worrying about the fundamentals and they start worrying about the other guys and when they're going to flee. we crossed to the point about a week ago. the prospects for success depend on discontinuous change with respect to ..atur perhaps we will from the ecb, the imf, or some coalition of countries. this is not about road shows about your measures on the deficit. this is about a panic and whether it will be contained. >> i am encouraged by my friend,

larry. he is right. this is the starting point but it is a good starting point. finally they are at that moment. confidence is key because we observe that consumers start to change the way they behave. a stable confidence with the new government, we work closely with them. obviously we are encouraging governors to move as fast as they can. >> i am very worried that the situation learned very few lessons from the u.s.

one discussion is what do we do to wall off the prospect of financial crisis? that is about to the esfs and ecb. there is another conversation about initiating plants that provide growth as well as austerity in peripheral europe. both of those conversations need to happen. half measures do not get you halfway there, they make it worse. we learned that in the u.s. >> buying european debt is the only way out, true or false? >> is the most natural way out. there may be other ways. they have to be mobilized and demonstrated. i thought anyone in the official sector who invested their

credibility in the esfs was putting their credibility at a substantial risk. how could anyone suppose that people would a value insurance from a group of officials who were not recognizing there was a default in greece? it is like buying crash insurance from the pilot. it is not a viable mechanism and i think there has been a consistent failure in europe. it is not like we have never made a mistake like this in the united states but there has been a failure in europe and in the imf to recognize that credibility is something that is crucial. when you speak anyway that is

directed at improving confidence by being optimistic, it may work for a time but there is a cost to your credibility. the nation of the -- nature of the assurances have taken a substantial toll. speech wasgarde's a breath of fresh air in terms of identifying reality in this situation in a stark way. i hope that the imf will return to that kind of pattern rather than into the pattern of expressing confidence with whatever the europeans come up with however flawed the underlying concept is. a sense of they oive

crisis? what is the threat here? >> looks, anyone who knows for sure should not be heard seriously on this subject. i say this to you, there is, reading the wall street journal, there seems to be a substantial doubt about the location of the sum of $600 million that was tied uppe at mf global. it is hard for me to believe that anybody has a a good handle on all of the exposures coming what is happening in

europe. we do not know all of the channels of contagion. it is not seen this is an experiment we should be eager to undertake. if financial history teaches us anything, it was a hedge fund with $4.5 million of capital. it was pronounced in the summer 2007 that subprime was only a couple of hundred billion dollars and the market was measured in the trillions. everyone who was walked into a troubled company knows that the surprises are not neutral. they have a consistent way of being bad. i cannot predict where all of the exposures and links are but it seems to me that the likelihood is that the

ramifications will be unfortunate. to take up one other comment, it is sometimes suggested that exposure is complicated. people have had a long time to get ready. this story has been unfolding for a long time. those who favor passivity had a major consideration that people had learned from the experience. therefore it would be ok. they did learn a great deal. the lessons had to do with accelerating their exits in the face of trouble. i would hesitate to buy into the syllogism that exposures have been run down, therefore it will

all be ok. it might be. >> i am always on larry's side. he has a good point. if you're looking for -- there was more on this market to the other side. it is really almost 100 percent pro rated. the european banking system has lost 800% of their gdp. the risk to the banking system would be a global issue. the leveraging -- deleveraging has some costs already.

it is a pretty serious issue. the whole world should work together to help europe and to push them as will to solve the issues. >> i want to give glenn a chance. you are an adviser to mitt romney. most people were watching a rerun of ncis. the number of times europe was mentioned was once, maybe twice. we're talking about parallels to 2008. should mitt romney be more focused on this issue? >> on the european situation, we have some strong suspicions, european banks getting in trouble, money market fund issues, a repeat of 2018 with a

nasty downside which is the fiscal ability to offset that is much more attenuated. this is not an experiment we want to find a race to the bottom. i think there is concern among all the major candidates about the global economic situation. governor romney has said this is something we need to have the u.s. engaged in. he has talked about the need for a strong mechanism in europe. >> what is the role here? we have to fill any void? this is not a situation where we can pinpoint this moment. italian debt became a toxic accept -- asset. >> toxicity changes over time as

people's attitudes change. the fed has been the organization most seriously engaged in the european situation. some of that is unfortunate. the fed is walking a line because the treasury has not taken the actions it should have taken. the fed is on the case. >> should the fed to do more? we have the european situation and the question of weak growth in the u.s. as well. there has been some talk if they have been too aggressive or not aggressive enough. >> that has the dual mandate. the real role of the central bank is low and steady inflation and to be a lender of last resort. the fed has performed well in those tasks. it has politicized itself more than i would think wise by getting involved in regulatory debate.

>> larry, do you think it has been too aggressive? >> i'm at a loss. i understand about political pressure. until the last 12 months, it has always been from the populace left. people want easy money. the fed does not give easy money. there is a fight between the political process and to the fed. that is a common theme. we understand it. what we are living through is inexplicable to me. it is a serious attack on the fed for the access -- access provision of liquidity. if you think it's too easy to

get loans, and you think it is doing damage to the economy, that is a natural critique to make with respect to the fed. i see an economy where the growth forecast has been missed every quarter. i see an economy where nobody is clear what the engine of recovery is going to be. it seems if there is a debate about monetary policy, should we be doing more to support growth, not whether doing too little. i am at a loss. you have proposed radical schemes to bring down interest rates on every mortgage. they may or may not be good ideas but i don't know how you

square those with the view that seems to be ubiquitous in your political party that we have a major problem of an active fed providing too much financing to support the economy. >> that is not what i said. i gave the fed high marks. my concern has been -- >> those for whom you advised to not to draw the sharp distinction between regulatory policy and monetary policy. >> let me speak as a glance -- as glenn. we do have an issue a policy can do more. i do not think operation twist is going to be successful. we have to understand that the consumer is over-leverage.

-- over-levered. i think that monetary -- monetary policy can do more. i happen to think it is a good idea but the government is not acting. it has pushed the fed into a territory it should not be in. >> is it your view that the government should be pushing to expand the current activities or that the government should be pushing to contract the role of the public sector with respect to the housing market? how do your views compare with the general run of views that have been expressed in a debate? >> the difference between the serious candidates and the current president is they are and -- focused on short run decisions. the canada -- candidates have

said it will give as room to do the things right thing in the short term. the refinancing of mortgages does not require an expansion. if we rotate guaranteed mortgage credit. not something i would have done but we have done. >> let me ask min about asia, underpinning the caution about the outlook for the u.s. is the slowing in china. how severe is that going to be? >> is nice we are moving away to china. >> an interesting comment. >> china is moving into a softer

landing. inflation is down to 5.6%. it is still way high. export growth is high but dropping. it is roughly 4% of gdp. we have 9.2% gdp growth this year and 9% for next year. compared to the chinese growth is slow but compared to the world, it is very strong growth. obviously china is facing a lot of challenges. the global economic growth is slowing down and china has implemented -- implemented fiscal policy.

