously, others will examine it with interest. the president has said since the state of the union address that he looks forward to engaging in a conversation, an adult conversation about the challenge that face us and our fiscal future. in title that reform, defense

spending, tax reform, the issues that really affect how our long-term deficit and debt. i also think that it's important to note the president himself has already put forward a 2012 budget that includes health care savings and prior to that he passed legislation that addressed the need for health care savings in a substantial way. he recognizes with a demonstrated action that this is an area that is of concern when it comes to our long-term fiscal health and he's shown his seriousness about. but again i don't want to prejudge mr. ryan's proposal except to say that the president looks forward to engaging in a serious conversation where people call only address the issues at hand and try to come together in a way that can produce a result. the american people can broadly support. because nothing like this gets done if it's not done in a

bipartisan way. >> forget about the details of the plan, the fundamental concept behind medicare and for very long time and in general highly criticized by the bulk of the democratic party and he basically said well, we also have savings we want to talk about. are you suggesting this may be something you can work with? >> what i am saying is as in the short term budget discussions, the president shares the goal with you of cutting spending flexible on the fiscal year 2011 and he shares the goal of dealing with the issues that drive our debt and affect our fiscal health. how you get there is very important. he's shown his seriousness about addressing these issues in the past and he will continue to show serious about addressing them in the future. how you get there is important and i don't want to negotiate

particular some ex of to say that the only way this process works is that there is something all sides can agree on in substantial numbers. there is no single party proposition with of this entitlement reform and longer-term fiscal health facilities will become law because it needs the support of both parties and the presidents to get done. the issue is too big to have it otherwise. >> is it what do you suppose or a part that idea? >> i don't want to get into the specifics of the proposal -- >> this is very much -- >> i think the president's position on medicare can be seen in the affordable care act and in the week that he has addressed in his 2012 budget proposal. but i don't want to say beyond saying ideas that have very

limited support in congress will not likely become law. we need to find solutions that can garner bipartisan support coming and we need to find a process that we saw in december and that we hopefully will see this week, where both sides come together conley, willing to jettison their maximalist positions because they know they won't get everything they want, but protecting the principals in the name of a deal that the american people want. >> last thing, how would you respond to people in the democratic party who will probably be disappointed with that response that you don't seem to be attacking this idea? >> i would say that this is a process that hasn't even begun yet, and that this -- is one where precisely -- it is one that i certainly don't want to prejudge an outcome of today, and i think that kind of -- as i've said before and others have said before -- that you stake

out positions in your corners and that's your beginning and end position, you never get to the center. and the president believes in results -- in foreign policy and in domestic policy. he believes in -- he sets his principles and he believes in getting the things done for the american people, based on his principles, but also based on the idea that there should be common ground on these issues that are so important. yes, sir. >> can you further characterize this meeting tomorrow? is there a negotiating session? visiting knott heads meeting? what does the president hope this thing is going to accomplish? >> well, what i said at the top is what i think the president wants to convey by issuing the invitation and having the meeting, which is that it's a good time, a very good time for these senior leaders to come together and ss where we are and make some decisions about whether or not we can reach a final agreement. and so, he looks forward to that meeting because he believes we can do it and we are close.

>> dtc getting into the details -- >> welcome the beatles -- >> -- line numbers? >> i wouldn't want to prejudge on the very smart people who will be in the room and maybe some of a few calculators. but my guess is that this is more of a leadership discussion and not a line item discussion. >> thank you. does the president believed that chongging a khalid sheikh mohammed at a military tribunal was the best way to bring him to justice as switch switch -- swiftly as possible? >> i'm going to -- since this announcement that you're referring to may or may not be made this afternoon, i don't want to start picking it apart or analyzing it. i'd like the attorney general to be able to address that first. >> if, let's say there is an announcement this afternoon, with the president believed that drawing him -- >> if there weren't -- if they believe could there is no such announcement this afternoon and i will say what i would have said last week --