whether china keeps hold for a while, i think that is the challenge that we have to be careful about, particularly inflation that is high. we will see of china will remain high around 5% in the next few years. the second concern is too strong. last year china had 47.8% of gdp. that is not sustainable. you have to be careful. if you slow down investment, how you make growth? that will be the second challenge for the chinese government. >> one last question before we open it up, i'm still struck by

the speed at which the european debt crisis continues to worsen. and a lack of real options for anyone to do anything about it aside from the european central bank. is there a sense of urgency about dealing with this crisis that is missing? and my overplaying the problem of -- am i overplaying the problem of getting our arms around the situation? >> i wrote in the financial times -- excuse me, an alternative newspaper. [laughter] about how the best analysis of the vietnam war had established that the way the vietnam war happened was policymakers were presented with three options. if you do nothing, it will collapse.

if you do a, b, c, there is a process of success. a and a bit of b, you can avoid disaster in the next month. again and again and again they chose option 3 and eventually the policy collapsed around them. that is the product -- a process we have been witnessing in europe for the last two years. the challenge is to break out of that kind of approach. pieties about fiscal rectitude have the virtue of being right. there needs to be more fiscal rectitude. one should not confuse actors with sufficiency. they are not sufficient given or

the situation has gotten to stabilize the situation. contrast to these financial experiences. the swiss have spent the next to no money and have moved their exchange rate by 10%. they made a commitment. the japanese have spent vast sums and have achieved in negligible movement in their exchange rate. there has been no commitment. policy has been episodic and with an uncertain future. there is a lesson about the kind of ways you do and do not succeed in solving financial problems. the doctrine about acting with overwhelming force has a

resonance in the national security area. something similar is instructive in the financial area. >> that is the point wanted to make. i agree with everything larry said. i'm concerned we do not see the lesson for ourselves. our failure to act, many economists did the math two years ago on greece. i think we have a day of reckoning coming here as well. our leadership needs to be as focused on blending austerity and gross as the sermons we're giving across the atlantic. >> we have a question for zhu min. you talk about a soft landing but one of the members of the council who knows about the chinese economy asked if there is a possibility of a bubble in real estate. could there be a hard landing

there? >> he is a big owner in china. where is the bubble? >> the question was directed for you. [laughter] >> i will give you the answer. the property price is clear. it has become a problem because affordability is a big issue. things are more expensive than in new york. where there is a bubble, if

you're looking for the realtor, 15% are mortgages. the total lending is relatively low. the prices have stabilized. i would say the focus has a lot of issues and has trouble. >> other questions? >> a question for zhu min, should china increase its contribution to the imf to help europe? >> you had better ask larry. [laughter] >> i will make you this prediction -- china will

contribute substantially to any international effort where there are many other contributors and where the situation has all zero -- already been stabilized so it is unlikely that their contribution will be decisive. the best bankers always have a standard rule. they are certain to give you a loan if you do not need it. [laughter] if the situation is not realistic to expect that china will put a large amount of money into a risky european situation, just as the united states was not willing to put a large amount of money into risky situations in asia. >> you did not ask about whether you would put more funds in the imf.

china is the third largest. china also has the members contributing. they can open the bilateral credit line as well. there is a lot of pooling resources. if you hear from the emerging markets, it is clear they are willing to help. china also says they are willing to lend a helping hand but obviously a lot of details needed to be worked out. >> the probably the only italian passport holder in this room. a question for larry summers. you said it really is too big to

fail. i think it is too rich to fail. it has a lot of private wealth. it has a background in manufacturing infrastructure and has an economy. for the first time i heard the toxic word to a g-8 country. we are in a situation where things can go under control. somebody should do something. the ecb should step up their efforts but there is no willingness to go there. the question for larry summers, if you had a european passport, what would you do? what would be they guarantee, what would be needed to trigger the ecb or whoever to detoxify

the debt? >> let me say an two things. business people like yourselves suggest that economists are unworldly and a variety of respect. you are often right. let me say the single thing or business people tend to make errors in judgment. to confuse the strength of technology, the basic function of the micro economy with the health of the macro economy. in 1999, it was phenomenal in terms of technological leadership. a staggering in its dynamism. stood out to the rest of the world. when finance was mismanaged, it

did not matter very much. it is a mistake to suppose that the kind of strengths the site of italy, which are right, necessarily ensure you against financial distress. where the deal has to be is more reform and more support. what is the degree of commitment on privatisation on a five-year plan that is coming from italy? what is the willingness to look at labor laws? what is the willingness to accept common european discipline over fiscal policies in the future? what is the willingness to seed

issues around various subsidies from the northern part of europe to the southern part of europe? what is the willingness to look at gold resources. these are the kinds of questions that have to be put on the table if a deal is going to be reached because, make no mistake, there are politics in the south of europe and the north, the dutch right-wing that wants to go back to the guilder is a signal of things to come. i think the basic answer has to lie in been willing to put more

on the table in return for more support. the very hard to challenge is, as you understand better than i, italy is not a single unified actor. to say that italy should put something on the table eggs the question of who can speak for italy over the next five to seven years. >> any final word? thank you, min, glenn and

>> i recently read your memoir and one of her main preoccupations that 9/11 was preventing another attack on the united states and defeating the terrorist enemy. you left off is not having had another attack and always had three years at a succeeding administration, which is highly critical of your approach and we met three years now to see how well they have done. what marks achieved this administration in fighting the war on terror? how successful have they been?

.. >> into clearly needed to be done, and while there might be some friction associated with it, but should have been surprised at all of the

possibility we would do that if we found it was in afghanistan -- pakistan. >> my concern has been as i look at it, i think they have inappropriately characterized what they inherited from us. would have been nice if they'd said yeah, you know, we benefited from what the prior administration did by way of interrogation, developing these original leads that ultimately put us on bin laden's trail. but set that aside, that's politics. effect of the matter is its policy. i was very upset when we had talked about prosecuting the intelligence professionals are carried out our policies in the enhanced interrogation area, but backed off since then. that's good. i worry that we do not have now at present capacity to interrogate high-value targets.

i think that program has been shut down. if there's been a replacement put in place, i don't know what it is. there's a rumor around town that the quick announcement of the success over bin laden by the white house in effect negated any opportunity to take the intelligence that was collected at the same time bin laden was captured, and use that to follow-up with prospective future attacks. that is to say, one of the ways we've always benefited from the program was when we took down a target, dark alley, for example, we were able to capture hard drives and a lot of intelligence that could be quickly exploited to run out several days worth of effort against a terrorist organization. and this gesture has been made that they announced so quickly the result of the original raid

that there was not an adequate opportunity to exploit all of that, that intelligence. >> if you look at the policies of this administration, you mentioned interrogation, which may be an exception but guantanamo is still open. military tribunals of enemy combatants being pursued. state secrets doctrine, maintained. you have to drone program, if anything, has been much more aggressive than during your administration. so if you look across the board, a lot of the things that were very, very contentious in your administration have been maintained, and yet they are not so controversial now. what do you make of that distinction? >> they campaigned against most of those programs. they are reluctant converts, but i think they made the right decision with respect to guantánamo. it's not what they wanted two days after the inauguration,

they give orders to close it. it's not closed. it's still open. the reasons why we did why we did, and they are still valid, they learned over time the benefit of that. and i'll give them credit, as they did for the enhanced drone program, and the fact that they have been very successful in terms of taking up interested targets. >> let me ask you about iran. you have spent a lot of time on that problem and their nuclear program when you were in office. back in the news again with the recent u.n. report that they are, in fact, pursuing weaponize, weapons system. do you have any doubts that they are going, that they are intent on getting a bomb? >> i don't. i think there clearly are committed. >> remember 2007, the national intelligence estimate came out which said with high confidence that they had abandoned their

program in 2003. how do we get from 2007 to now 2011 where the u.n. essentially says yes, they have been pursuing and across this sole period? >> right. no, i think it's an interesting intelligence problem. and i remember when the nie came out, i was actually confronted by friends of the united states who suggested that we had arranged for that intelligence finding in order to alleviate any requirement that we might have failed to do something about the iranian nuclear program. it was a political move. i can assure you that's not the case. it's not what we're doing. that's in fact what the intelligence community, the nie process produced. it was clearly a flawed, flawed result. in part, flowed out of the

continuing legacy, if you will, of the national intelligence estimate on iraq, wmd, that was ultimately challenged. it turned out to be wrong as well. >> so a swinging of the intelligence pendulum? >> that's right. there was a great reluctance on the part of policymakers to deny the validity of the report. a difficult dilemma, because when they produced this result, a process that had been adhered to, but it produced a flawed result, without question. >> now, we have news reports that israel is thinking about, reconsidering once again a strike on the iranian nuclear facilities. you faced a similar situation in your administration regarding series a.

from your memoir, i know the israeli officials came to you and said, here's the intelligence we have about senior year. why don't you tell me, the folks here, what happened and how it played out inside the administration? >> what happened, this would have been early 2007, was we acquired information and intelligence that said that the north koreans had assisted the syrians in building a nuclear reactor, much like the one they had in pyongyang in north korea, that they'd use to to develop their plutonium-based weapons. and that such a facility had been built by the north koreans in eastern syria, a place called alkmaar. i had great confidence that this was good intelligence. they had pictures. [laughter] the north koreans had an individual who is part of their

delegation in the six-party talks would talk about trying to persuade and north koreans to stop their programs. it was also the main liaison with the syrians in proliferating this technology. from north korea to see. he was doing double duty. the significance of it was that it was a designated terrorist sponsoring state acquiring from another designated terrorist sponsored state, north korea, this deadly capability. one of the things that we were most concerned about that i spoke about at the time was the possibility of another 9/11. but this time the terrorists would be armed with something far deadlier than box cutters and airline tickets, that they would have a nuclear weapon or an agent of some guy. and i believe this is a situation where it's most egregious case of nuclear proliferation, that i can

recall. during my time. when the israelis produced the evidence, we spent a lot of time on it obviously. i advocated a course of action it would've involved in a military strike to take up. >> by the united states? >> by the united states. it was a target out there by itself in the desert. that wasn't likely to be any collateral damage. the reactor had not been killed so that wasn't likely to be any radioactive fallout. it was a very doable proposition. the decision was made not to do that. the president was reluctant, partly there were doubts about how good is the intelligence. again, part of the legacy of the earlier failures on iraq wmd. what ultimately happened of course was the israelis decided that they would take it out, and they did. executed a beautiful attack. it worked perfectly, and the

syrians were sufficiently embarrassed, that they hurried up, covered it over. >> did they pave it over? >> they built a structure on top of it, but there was never any word at that time. we later, about a year later, we briefed on it, provided a lot of information publicly about the event itself. the big concern i had in part was it was a great opportunity for us to demonstrate to the iranians that we were deadly serious about stopping proliferation, that we were prepared to use military force, if necessary, to block proliferation, or the acquisition of a terrorist sponsoring state of nuclear capability. and, of course, that would've been a great, a great message to send to the iranians. unfortunately, i lost the argument. >> so, do you have any doubt, given that history, which the israelis are well aware of, do

you have any doubt that if they conclude that the united states will not act militarily against iran, that they will, in fact, strike on their own? >> we have seen the israelis act against the reactor in iraq in 81, against the syrian reactor in '07. and i think, i don't have any inside knowledge. i haven't been involved, in the loop in terms of classified information anything like that since i left office nearly three years ago now, so it's what i read in the newspapers. and having worked with various players involved over the years, but i think it's a very good possibility that the israelis view this as a fundamental threat to their existence and that they will act. >> and if you were the president, what would you do to deter them, to dissuade them? >> i'm not sure i would. [laughter] >> well, i'm not the president.

i think that's why. [laughter] >> eye, but i think if they decide that they need to do that, i would like to think that the united states would be supportive. >> i recently interviewed former secretary of state james baker, and we were talking about iran and he said he's convinced iran will get a nuclear weapon because he doesn't think the u.s. will react. he argues that he thinks it's a containable problem. if they do get a nuclear weapon you can put together an alliance of states and you could put together a containment strategy, not unlike the one we pursued for four years during the cold war. do you agree that iran was a nuclear weapon would be containable? >> i don't. i have major concerns. i think it's a mistake to assume that iran will operate the same way the soviets did, confronted by the united states.

we followed a policy of mutual assured destruction, that led to deterrence effectively. and both of us were reasonable, responsible, if you will, international actors. and still at the time a considerable contention and fortunately got through it without there being a bigger confrontation, although there were a couple of tense moments. the thing i worry about with respect to iran is it's not at all clear to me that you can be confident that mutual assured destruction would have the same deterrent value. i also think it's important to remember again, they are probably the leading sponsor, state sponsor of terror in the world today. they are the prime sponsors of hezbollah and hamas, that the capabilities that they would

acquire, where they to build a nuclear inventory or a inventory of nuclear weapons, frankly is a frightening prospect. when you think about it within the context of what, what the iranians have done. i'm also concerned because i really believe, i had the experience of going to reach out, for example, to visit with the status and to tel aviv to visit with the israeli. if you closed your eyes and listen to the argument, you couldn't tell which city you're in. they both were extraordinarily concerned about iran. about the possible development of nuclear capability. they both use the same analogy. they said you get to cut off the head of the snake. spent but once is a publicly and once is a privately. >> but they both say it. i'd worry about in part because i think it's one more very strong indication that there's a fun and a shift underway in that part of the world, in terms of

the decline in u.s. power and influence. and it comes in the form of a rush to the exits in iraq and afghanistan that the way the administration is going, and failed to follow through on new status of forces agreement with the iraqis so we can have a stay behind force there. that would help, help them with their security requirements. it looks to me like we're headed for the exits in afghanistan as well, as quickly as possible. and at the same time, we've got iran building an inventory, what's likely to become an inventory of nuclear weapons, and our friends in that part of the world are not going to have any choice. they will have a couple of options. one will be the possibility that someone may decide they want to acquire their own nuclear capabilities, and there have been reports recently in the press that the pakistanis sold

enrichment, uranium enrichment technology to the north koreans. that's how they got into the enrichment business. and i think we would see the other option, the other possibility is they clearly have to begin to pay homage to the mullahs in tehran because the nuclear-armed iran is clear going to be the dominant power in that part of the world. and persian gulf, and people that have traditionally and historically been good friends and supporters of the united states are going to have serious questions about whether or not they can count on us going forward. >> so if the president did order a military strike against iran's nuclear facilities, your action would be? >> i would be inclined to support it. >> interesting. let me just shift to the economy for a minute. you were famously quoted in early part of the bush administration of saying that deficits don't matter.