>> -- striking him in that we is the best way to bring him -- >> which is that my understanding is that the analysis of the particular process is underway and hopefully there will be a result and decision soon. >> and that brings him to justice as swiftly and fairly as possible? >> correct. >> you know how the president has set up a negotiating team to go to capitol hill and a deal with the budget issues. does that the fact now that he has to invite leaders to the white house and personally involved mean that the plan didn't work? >> i would say that the president has been personally involved prior to the summit as evidenced by phone calls tease me. the vice president has obviously been directly engaged. the budget director, the president's congressional liaison, rob, and others have been engaged. this is a step along the way. >> it was not to plan that he would have pushed -- push all over the finish line? >> well you don't know how this will play out. you can't game eight day-by-day or hour by hour. but he looks forward to having this meeting and things it's

important and things we need to reach an agreement because an agreement is within reach and we need to get it moving to bigger issues. >> could i just ask for a preview about the lunch tomorrow? >> the president looks forward to the lunch. obviously there are a lot of issues to discuss and developments in the region, about america's commitment to israel's security, and up the need for progress on the peace process. >> any specific ideas about the way the peace process fits into what's unfolding in other parts of the middle east right now? >> welcome he may have them but let him discuss the president what they are? the dhaka. >> dni stallions have not recognized the rebels as the defacto government. they've joined the french and the qataris. what do they know that we don't know or what do we know that they don't know and we are not recognizing it? >> we've taken a lot of steps to engage in dialogue with opposition leaders. we are part of the contact group which is very much engaged in processing of assessing the

opposition and helping plan for or for assisting in advising the opposition and planning for the post qaddafi libya. but we continue to take measures the we believe are in america's national interest, national security interest in terms of due diligence and assessing the opposition and assessing the kind of assistance begin providing the opposition. >> are they not just organized enough yet or are there elements that scared us about the opposition? >> i would just say that we are only days into this term of -- well, weeks since the very beginning of any unrest in would be at all. only a few weeks since the kind of -- and since the kinetic and even if nato and only a little bit longer than that since the u.s. took action unilaterally and multilaterally on a slew of sanctions and that sort of thing. so, going back to a refrain - you've heard from me and others, that this process has moved for a quick, it's very fluid and a dynamic, and what is certainly has not been slow and overly

deliberative. >> to follow on stifel's question, what is the president's position on giving the state of palestine a seat on the u.n. general assembly? >> i'm not going to engage in the middle east peace process negotiations here. obviously there are a lot of issues on the table. we encourage the -- both sides to the engage in the negotiations that are vital to a peace process that needs revitalization. but the elements of that i'm not going to get into from here. >> but as the united states now have a position? as the president have a position on that? >> again, i'm not going to get into specifics. if you want to address that to the state department, your welcome to, but from here i'm not going to do that. as you know, the israeli president is coming tomorrow. >> thank you. the same week as the president

would launches his reelection campaign, the will be the recurring theme to get to other questions but yes. >> they were important in the 2008 election and moving forward into 2012 what is your -- can you provide the american people is the official talks appeared on the itinerary will not be the reconsideration? >> i can tell you very clearly that the president is focused on the work that needs to do for the american people that he was elected to do. and that all the safeguards that should be taken will be taken with regard to that. there are a lot -- unfortunately, a lot of states the were very important the president's election in 2008. >> since we're on the subject of the reelection -- [laughter] -- and the video that the dnc released this morning, one of the people in the video mentioned things that need to be done at some point in the future, things that are left undone. i'm wondering what the president thinks those are coming and when does he expect them to get done? >> well, without addressing,

again, specifically that video, i would say that he has been in office for a little over two years and face the collection of challenges that compare in their size and complexity with any collection ever faced buy any president coming into office in this history of this country. so there are -- and he has taken enormous steps towards overcoming a lot of these challenges, principally the economic ones, but also rebalancing our foreign policy and re-establishing american leadership around the world and drawing down troops in iraq -- 100,000 american troops have been drawn down from iraq -- and getting a policy toward afghanistan that can achieve our goals. momism succumb to -- but, to suggest that all the challenges we face when president obama was sworn into office and have been successfully negotiated is simply obviously not the case.

and so there's much work to be done, and not least of which -- in fact most important of which -- is the continued need for economic growth and job creation and investment in those kinds of -- those areas of the country that will help us compete in the 21st century and when the future. that's his principal top line focus. >> he's mentioned immigration specifically in some other public events in the context of supporters. is he going to be presenting these issues, these things left undone as a second term issue, reasons why he needs to be reelected? >> i certainly don't think you could ever accuse the president of taking on big challenges in a slow way and spacing them out. so i think i will cite the president that he remains committed to immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform. it's the kind of thing, like some of the other challenges i was talking about earlier, that

absolutely requires bipartisan consensus to get done. there is a history of bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform and you will hear the president discussed that sooner rather than later, and certainly will be for a second term. >> the secretary of state cannot talking about the ivory coast, saying things like the incumbent president who lost the election needs to leave and the u.n. peacekeepers need to be essentially do their job. what more can be administration do, particularly as there is concern about the fact that