that's when, as a share of gdp was about 40% or so and deficits were about 4% of gdp. now it's 9% of gdp as a deficit, and closer to 70% of debt as a share of gdp. do deficits matter more in a? >> that was then. this is now. [laughter] no, i think it's important to put that comment in context. i had come during my 10 years in house, one of the most conservative voting records, so i think my conservative credentials are well established in terms of fiscal policy. but we were at the time, this was in the early days of the administration, talking about, and i was referring back to the reagan years, the beginning of the reagan administration when he simultaneously cut taxes, reduced revenue, and increased defense spending.

and the point was that he didn't pay a political price for the deficit that resulted from that. it turned out to be sound policy, both in terms of the military buildup as well as the change in tax policy and the reduction in rates and so forth. there are circumstances under which gives the deficit per se doesn't have the kind of political consequences that we are faced with now, i'd be sick. >> which they do. let's open it up. we have one question from a matt murray. >> mr. vice president, thanks for being here very much. my question to go back, he started talking of the bin laden raid and that pakistan's he should've been surprised. what should u.s. policy generally be the pakistan right now? as you know, there's sort of a robust debate among the republican candidates, including on the foreign aid front, a subject of debate here in washington. do we trust them? do we not trust them? what are your thoughts?

>> i think pakistan's extraordinary important for us, and we need to maintain that relationship. i think we paid a heavy price for the amendment that was adopted some years ago that in effect shut off any contact between the u.s. military and the pakistani military. this was in connection with i think their first test of a nuclear weapon. you have 170, 180 million population in pakistan. they do have an inventory of nuclear weapons. there have been these press stories that's the basis of the comments i made earlier that a.q. khan who was the father of pakistan nuclear program and who then went into business for himself selling to the libyans and others, north koreans, where he said that the north koreans had bribed senior pakistani officials for the enrichment technology, that the north

koreans are now using to enrich uranium to build their nuclear inventory. and we know they have enrichment capacity now. there's been a delegation that includes some americans that saw a facility in the last year or two that has some 2000 operating centrifuges, obviously acquired from pakistan that north korea is operating to develop the basis for a uranium bomb as a post to plutonium bomb, which they already have. we can't afford to throw pakistan over the side. we've got a lot of friends in pakistan. there are also obviously elements that are not friendly to the united states. i think we did pretty good relationship when we went with musharraf, but, of course, he's a longer there. he has threatened if he returns, he's not likely to return. and i think their government is weak. i think their intelligence service is of mixed opinion in

terms of their approach, but even as painful, as difficult as it is i think it would be irresponsible for us at this stage to pull the plug on that relationship, or to satisfy some of political yearning to back them up alongside the head. because that's likely to be, it's already been again a major source of the liberation to north korea with respect to nuclear capabilities. >> i'm going to give the final word to editor in chief, robert thompson. >> vice president cheney, thank you very much. if you could hold your formation. i would also like to thank again seven samurai, the sponsors, the cme group, intel, let no vote, particularly bonobo. i have to explain again that the glitch was not, it was a

software glitch, we have now discovered that. as well as nasdaq, oracle and pricewaterhousecoopers to give 24 hours to get your priorities in order, so i would have to make that a priority. next year, we will be here at the same place within a couple of days of the election. so it will be absolute fasting time to come here from wherever you are in the world to the full and proper breathing both from the outgoing and incoming administration. a special report about the council meeting will be in "the wall street journal" on monday. and, finally, we have the conference equivalents in the adjoining room. so please enjoy yourself. thank you very, very much for coming. [applause] ♪

>> for those who say my friends, and for those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them, we are 172 years late. [applause] >> to those who say, to those who say that this bill of rights program is an infringement on states' rights, i say this, that time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows of states' rights, and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. [cheers and applause] >> hubert humphrey spoke those words nearly 20 years before championing the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the two-term mayor of minneapolis and longtime u.s. senator was vice president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president in 1968, and lost. we will look at his influence on american politics this week on

c-span series "the contenders," from the minnesota historical society in st. paul, live tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> chicago mayor and former white house chief of staff rahm emanuel is the keynote speaker tomorrow night at the iowa democratic party dinner. also appearing, iowa senator tom harkin and i'm congressman leonard boswell. the dinner is live from des moines tomorrow night at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> condoleezza rice, george mcgovern, randall kennedy and jim blair headlined this weekend as booktv brings you the 20th annual miami book fair international.

and when the melting pot has been thrown out, you're preaching multiculturalism, what holds us together? >> mr. the guinness book is suicide of a superpower. from new york city, the 67th annual national book award. find a complete schedule online at booktv.org. >> today, the house national resource can be held here looking at the arctic national wildlife refuge and the potential for oil production in the area. you can see the hearing in its entirety starting at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. in the meantime, here is a portion. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the meeting will come to order. the chair notes the presence of a quorum, which under rule three is two members. the committee meets again today to resume its september 21, 2011 hearing on jobs, energy and deficit reduction. under committee rule, we'll go straight to the witness testimonies, and we have seated at the panel of distinguished list of witnesses. mr. douglas brady, professor of history at rice university. ms. sara james, board chair of the questions nation distinctly. and ms. lauren paygo, policy director for earthworks. ..

in the league of conservation voters. for those of you who have not had the privilege or opportunity, whichever way you want to say it to testify, your false statement will appear in the wreck. and i would ask you to summarizer oral remarks and the lights in front of you when used are at the green light comes on and it needs to have five minutes. when the yellow light comes on, it means you are down to a minute. and when the red light comes on, it means you are in trouble. but i would ask you to keep your

remarks as close as he possibly can to that. once again, full statement will appear on the record. so mr. brinkley, we'll start with you when you're recognized for five minutes. [inaudible] >> turn your my time. press the button there. >> thank you for having me. i am an historian writing in writing multiple volume history of the american conservation movement. my first volume is a wilderness warrior, which was signed others that would be at the 20th century. the second lien is called the quiet world, seeking alaska's wilderness kingdom: 1879 to 1960. sony recently spent quite a bit of time in alaska including going to the arctic refuge camp

in. i might add is also director of the eisenhower center and we would collect world war ii oral histories of our veterans and i've written on d-day in the battle of the bulge, working on caisson in the marines that you signed, et cetera appeared my father was in the korean war as a ski trooper in alaska. i am very clad to see mildewed all behind me, one of the great congressional figures in american history on wilderness in alaska and protection. i was hoping to get to me mr. young, but i don't take is here right now. he's there by the exit sign. though you tell us the high need because no udall had the right idea what to do to protect arctic alaska as did dwight eisenhower. the arctic was saved by ike 50 years ago. he was not on this on of our great conservationist president

per se at this time. he was a fiscal conservative but push for alaska statehood very briefly because back then alaska that you think of as a red state, the first two senators for alaska were democrats. i quite forwarded any rate with the state state and madison that arctic refuge got creative with the fairbanks daily minor for the arctic refuge being created. it has become eisenhower's great reserve. we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the day. it is like yellowstone or the grand canyon to the great smoky mountains are big band is one of the most important treasured landscapes in the united states. and i'm here -- the reason i flew in today, that's my family and three kids back in austin, texas. i came here to propose that these kind of meetings probably need to stop. i think we are at the point now that president obama needs to use the antiquities act of 1966,

to save the grand canyon from congressional people who wanted to mine it for zinc copper asbestos and put the coastal plain, what is called 1002, the biological heart of the arctic refuge, the polar bear dining area, key corner store and from america's article alaska and create an eisenhower national monument, have an executive order by president obama. i suggested bypass congress on this here this instant consistently. in fact, churchill beat bush, use the antiquities act to create the largest national monument in hawaii. our great maritimes monument executive power. the president is to do that. we live in a time of climate change. the refuge is fire polar bears, also a place people got some solace in this noisy, hyper industrialized world.

how you put a price tag on solitude? for thought at this moment in time in 2011 that we look at if it be reserved in its opening up to touch oil companies and british oil companies. there's people right now trying to mine uranium as the grand canyon. this seems to me to be backwards. we have to move forward. i am all for oil. i lived in new orleans. petroleum dollars are important. we need to be used in the gulf of mexico as an industrial zone that we are. for we have u.s. landscapes in places like chesapeake and arctic alaska had earned the designation of being thematic with what american conservation is. eisenhower not only save the art take refuge 50 years ago, but he also is the person in charge at demilitarizing and not having the antarctica developed.

why do we want to call it the eisenhower national monument in the coastal plain is the country finally do some name for eisenhower instead of just highway signs at berkeley science review sitting monument. i go to anchorage and there is an eisenhower statute and the meulen mayor, but throughout the u.s. army's leading alaska's history in world war ii and in the current u.s. troops there and credible role the federal government played in alaska, our countries under eisenhower the way north dakota on the theater was about what theodore roosevelt national park, we should have an eisenhower national monument in the arctic. >> thank you very much for the testimony. next i am pleased to recognize their agnes, board chair of the steering committee. mr. james, your recognized for five minutes. >> i am honored to speak behalf of this committee form a nation

and i feel real honor to be here. english is my second language, though i will address she review and translate it in my back to english speak and english is my second language. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] i said we came a long ways. we still have a long ways to go and the elders -- on behalf of

the authors that cannot be here today on behalf of the children not yet born, my people have been traveling all over the country, trying to tell a story about a special place in the world, which is a sacred space for the life you can and we do that for a future generation. back in 1988, was alarmed to her nation, to our altars there is going to be a development of gas and oil on the coastal plain of the arctic national wildlife refuge. the authors of the nation call it that arctic village came together because that is what

they did before. they haven't got back together for about 150 years because there was the u.s. canadian border. and when they got there, they were very worried that nobody knows about us or going to your about us, that achieved the villages came up with the resolution and that the only way the world will know and this is in black and white so they passed a resolution to protect the coastal plain of the arctic national wildlife refuge and the birthplace of the porcupine caribou and way of life. it was a hard decision for them because that will bring a lot of

people of interest to that area. but they have to make that decision. and they also know that they cannot do it by themselves, so they gave us two directions to do in a good way and teach the world and it got way why we say no to oil and gas development. even then, that global warming climate change is part of the conversation that went on. the way of life caribou is the way of life, just like the buffalo is to the indians. it is our songs. it is her pants. it is our story. even today, 75% of our diet is still wild meat, which is made

up of mainly caribou, moose, fish, small animals and birds and the. recall that place that day at the coastal plain of the arctic national wildlife refuge, second place for the life began. and for that reason, under the customary and traditional uses of the porcupine caribou, we turned the international porcupine river caribou commission -- agreement so that is -- to ask, it is the human race. we believe that we were put there by god to take care of

that part of the world. that is our responsibility. and we didn't come from anywhere. we are not going anywhere and we are here to say. climate change is real and alaska and we have to make this issue a permanent protection for our future generation. thank you very much for listening to me. >> thank you very much for your testimony. i recognize mr. erich pica. president of the friends of the earth. your recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman hastings, ranking member murky and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. my name is erich pica named president of friends of the united states. friends of the earth is a nonprofit advocacy organization and we are a member of friends.

the international, which is the world's largest federation of grassroots environmental organization of member groups and 76 countries. the environmental tax and budget issues for more than 30 years and i have authored or written multiple reports on tax and environmental budget issues, including arc reads literature report. the joint committee -- the joint select committee and deficit reduction has been tasked with coming up with $1.5 trillion in budget savings on top of the $900 billion of cuts that have been this year. i believe the super committee processes deep the flood. the natural resource committee has the opportunity to do something positive for the environment and taxpayers. instead of facing the challenge head on, i believe the committee is myopically focusing on increased running in the arctic national wildlife refuge with the hopes and promises that increasing federal revenues.

from the federal revenue side of the equation, drilling in their take is largely speculative, largely equivalent of investing in either sub prime mortgage or dare i say the creek that. and here's why. the congressional research service estimates revenue is simply unrealistic. the $191 billion over 30 years projection assumes a 50/50 cost split between the state and federal government. current law says 90% goes to alaska and 10% goes to the federal government. crs also assumed a 33% tax rate for oil and gas can and needs. to citizens for tax and the companies about that, no company they look at pay that rate. in fact, exxonmobil with $9.9 billion in pretax profits only paid .4% tax rate over the last two years. finally, the estimate is over 20

years, which begins in 20 years, which is still highly speculative. a better bet is simply anti-tax giveaways, which would save tax tears over $300 billion in the same period. without damaging the arctic. while the tax breaks and tax credits fall outside of the commission's jurisdiction increasing royalties within the committee's jurisdiction, submitting legislation to the super committee to fix the royalty-free oil and gas is in the gulf of mexico could rate limit 50/50 $3 billion. simply raising royalty rates and taxes on oil companies could raise an additional tens of billions of dollars. the u.s. currently lags behind countries like norway, china, australia and nigeria in capturing taxpayer revenue for resources. at this committee's jurisdiction is not limited to oil and gas resources. this 1872 mining law for which foreign will testify on.

this is a 140 euro plot that allows corporations to essentially take minerals for free off of public lands. gold, silver, copper, some of our most valuable resources. the committee can also add $100 million a year less than the grazing program by either ending program for simply charging the states and other private ranchers do, which is a fair market value for grazing. finally, we still pay for money-losing timber sales. the savings from or evaluating natural resources and getting federal government's fair share are just a tip of the iceberg. this august, friends of the year he put taxpayers sense public citizen and the heritage institute at libertarian organization released the green scissors 2011 report, which identified more than $380 billion in savings over the next five years. i want to commend congressman markey for his legislation

introduced yesterday for taking on some of these subjects. ending perverse incentives that are destroying our environment is an important step this committee can make in a great contribution to the super committee. these are not the root problems though. the root problems towards environmental destruction occurring on public land is the fact that our government simply is giving away the resources to corporations to do with what they please. this has to end in the super committee can do something about this but natural resources committee help. thank you and i welcome any questions.