there's a contradiction in libya for the human rights violation and if anything happening. the administration has taken a lot of measures, many measures with regards and has led the international community in building that consensus against former president urging him to step down as it down now. we are also -- we call on him to make the choice to act in the best interest of the people of his country to avoid and sees the violence that has been perpetrated against the people. the international community's working collectively in the united states leadership to address this and this is already on the ground as he cited the united nations operation in the

country and it has been actively taking steps to protect civilians and prevent looting of the volatile time so we support that. >> will we hear from the president as you talk about the severity and how the united states can engage to show will we hear for instance on this -- >> video not long ago addressed to the people of the country he has been very engaged in this issue. he's made it unequivocal clear that he recognizes elected presidents of that country needs to assume power and the former president needs to give up power. >> what as it relates to the hope for you have many grassroots persons and videotape

the many grassroots persons they can gain a small amounts of money to the campaign and a lot of these grassroots people are the ones who are being pinched now by this recession we are climbing out of now? >> one thing the president is fully aware of, as i've mentioned several times already, is that we are not out of the whole that this recession has dug. we are continuing to grow and build out of it. unemployment remains too high. the president said recently and he said frequently that he will not be satisfied until every american who is looking for work as a good job. and he's keenly aware that there are americans suffering still from the impact of this terrible recession, and that is the focus of his work today. it's not related to a political campaign; as related to the job that he was elected to do. >> but getting back to what you said, do you think that's a lofty number -- as you just said, with suffering -- i mean,

billion dollar -- with a b, versus you are saying people are suffering. i mean, do you think that -- >> the questions about the nature of the campaign and its elements i refer to the dnc, and then once it stood up to the campaign headquarters in chicago for now. yes, margaret. >> thanks. does the president have any plans for possible plans to visit guantanamo anytime soon? [laughter] >> spring break. >> i don't have any announcements beyond the ones i made on his schedule. >> with the family perhaps? [laughter] >> three questions. one of the president's goals has been the passage of the employment nondiscrimination act, which board job discrimination against gay, transgendered americans. it's going to be a challenge to control the house. it's an executive order and businesses and companies they don't have their own work protection based on and with the president be open to issuing the

executive order? >> what action he may or may not take the position on is known and again he doesn't shy away from obstacles when he approaches an issue important to him, but i don't have -- i'm not going to speculate what measures he might take. islamic moving for aandahl mask "don't ask, don't tell" has the president opened order to the ltv to service members if they experience discrimination from the u.s. military? >> i don't want to say what he may or may not be open to. the appeal is going on schedule successfully. he's closely monitoring that more than that i do not have. >> uzi any impediments, legal, political or otherwise to prevent the president from the executive order. some of those questions about the legal impediments are best addressed to the lawyers and i am not one. yes, sir.

>> he is possible for the killings that occurred in afghanistan. are there any thoughts taking action against him? >> two points. we absolutely condemn the burning of the holy text. we think it is on american and inappropriate number one. member to come nothing justifies some absolutely nothing justifies the kind of violence and fatal violence that we saw that took the lives of the workers of the united nations and mazar-i-sharif. absolutely not. >> any thought of taking action against him or is there going to be more communications with him to tell him to stop doing that? >> our interest is not in elevating somebody whose behavior is inappropriate and an american or does not represent what we believe our america's values. our focus, however, is also on condemning the heinous acts that took the lives of u.n. workers and afghanistan. >> one last question on that.

it is inappropriate and an american and so forth. but do americans -- does the president believed that americans have the right to burn the koran -- as horrible as it is -- if they want to do that? >> i would just point you to the condemnations of that act by general petraeus, by the president to issue a statement, and but other administration officials. but again, i think it is important to note that nothing justifies the reaction -- absolutely nothing. >> there are reports out there that the administration is talking to bp about resuming deep sea drilling. can you talk about that? is the -- how close are we to resuming the deep sea drilling in the gulf? >> i'm glad you asked that because i would like to point you to something the secretary salazar said this morning. quote, there is absolutely no such agreement nor would there be such an agreement. there is nothing here with bp that is different from what we will doing with all the other companies that operate in the gulf of mexico.