>> last month got up in the house of commons to debate several issues. students address public transportation pass coming university tuition fees and bullying in schools. the house speaker presided over the sessions of the few remarks by members of parliament. the morning session was an hour and 40 minute. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> speaker. please be seated. welcome to the house of commons for this, the third annual sitting of the united kingdom youth parliament. i hope you will agree that this is the foremost public occasion on which you have the opportunity to express your views, to display your passion and to show your skills.

we are delighted to have you here. i hope you thoroughly enjoy yourselves. you've got five important topics that you have chosen to debate and we need to get onto those debates as quickly as possible. but just before we do, there are some words of welcome to you to be expressed by representatives, both of the government and of the official opposition. please, colleagues, began by giving a warm welcome to the leader of the house of commons, sir george young. [applause] >> mr. speaker, let me add a brief footnote to the words of welcome that you just pictured and do so as leader of the house, local half of the government. as he said, is the third time he

sat here in this chamber and i think that shows a positive and successful event this has become. if you talk to mps, they will tell you this chamber has an extraordinary history, a unique atmosphere. i can think of no better way seeking to engage young people in the political process than seeing you engaged in a chamber and take part in debate. mr. speaker, you may have seen comments in earlier years that the standards of debate and standard behavior of youth parliament at times exceeds that of the normal proceedings in the chamber. perhaps they can also learn something from how you use the place. earlier this year we started a system so you and the public can take possession some things to think of gordon in the mid-debates on them in the chamber. elsewhere in a recent subject and financial education through the threshold. i was interested to see you use the same process to choose to base for today.

i'm all done all of you in contact and 65,000 people, getting the papers and informing the debate here. to find the words. firstly, a word of thanks to my ministerial colleague, tim norton, was not just responsibilities for driving up opportunities, that his department has provided financial support for u.k. youth parliament s-sierra voice can be heard in public affairs. my thanks to you, mr. speaker, for the role you played. i see natasha, maria at the gallery, tessa and simon, somewhere behind the speaker's chair and there may be others that i'm grateful for them all turning a. and also to the staff of the house, who welcome you earlier on. it just remains to me to wish you every success and i very much hope some of you return in figuring your own own right in a few years time.

[applause] >> george, thank you for that which is greatly appreciated. i know that you wouldn't want to admit mention that the honorable gentleman, the member, mr. bennet davis. he's here. he's with us. [applause] and there will be many others i'm sure that i see in the course of the day and as in previous years i'll begin to name check them because they think it's fantastic if our parliamentary colleagues are showing support for the cause of representation by end of young people. these now give a warm welcome to the shadow leader, angela eagle. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker.

it's a privilege to follow the right old member of george because i can get away with it today and i'm going to forgive him for calling me maria. i am actually angela. i have a twin sister's business house and is the cause of endless confusion for everybody and he's just confused. i also like to name check cremate predecessor in this world in standing a place for mr. speaker you can't see him, but he is here looking at the debate over going ahead today. i just want to say a few words of welcome from the opposition benches because i know everyone of you will be keen to get on with debates and try to get in and acting there's a lot going on at the moment affecting young people in the reform of university admission procedures changes to education and skills training. and if i may say so, i think you pick some extremely important issues to debate today. i think over the past 10 years,

the u.k. youth parliament has been a powerful voice for britons to people. your politicians, past and present have a number of successful campaigns and influence the national agenda for example to improve political education in schools and looks like it's succeeding. you campaign to secure free resourcing and schools in the currency campaigning for all young people appeared to think what you all share, you probably share with us his lightly older politicians is that you believe in the power of politics to change things for the better. and so it is an inspiration for me to see so many be here today who want to do just that. i was always fascinated by politics when i was growing up i became an mp because i wanted to play my part in changing the world for the better. my parents taught me there was nothing i couldn't aspire to do and they always encouraged my

youthful idealism. unfortunately, there is no form quite like a speck in the 1960s and 70s when i was carinae. but i did make my first political speech when i was eight years old and i said for the labour candidate in the collection at school. i lost badly, that i maintained my interest and got involved in real politics by joining the labour party when i was 17. i remember my first visit to this chamber as an awestruck 14-year-old who would organize a school trip just to come and see the house of commons. back then you are even allowed to touch the green benches, much less sit down on them. and you certainly weren't allowed to clap in the chamber. and we are still not allowed to clap in the chamber. perhaps mr. speaker, that is something we could look at in the modernization role. but it would have been thrilled to have a chance to take part in the debate. it is a particular wish of mine

to see many more women participating in politics at the highest level and it's a great joy to see so many of all of you here, but women particularly. i think we need women and girls voices to be heard across the world if we are to make a society more equal. i hope you're hugely enjoyed the day they manage to get your points across effect way. don't be nervous. feel at home because this place actually belongs to you. [applause] >> angela, thank you for those words, too. a couple points at the outset. members of the youth parliament who wish to speak in the debates should stand, seeking to capture the eye of the chair. if you're not able to stand, you should raise your hand and indicate nearby that you wish to

contribute. i think also it is important that people should state their name and the region of the country that they represent. and i think i would hope that just before starting to speak, people would cause momentarily. and i mean momentarily to enable the microphone to be activated. the importance of saying who you are and where you come from can hardly be overstated. we want the official report of these proceedings to be accurate and to capture just what a broad spread of representation we are enjoying today. order, order. the parliament will consider the first motion of the day, relating to public =tranfour as printed on the order paper. to move the motion, i call mr. jamie davis.

[applause] >> transport has been raised consistently and continually as the main issue for the u.k. youth parliament since 2002 and today we are here to decide our top priority from the issues chosen by over 65,000 young people across the country. today, we are here to work to improve the life of the 8 million young people we represent and today we are here to decide what we can do now to help make a better future for all. transport affects every young person, whether it's getting to your job, getting to school or college or getting the doctors. public transport forms a pillar in the life of young people. there is three key areas within public transport that today affect highway. price, consistency and accessibility. prices an issue clearly shown

that the question is asked, why is that charge to a young customer? and i can customize a young person who is often in full-time education, whose part-time working on a limited by the light in his minimum hourly wage barely covers a one-way ticket. we trust this at the government's past and present commitment to recovery and. the department of transportation website makes it clear the government wants to ensure that a struggle in particular remains within the names of those on limited incomes. the mystery is, why doesn't apply to young people when young people are often in receipt of mail or restricted income. young people are forced to pay unreasonable fares and take advance job in her life and public transport in this needs to be changed. addressing the second point of consistency. in return to the, services many young customers receiver and accessible.

u.k.-wide p. report found a third of young people complain that public transport did not take them to it they wanted to go for the quarter john people being affected by the frequency or lack of it. alongside this we have examples of poor punctuality and discriminatory treatment khoisan people. we need to tackle these issues and guarantees that we the public transport system that is fair and consistent, allowing equal opportunities for all. which brings me to make a point about this facility. thousands upon thousands of young people and left two feet in an absurd situation where they're lucky just to have won back to get into town, where thousands were left completely isolated without any public part about and therefore denied opportunities many of us take for granted. too often it seems to me that we are happily accepted as adults when it comes to party, but treated like kids and it comes to having our say in matters that affect both.

it is for this and the reasons i've outlined titling problems the price, consistency and access that we need to deal with public =tranfour and deal in a constructive and logical way. so every scum of the last ticket you may have in your dad, for every long arduous journey for jamaican for every single young person you represent, i urge you to support transport for the coming year. thank you. [applause] >> jamie, thanks for getting us off to a cracking start. a call ms. maria neary. [applause] >> hello. i'd maria neary come a number of new parliament for north bristol southwest. i am arguing against the notion

for making =tranfour our national campaign topic. i believe other issues require this time. it is an area within a wide issue of funding for young people and there are various other alternatives to young people to get around. our national campaign topic needs to be something current and crucial. at present, issues such as tuition fees in greener futures for the u.k. demand more attention. transport has been an issue for many years. but we are not in the right position to effect great change in this area. this is not a problem for young people to solve. instead, we should focus regionally on improving specific aspects of transport. for example, accessibility for disabled people who say they feel like fixing poor awareness

of accessibility. at present, transport is not suited to a national campaign strategy. there are huge variety of other ways to get around than the most popular form of public court. at present, government advice local authorities on how to ensure young people can travel to positive activities such as youth groups or sports teams. but immediately turning to buses and trains is narrowminded and naïve. instead, the government should promote walking or cycling in a similar way to have 110,000 subscribers so far. but this solution can you kill three birds with one stone, both walking and cycling are carbon free, great exercise and cheap

methods of transport. young people need more funding, not subsidize fares. families living in poverty struggle to meet as education, health care and expenses. the national foundation for educational research found that 33% of young people say they would continue into post-16 education if they had more money to transfer costs. i want you to imagine one third of the people in this chamber in your classroom and in your community excluded from a lifetime of opportunities due to insufficient funds. this is not about safety of public transport. it's about the impossible financial situation many young people across the country find themselves in. and for this reason, it is

imperative that educational means is reinstated and youth funding protected. it is that to you to decide what is more important. catching the number 43 bust your local shopping center for saving a child from a lifetime of poverty and deprivation. thank you very much. [applause] >> maria, thank you for that. i hope we have some takers. who wants to take part in this debate on public =tranfour? what about the young man at the back there? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am m.i.t. free styling. all of the young people agree with me to transport is a huge

issue by 77% in priority from the motions presented. all for someone under the age of 16 on the bus, it costs a reasonable two pounds. but for people that cause five pounds. i'm sure you all agree to economic sound so is an is an is an big jump is absolutely ridiculous. the weekend before i turn 16 icon at me to get a bus back. then when i turned 16 i paid three times more before the age of 16. satisfy my constituents and i think the transport should be the next. thank you. >> thank you.

okay, the young woman here, please. [inaudible] >> the cost of public transport is ever rising and so unreliable. it cost me 16 pounds a week to get to work in twice this week i've been made because of public transport that is catching the two buses earlier than i need. the government use public transport more than cars and buses -- more than cars to lower admissions committee meets lower the price, especially to make it more accessible for families as well. thank you. [applause] >> young woman with a pink top, please. >> my name is pop e-commerce minute and i represent york. there have been suggestions that we should prioritize on people who cannot afford =tranfour and other things as well. all prioritize creative britain,

what i would argue that transport covers both these issues. if we're expected to use public transport, then we should be able to afford it. growing cost of transport would also make it more accessible to people who are in a less economically sound position than ourselves. i would argue the best way to capture two birds with one stone would be to address transport. is it just hope the people who are thus vanished, but also the majority who are having a little trouble affording transport. to address the majority of young people and the fact that most people in a positive way we can, we should really address an issue that has reached young people, not just when the benefits you.

[applause] >> how about the young man here. >> people are talking about the cost of traveling now in local colleges around the northwest. have university funds for transport. another thing is people talking about other people's best parties. if i'm 16 years old and i've been paying money into a system, once they turn 16 if i don't have a car i will expect a free bus pass. we are not here to discuss elderly people. we're here to discuss young people. now you're talking about it cost me 16 pounds to get to work. it cost me this to get to school. most people in this room here complain that they can't afford public transport, the most people in here have a two or 300 pounds phone in their pocket. you do the math. if you need to be disc will come you don't need a phone. you need money for your education. you need me for your bus pass. if you're going to work from

your own any salary. so you need to start being smart and putting money away for transport costs. you say when to turn 16 it doubles in price. well, once you turn 16 if you're working your money also doubles in price. so at the end of the day come you pay more for one thing, but to also earn more money. so if you've got a problem with public transport, you'll say i want a cheaper. where's the money going to come from? u.s. government to give out money. i'd rather give money from that to see these youth workers to do our job, who also give back to the communities. [cheers and applause] i'd rather pay double the price to get to my local shopping center, to get to my college and

has a tp or whatever cost you to get on a bus. i'd rather have them see these people that are out here. i'd rather have exorbitant because at the end of the day me getting on a bus is not going to affect continues down the line. these people downstairs, 10 years down the line i will still remember the work i've done. i'm still going to remember all the things that help me out with. [cheers and applause] >> thank you sparing match indeed. now, if memory serves me correctly, this young as four in northamptonshire and we want to hear from him. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to raise the attention particularly on the availability and possibility as well as the costs. earlier today i heard facts and figures about young people opt-in employment education or training. in some areas, this goes up 25%.

25%. now one of the problems is in an area you may only have five or six buses a day and you have young people who are out of work, not education, who want to contribute to society, who want to contribute to economy, but they just cannot access it. mr. speaker, this is a clear issue. young people can be spending lots of money to get on transport. some are spending five pounds a day to use the bus so i can go and volunteer at the youth club in support of the young people. it is clearly an issue. young people want to work. it is very difficult if many of the jobs are at the town center. if they don't have the buses, how can i get to work, particularly cycling on roads

can be dangerous. this is something we need to support and that is why what each support this motion. thank you. [applause] >> young woman in the third row. >> hello. one of the things that my constituents want -- i'd outline from all slayer -- one of the things my constituents wanted me to race today was particularly transport to and from school. in the five years i did get on the bus every morning, i at one time or another had to walk partway to school because the bus broke down, find another way back to school because the bus broke down, had a window one night bus cave-in and at one point almost fell out of a moving bus. additionally, i want to reiterate the fact that it's so expensive just to get to school.

many people in my constituency and across the country are paying upwards of 1000 pounds each year to get somewhere that they have to be by law and this is just from years seven to 11. the price increases exponentially or you're not allowed on the bus at all. so, if you are in a family just one child, you might be able to afford it. but most families do not just have one child. they have two, three, four children. and once you get into this kind of reach and, for the whole seven years for young people now have to be in education, you are getting into the feed region are paying a deposit for a house. if you think about the amount of time you know someone is going to miss the bus or need to pick it up from somewhere or suddenly get stomach flu, consider that.

the fact that a might actually be easier and cheaper for a family to buy a house next to their child's school dented by the mid-ice. that is ridiculous. it is compulsory to be in school. every single day if i don't show up, i am truitt. i'm consistently true because they can afford to get there, my parents are put in jail or have to pay fines. [applause] know families that could be using this money to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their head, to just survive. low-income families cannot be the one to receive subsidies. every single day have to be in school. this country with an emphasis on education for the past century or so. so why can i not have a reasonable way of getting macos x [applause]

>> what about the young when they are, please. >> by name is martha rogers. this year we had last a travel card that allows young people to travel in the bus for one pound per single journey. this makes transport more accessible to more affordable to give young people more freedom. in fact they seem to be initiated across the country to allow young people to access education, working, volunteer work. i think we should adopt this is a national campaign because of something we can achieve in something that is in the range and that's what should be our national campaign. [applause] >> young man here in our second row. [inaudible] [inaudible] [laughter] >> with respect to you, will try to accommodate you later. the gentleman in the first row is the one i had in mind.