the simple fact is everyone who wants to do business and drilling in either shallow or deep water needs to meet the stringent requirements that have been in place since still last year and that includes every country and permits are issued based on the capacity of the company to meet the requirements of those new standards set and again, they don't make deals, issues permits based on the merits of the application would be true at any company. >> [inaudible] speed i would refer you to the permit of the interior and secretary salazar but i think that he is pretty clear. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> you get one more. >> to more. >> i can't imagine why you're going to ask stan sec'y has the

president ordered forces into the plebeian region when u.s. military objectives of the resolution 73 have vastly been achieved. >> another three objectives of the dressel military objectives, they are the objectives laid out by u.n. security council resolution 1973 which is guiding the mission nato now has commanding control over and is the lead of doherty which the united states military is still participating in an analyzed support role which continues to be important intelligence gathering refueling and the like. i will tell you because there were reports of it that the kinetic participation of the military was extended several days until midnight tonight because the weather that affected the devotee and the assets to hit the target that

has been laid out to hit which of the unique capabilities of hitting to use that relinquished but as of midnight tonight they will no longer be in that role. the partnership continues and nato will continue to thrive and take action as the mission continues. >> to those capabilities include unique ground attack -- >> again there was a list -- as an understand the delays are probably better spoken to by nato or by the department of defense -- but the delay was driven by a set of targets that we could deal with and that the added time was allowed for the weather to clear and for them to be dealt with, and that we are now in the process as of midnight tonight of pulling back those assets and taking on that role that we have discussed of participating in the collision but not leading it.

>> thank you very much. i have two questions. today in a chicago courtroom, defense lawyers for the governor blagojevich filed a motion requesting obama's transition interview that he made in 2008 with the fbi be given to them. could you find out if you have any option to the release of those fbi interviews for blagojevich's upcoming retrial? my second is -- on a related matter -- the white house had been asked by the two illinois senators to send a letter that guantanamo detainees would not -- not be sent to the prison in illinois that the federal government is trying to purchase. this would probably take away the last roadblock to being able to -- the purchase of this prison with approval by republican congress. can you give me a status report on whether you think this letter is ever going to come? if by chance you know about it? >> again, i have to take the question in both cases.

i don't have answers for either. >> do you think there would be a chance of getting an answer today on either of those issues? >> why don't you check with my office? >> thank you very much. >> one more, sir. >> on rebalancing foreign policy you just mentioned, what's the goal that the president is seeking on his second term -- in terms of rebalanced? >> welcome again, it's not related to -- deduce a second term? is not related to that. it's -- i think tom donilon eloquently spelled out in a speech or interview can't remember about the approach that he feet to the president took when he took office to the balance our priorities in a foreign policy and to take into account the emergence of countries like china and india and brazil and in our -- the way

we look strategically of the world and not focus solely on one or two regions. more broadly and also he came in determined to reestablish america's leadership standing in the world and feels great progress has been made in that regard as well. thank you very much. dannel conversations

>> here's a look at

next, highlights from question time in the australian parliament when prime minister giulio gillard and cabinet

members answered questions in the plan for the carbon tax aimed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. opponents accuse the prime minister of breaking the pre-election promise not to levy the carbon tax. the prime minister also answered questions on australia's border security policies and on the recovery efforts for communities affected by recent floods. this is 40 minutes. >> hello. i'm david. the next half hour we are going to bring highlights of the austral in parliamentary sitting in march. during the month the prime minister unveiled her plans for the carbon tax in australia to fight climate change. the idea is being resisted by opposition leader tony abbott of the conservative side of politics. during march, the government also had to defend its order protection policies after the riots on christmas island for the detention center houses more than 2,000 asylum seekers during march the government opposition declared the support of the

japan after the earthquake tsunami into the nuclear disasters. here are the highlights of the latest australian parliamentary decision to it. ♪ the deputy leader of the opposition cynics before. my question is to the prime minister. i would refer to the conference on the 24 that february where she commissioned the government to a, quote, full cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme, quote. is the pri minister aware president obama stated the cap-and-trade scheme would cause electricity prices to skyrocket? why is the pin mr.'s, some compensation skyrocketing electricity prices any more believable than the promise that they would be no carbon tax and the government she leads? >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much,

mr. speaker and i can say to the deputy leader of the opposition i watch channel 9, too. i don't have channel nine on the tv and i did watch the interview and i did watch the statements that she is referring to that went on air so we are seeing the usual degree of research and by the opposition become to ss because of the b.c. approach to politics and billy is the approach to policy. can i bring to the deputy leader of the opposition and added to the questions she's asked me yes she's absolutely right and the election campaign i wanted a full cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme and we will get a full cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. i thank the deputy leader of the opposition for their assigned back to the house. of course in referring to the

statement from president obama, neither one - she would note that it was some time ago. number two, she would note that president obama has committed his nation to a clean energy future. president obama is in a situation where with the congress, the american people have elected he's not in a position to legislate an emissions trading scheme and the member for col d'aspin says why would we have one? [laughter] the reality is and let me explain this to the members, i am someone who shows with a great deal of that operation for the united states of america. i think of was on display when i recently travelled there. but the members of a bold scheme may not realize it but we are not middle americans. we make decisions for our own country. now every economist of any free feud is telling us that the --

the least costly way of dealing with the pollution despite pricing carbon. so why as prime minister but i deny the nation the most efficient and least costly way of dealing with carbon pollution because president obama has a different decision? why would i do that? of course i would not. this nation deserves to have the least costly way of dealing with carbon pollution and that is pricing carbon and exactly what we will do. initially through the tax then moving to an emissions trading scheme as i outlined on behalf of the government as i have outlined on behalf of the multi-party climate change committee. on that side would do we see as the alternative? what we see of course is taking a $30 billion out of the purses and wallets of australians and

giving it to the big polluters. on this side we will take money from the polluters and get through genuine assistance through households. >> the prime minister will assume her place. >> that he leave leader of the opposition and the point of order. >> the question was about president obama speefestival the electricity supply rockets and no longer directly relevant to the question and she should be sat down. >> order. order. order. the prime minister has the call. >> thank you for a much mr. speaker as i was indicating the position is whether you want to put a price on polluters and

give assistance to households or whether you want to take money from households and give assistance to polluters. we will put a price on pollution. it will be paid by the polluters and we will generously assist households for the impact they will experience and i've and very upfront about that. what the opposition wants to do is to take money from australian households and give it to the big polluters and the opposition should come clean about that. the price tag for australia, $720 straight off of them out of their purse, straight out of their wallets to the polluter. >> the prime minister's time. my question is to the prime minister. the rate of the detainees on christmas island get this to the situation that is well enhanced. within 24 hours a series of

riots break out, staff had to be rescued and they had to take the facility by force. can the prime minister guarantee that no asylum seeker that is damaged property or obstructed the commonwealth opposites will be granted? >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker and i thank the member for his question and i'm glad to see that he is replaced the former spokesperson on this issue. mr. speaker, on the question that he's asked me about christmas island, but i can say to the shadow minister for immigration is as follows. first and foremost of course criminal charges can be made by the director of the public prosecutions following a police investigation into the incident. this kind of violence and

destruction is wrong and criminal behavior and just as we would expect in any other part of the nation that someone has engaged in criminal behavior and the police investigate and charges can follow mr. speaker a proper investigation process. did it on the migration act as the member is probably aware under the immigration act character is an important consideration in determining whether or not someone should be granted for these the minister for immigration has said it should be considered on a case by case basis and the migration act requires them to consider cases one at a time and to have his decisions turn on the fact that an individual case. but as the minister has said, as the matters are considered on a case by case basis, character considerations will be taken into account for those on the

christmas island who have organized and who have betrayed these sort of activities. can i say generally to the member and to the house what i have said publicly and i am happy to repeat it here. this kind of conduct by individuals on christmas island is grossly wrong. this kind of conduct can and should cause criminal charges to flow following a proper police investigation. we know from our ordinary understanding of all the acts of violence and destruction or criminal acts. this kind of violence and conduct can and will be taken into account under the proper procedures of the migration act. what i would say to the member is as i have said publicly, no one who engages in this kind of conduct will profit from it. no one who does it will profit

from it. the minister for immigration has made it absolutely clear. and i'm very happy to restate it in its place. >> the leader of the opposition. >> will she guarantee that the asylum seekers whose been engaging in this behavior will never get a visa to this country? >> primm minister? >> thank you very much the leader of the opposition is asking me to do something not in accordance with the law and the migration act. the lobbies of the country apply and when you live in a democracy they may be the members to study that in the time outside of the chamber. the lobby of the country apply what everyone. the migration act is bill law of the country. it requires the minister for

emigration to deal with cases when a case by case basis. it requires the minister for emigration to look at the facts of each case. but as the minister for immigration has said publicly and as i just said in parliament in considering questions of character to character engaged in by the individual can certainly be taken into account on questions of character. with the leader is inviting me to do is not in accordance with the immigration act it's actually not in the best interest of gold into account the people who have engaged in misconduct. but arguably give them some legal ground to contest the decision is the minister may or may not make in relation to some rather than engage in that kind of silly shenanigan in this parliament we will continue to go through, mr. speaker, the

police to do a proper investigation. the minister for immigration would consider the case by case as is required to buy all taking into account questions of character and certainly the kind of bad conduct we've seen on christmas island can be taken into account in that character determination. ..