>> promotion has been that it's not an issues like queen of britain getting to school and the university funding is more serious. but i think public transport is a way of becoming more free and also getting a people, especially people in both areas via the especially if you have use on the farm. [applause] >> the young man in the back row. yes, you, sir. >> tom charles from paris and mouse. we need to remember why we are here today. we are here to select a national topic. we all agree trans-partisan issue across the u.k. however with a rural background, i assume what works here will not work in london and likewise

we are living in such a diverse society now that there is no blood whole of the u.k. therefore i think we should be against the motion today because we cannot as a department select one scheme to fit in the whole of the country. it's be localized and centralized and rural, urban, you know, whatever sort of area it requires. [applause] >> thank you. young lady here. >> if this wasn't an issue, then young people would never use it. verily, it is an issue because i think in my constituents the people have that more of an issue. i know that from talking to them. also, i don't take us about the council. its accessibility. some people choose not to go to school they want to because they can't get there. if i can't get there, i can't know when that is the end of it.

it is affecting my education and other people's education as well. [applause] >> i would like to hear a voice from the southwest, from the side of the house. somebody from the southwest. wesley got? three of you. okay, young person in the second row to the back. the striped tie. >> i am from the southwest. i totally agree with maria and i totally agree with this young man and this young man here. we should spend this money much better, more important things, such as disorganization in this money can make going to simple things as a youth club. in my constituency, this is an issue, but this money can do to better things such as a youth club or event -- i'm trying to

hang now. yeah, youth club. [laughter] sports fans. yeah, i think we should say a few things about this issue and i didn't agree with this motion and this organization, this kind of money for transport or youth club, that kind of money should be going there. and yeah, so mr. speaker, please think about the motion. thank you. clap back >> thank you. i like to hear from somebody from london. yes, the young women in the second row. >> hello. and the m.i.t. -- the theme from monday and i am fortunate to have to have education until i

was eight team and this is a great advantage and i think they should be extended to other parts of the u.k. from past experience or love me a lot more flexibility going to and from school, not relying on my parents to come pick me up. it is a lot safer because i was doing after school activities or same library. it can get darker earlier. so i became a lot more independent. and the younger people have have said it's linked to be the base of the green interns and young people at all. and supported no income families display will also be a step toward ending child policy and that's why i believe we should support this motion. [applause] >> one young person who is standing up earlier i think should not be changed. yes, you in the back row, please.

>> i've got the means car, which is a free service where we can go from place to place, but we use the card free for children under 16 are underrate team. i really don't know to be honest. it's really good because i got from the local time and we want to go to mcdonald's. so we went on a bus and it was a short journey and we got it for free. so why can't that be spread around the entire country? thank you. [applause] >> we are running out of time, and hoping that maybe someone from northern ireland who wishes to speak in this debate. no? well, you're saving yourselves up for subsequent debate that we respect that. somebody from the northeast? yes. young person there, please.

>> i understand that transport is a massive issue for young people and definitely in our area it is. but the transport is more done regionally in local areas. so we can't really like i said previously, we can't really have a system that works for the whole country. we need to focus transport for regionally eyewear can be achieved is set up at national levels, where probably won't work around the country. [applause] >> thank you. i am afraid time is against us and we are going to have to wrap up this debate. and to conclude this debate, i call mr. james pot. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. we have seen this morning the issue public =tranfour as one close to the heart of young people in the u.k. today.

whether its buses, trains, trams or even theories using to get from a to b. is essential. without it, i know i wouldn't have been able to travel here today and make a speech. however, at public transport systems or need improvement. as medicine, the cost to our practice and punctuality are all key areas we believe should be changed. if companies make these improvements today, research has shown that 20% pulley to an increase in bus travel with 13%. plus in rural areas, and introduction of the greater frequency we would reduce dependence on cars and hope to cut carbon emissions. furthermore, a national class would benefit all users of public transport, not just young people by providing better service, more people will be

inclined to use public transport networks, especially young people with disabilities. additionally, tied to combat the negative stigma often associated with other transport. despite this, as we have seen there are viable alternatives to using public transport with walking and cycling being held alternatives to still protect the planet. nevertheless, some might say that they are more important issues we should focus on, particularly with the governments current program of spending cuts and all its implications. indeed, if young people at marmite in their pockets they made that struggle to meet the high cost of public transport. to conclude, what do you agree or disagree, this issue is vital in the vast majority of young people's lives, including most of the young people inside the chamber today. without it, many young people that are very isolated childhood , or order this chamber would be very angry about it.

[applause] despite days for shorter journeys, walking and is a greater option. however, by making public transport cheaper, better accessible for all as well as standardizing across the country we created network of public transport we can all take pride in. just think about how it affects your life. indeed, we've learned in 2012 just round the corner, now is the perfect time to improve our infrastructure and show off with the great country can do. the issue of public =tranfour would be reduced by millions of young people and a daily basis. it all has an influence on the lives of young people. if this motion is chosen as their national campaign, it is hope we can make a difference to an issue that affects the majority if not all young people. both the change in issue that affects us all. vote for change and issues he

can make a difference too. vote to change public transport. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> james, thank you. all of the front bench speakers who have contributed and the 14 backbench contributors to this debate. just before you move onto the next debate, i would like to welcome them to us that she welcomed a number of my parliamentary colleagues who are here this morning. tessa munce, liberal democrat member from wells, christopher pincher, conservative member or that contain the. lurking behind me she will present yourself any moment now how someone who has been a consistent shape and then by young people for eastern then by young people for eastern, jason finn people for eastern, jason finn who is here and i am delighted to see matthew hancock, member for west south oil co. is in the gallery as well. it's great that you're here,

colleagues and supported the parliament. we move now to the second debate in the consideration of the second motion of the day relating to tuition fees is printed on the order paper. just before i call them over and promotion, perhaps they could just make a plea. those of you who have spoken, that's fantastic and he done so extremely well. i hope you'll agree not to try to speak a second time because there is lots of people having yet spoken for the first time. and those of you who either haven't yet tried or is try to not been called, please try again. i won't be a lot of call everybody. gaseous -- that's just life i'm afraid.