to the attention of those interjections will continue. >> the garden farming initiative was a policy that will enable landowners, landowners to benefit from the capacity to generate. as i said in answer to the first question professor gardner, the government made clear which aspects, what its policy in the announcement of the prime minister made in relation to the framework. would prefer the indication in their bid agricultural omission sources would be excluded from coverage under the carbon

prospect. >> tank -- thanks mr. speaker. treasure, which is important to address the cost of carbon pollution through a market based mechanism? >> the deputy prime minister of the treasurer. >> i thank you for a very important question because the government unlike the opposition says the climate change is real mr. speaker and that we do need to transform our economy, but this is a very big reform for our economy, very big structural reform. one of the reasons we have 20 years of continuous growth is because government and members of this house have found out the market-based reform which has given us a strength and resilience which has served us well, and that has given us 20 continuous years of growth. and this is a reform that we must embark on to ensure that we have another 20 years of

continuous growth and not fall far behind the rest of the world. and that is why economists like nicholas stone, economist like ross kano are telling us that there is a fundamental problem here that must be fixed, and the problem is that the largest polluters just continue the pollution into the atmosphere, and that has cost. it has cost of the environment. it has cost of the community and it has a cost to our economy. that is why we must have a market-based approach to deal with it. we need to give the largest polluters the incentive to reduce carbon pollution and that is what we have to do. that is why we described this as a fundamental market these reform. and of course, we are not alone in this view. that is what the treasury believes we must do. is with the protective that he commissions believe we must do. it is what the oecd believes we must do but mr. speaker all the

eyeballs on the other side of the aisle are inclined to be in denial. >> the treasurer should really be careful with his language. >> mr. speaker, it has become very clear in the house today that there are many on that side of the house who are climate change skeptics. >> order. the treasurer states that -- on a point of order. >> have eyes been asked, think the treasurer should be asked to withdraw oddball. >> order. order. order. order. the minister for defense will withdraw.

>> i withdraw, mr. speaker. >> and while it is not calling upon the deputy prime minister to withdraw, the point that he is god in his response is starting to be really hard to see how it is directly relevant to the question as it was asked. order. the treasurer has the call and he will be directly relevant to the question. treasure. >> mr. speaker the point i'm making is that those opposite did not believe in the power of markets anymore. this is a fundamental point. nor do they apparently believe in the science of climate change. mr. speaker, and that is a powerful destructive, nation. not believing in climate change,

not believing in global warming and not believing in -- makes it almost equivalent to the central plan of russia to engage the government mr. speaker. in denial all the time, not believing in the basic science, not believing in the basic economics. months ago some of them did believe in the power of markets mr. speaker. the power of markets to deal with carbon pollution. this is what the treasurer had to say today. in 2010 mr. speaker he said this and i quote, our industry leader in 2002, david kamps and i argued in the cabinet that we should have an acs. in the cabinet in 2002. he then went on to say, i believe a market mechanism is the best way to price a

commodity. that is what mr. hawkings believed in 2002 and that is what he called a couple of prominent orders about the power of markets in the house cabinet. it is not the view now. that is why drivers like the british conservative politicians did his as oddball mr. speaker because they don't believe in the power of markets and they don't believe in the science of climate change. i can see the members from what worth, someone is embarrassed by the company that he now keeps mr. speaker. somebodies embarrass -- mr. speaker -- [inaudible] mr. speaker there are 20 on that side of the house beds are in the same category. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> order. order.

order. the very tribal and calm members. >> thank you mr. speaker. the official meeting of the -- parliamentary --. >> order. the member from north sydney will return to his seat. the member from north sydney will return to his feet. order. order. order. order. the treasurer and a member or dunkley must be given the opportunity to have an hour to discuss the debate outside. the angelic member for north sydney will get that to being quiet.

he hoodwinked me by his angelic presence, and he approached -- he approached the dispatch outside of the procedures i have allowed it has been very lucky. >> my question is to the prime minister and i ask this question on behalf of the thousands of people who were gathered outside the parliament house today. >> order. order. >> i asked the prime minister, will she seek a mandate for her carbon tax before she introduces legislation into this house? will she speak. >> to make the next election a referendum on her unnecessary new tax? >> the prime minister.

>> order. order. the prime minister has the call. >> thank you very much mr. speaker and i thank the leader of the opposition for his question. on the question of attending the rally outside parliament house today, i am not aware that i was invited mr. speaker. but as i understand it, the leader of the opposition did not lack for red-headed company added that rally, mr. speaker. he had a red-headed friend out at that rally so i'm not sure he would not have missed me. on the substantive question he asked me about talking to the australian people in campaigning for climate change action, let me remind the leader of the opposition who seems to have forgotten every day he sat in the house cabinet, the truly remarkable faith. he sat in the house cabinet for four years. he has declined prime minister

is his political mentor. he sat in that cabinet day after day making decisions for the government and amongst the decisions the government made, it went to the 2007 election arguing for an emissions trading exchange. and delayed at the party in 2007 to make this arguing emissions emissions -- and we went to the election arguing for an emissions trading scheme. now we understand that the leader of the opposition wants to continue his scare campaign. he only knows one thing. he only knows one thing which is to scare people, to try to make them afraid, to deny the future. he has no public policies in place. what is remarkable is that he would march away from the legacy of the howard government as such a speed, march away from prime

minister howard's commitment to an emissions trading scheme. march away from the liberal party philosophy about the terrorist -- arcus. the leader of the opposition may be stuck in this denial, he may be stuck in his inability to make up a policy for the nations future that we are not. we will get on with the job of leading this nation to a clean energy future. if you care about the jobs of the future, then you want to price carbon. if you care about the environment, then you want to price carbon and that is precisely what we will do. >> the member for. >> thank you mr. speaker. my question is for the prime minister. while the prime minister update on the progress of the government eshoo to refund the region with natural disasters? >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much mr. speaker and i thank you a

lady from capricorn you. she was one of many members in this house who spent the weeks of summer assisting communities that were hit by natural disasters. in her case the city of rock captain being fit -- hit by flooding. members on both sides of the house were called upon to assist their communities if that time of flooding. there are still parts of the country to be called upon to assist communities that have suffered flooding in recent days during that period, as we emerge from that summer of natural disasters with the flooding and then the cyclone i made a pledge that we would not let go. we would assist the community that had suffered so greatly during this period to rebuild. all australians would be with them during the rebuilding and recovery effort and we would get on with it with good judgment and common purpose so that we

could assist these communities to rebuild and get on with their lives. last night, two bills passed the senate. the 51st and 52nd hill to do so in this parliament. to refund the reconstruction and recovery effort. we know these disasters have, at a terrible human cost in a cost to the community. queensland which suffered so badly is one piece of our economy and earlier measurements suggest pay growth will be lower than would have otherwise been the case. crop production will be around 1.2 bean dollars less, $300 million less in tourism and coproduction could be 16 million times less in the march quarter. as we go about this recovery and rebuilding, we do know that the

economic disasters that the underlying economy is strong and that is why it is appropriately -- appropriate mr. speaker to pay as we go. as the economy trains back to full capacity we won't take the soft option by differing savings until four years from now. that is why the government took the decision to engage in savings. it wasn't easy but it was the right thing to do, and we took the decision to defer infrastructure. once again it wasn't easy but it was the right thing to do. and we took the decision to ask the australian people to pay a flood levee, which was barely constructed. very fairly constructed so 60% of taxpayers are paying less than a dollar a week. now of course mr. speaker, we made these tough decisions. rather than claiming it was -- and in doing so we didn't play

the politics of fear. we didn't cut her grams to return a -- we got on with a methodical decision-making necessary to rebuild queensland and rebuild the nation. can i say to the members of parliament. >> the prime minister will resume her seat. the member for a point of order. it goes to relevant -- relevance mr. speaker to wonder whether the prime minister can outline now that she has taxed the victorian people, what the plan is for victoria for the $500 billion? speedy it is hard for me to decide whether the member should know on the basis of the

predecessors knowledge of the standing orders that was not a standing order. that i would indicate to him the next time that he interrupts proceedings in that manner, he will be dealt with. and i think there are -- they are being overly generous to a number of people whose cries i hear and who interjected since he has returned does not give him any special privileges, but i just warned the member for one the prime minister has to call. >> thank you very much mr. speaker and of course we will rebuild victoria, but mr. speaker recall the house would recall that the government's plan was made by the politics of fear. the government's plan was made by scare campaigns, laid by the leader.

mr. speaker, that scare campaign is silent now, and what we should learn from that example is ultimately the leader of the opposition's carbon pricing scare campaign will fall silent too. it has already fallen silent today because fear cannot stand up to the facts and we will be there explaining the facts. >> order. >> thank you mr. president. my question is to the minister representing the minister to the climate change. i referred to minister to his statements at an australian industry group lunch and 2008 in which he said and in a quote, the introduction of a carbon price ahead of the international election can lead to -- for such industries to relate source production. there is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and productions internationally for

no environments again. i also referred to research showing that china's copenhagen offer will see its carbon dioxide emissions rise by 496% by 202011990 levels. given china's responsible for 23% of global emissions, does the government agree with its estimate and if not does the government have any estimate at the time? >> the minister for climate change representing the minister for climate change and energy. >> thank you very much mr. president. thank you for the senators if the question which was pre-glazed they asked and put -- i would like to point that -- i would make the point of that

february speech, the paragraph he is referencing from my recollection is part of the justification the government was putting forward for ensuring there was appropriate assistancl assistant to our missions intent in other words, what we were saying is that we do need to take account of what is occurring in the rest of the world. we do need to ensure there is proper transitional assistant to support his trillion jobs and that is what we did. that is what we put in place under the carbon pollution reduction scheme through negotiations in consultation with industry. senator abetz can come in here and through different quotes at us and what i would say to him is this. we do have a fundamental difference between the two parties of government in this. we think we need to act on climate change. you don't. you don't. that is the difference. we think we need to act on climate change and you don't than what we have said very

clearly is that we should ensure that we go through the process of designing the mechanism to do that with and i very much to us trillions national interest, to ensure that we continue to support jobs to the transition as we are also creating jobs in the clean energy sector of the economy. when it comes to china and other countries, i would say this. those on the other side are very keen to suggest that no one else is doing anything and the facts simply don't stack up. the facts simply don't stack up as usual when it comes to the coalition on climate change. the government's commission of productivity commission to put forward a report about what is occurring in other countries and i look forward to that report because it may help ensure that this is a debate that perceives more on facts and less on bare. >> time has expired. the member from matrox. >> mr. speaker my question is to the minister for climate change and energy efficiency.

minister how is the government's plan to take action on climate change being received? why is it important to base a major policy challenges such as claim a change be based on sound judgment and leadership? and is the minister aware of recent commentary on these issues and what is the government's response? >> order. order. order. the minister for climate change and energy efficiency. >> thanks very much mr. speaker. i thank the member for question. mr. speaker the government of course respects the climate change and the need to cut our pollution. today i think like a number of members of the house, i had a meeting with representatives of climate scientists in australia, who reiterated of course to me as they have done to many others today the need to take action on climate change. they are in the building today

because the form was is organized by the members on the climate science for the benefit of parliamentarians and i'm very pleased of course that members from both sides of of the house attended that form. however, there are of course others who obviously contest the science and oppose action being taken on climate change. and of course at the rally, at parliament house yesterday mr. speaker, which later the opposition had encouraged is part of the people's revolt, the following sentiments were expressed on placards held by the protesters on the issue of the science. carbon really ain't pollution. no carbon tax, reject junk science. carbon dioxide is not pollution. i love co2. say no to carbon tax and imf global governance equals agenda

21 genocide. as we saw on television last night mr. speaker it was much worse. the so-called people's revolt against carbon pricing has also attracted as we have heard, supporters such as one nation, pauline hanson, the league of rights, and a number of climate change skeptics. mr. speaker, it is important for leaders of the community and particularly -- of major political parties to not be associated, not be associated with extremes in the debate over carbon pricing. not only is the opposition refused to clearly disassociate himself from the screws but last night on abc tv, he said and i quote, that was a representative snapshot of middle australia,

where else you must be kidding. i am sure that there would be many on the opposite benches that did not find it representative of their own views or of the values and traditions of the liberal party are there. the fact is mr. speaker that it was not befitting someone who wants to be leader of our nation. it goes to character and judgment as well as the ability to provide true leadership on important public policy question. >> the member is warned. i remind people that it is the first step understanding order 94 for future naming and then the practices of the house that some i understand were not aware of yesterday. the minister. >> mr. speaker all of this is important in this debate because what we have seen from the leader of the opposition is lots

of aggression and not much courage when it really counts. it is worthwhile reflecting on the boards of prime minister john howard to the melbourne press club on the seventh of july 2007 when explaining the need to act on climate change to an emissions trading scheme, because these are in addition of the liberal party and he said as follows. australia brings formidable assets to this challenge and educated adaptable people, modern flexible economy, world-class scientific expertise, deep global engagement and an enviable reputation or institutional building and reform. no great challenge has ever yielded to fear or guilt and nor will this one and i couldn't agree with that more. >> those were the highlights of his trillion parliaments in march.