>> don't cross that line. we know who they are. they certainly start with the unborn. and it branches out from there. and the best of us as women leaders across time have understood that the best. i mean, some of the women who really blazed the trail of politics for all of us were the standard bearers for just such a

thing. they didn't always have to claim credit but they were profoundly intellectual, they're intellectual and profoundly loving and they were courageous with their leadership. think of abigail adams who didn't really leave but the spiritual and emotional support of her husband sustained him what he had to do at a time for the founding of our country. the underground railroad the women who handled and then susan b. anthony our name sake at the susan anthony understood she was an abolitionist and she was a sufficientist who really blazed the trail and never stopped. she was relentless. she never sought the right to vote and she knew she had to fight for it which was a lesson to us all. she understood something central

to all the women that i've just mentioned, and that is you can never build authentic rights on the broken rights of other human beings. you can never build authentic human rights off the broken rights of another human being. that is our sense of protecting the vulnerable. it is a human trait but it is a uniquely and strong women trait, a mother trait. something that we uniquely bring to the political process that must be heard. and is being heard more and more. susan b. anthony said about the connection between woman and unborn child in her own newspaper called the revolution she had -- in a question asking, should a woman feel guilty if she does away with her unborn child. she said guilty, yes, but no matter what the motive, whether love of ease or a desire to save

the unborn innocent from pain she is deeply guilty. it will burn her conscience of life and will burden her soul in the grave but the true guilty is the one who drove her to the dreadful deed. who's driving women now to the dreadful deed? women and folks who are looking for a money -- a money cashout from women's pain. those who drive her to the dreadful deed 4,000 times a day. elizabeth cady stanton says when we consider women are treated as property it's degrading to women when we treat our children to property to be disposed of as we see fit. maddy brinkerhof who also wrote in susan b. anthony's paper -- she said -- she said something that i'm not able to find right

here. here it is. she said when a man steals to satisfy his hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society. so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is evidenced either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged. what they're all saying? they're saying many things but one thing they are all saying is that a dearth a rights and a feeling of deprivation is never solved by taking the rights away from another human being, whether it's the vulnerable unborn, whether it's the vulnerable feebleminded, the margaret sanger decided to eradicate through planned parenthood. whether it is a minority that's not respected in the community. we will never, ever build our rights up by tearing the rights of those people down. in fact, we know what love does,

right. love increases as we give rights, as we expand rights, more rights actually flourish. it's just the nature of the blessing of liberty that our country has given us to understand that's actually true. and that that is a model that we're supposed to follow. well, a funny thing happened on the way -- on the way along. we had such great female models. we didn't agree with them on everything. we don't to have. do women ever disagree? hmmm, ever once in a while. maybe, a couple of times. at least in my family. but a funny thing happened that my mother -- my mother always calls the '60s business. the '60s business somehow got into the brains and hearts and brains of a group of women who felt the pinch of exploitation, felt the pinch of bias, felt the pinch of something inauthentic but they literally threw the baby out with the bath water.

they are interlopers between our true founders of -- we don't have to call it feminism if you don't want to call it feminism but the true founders what it means to be a woman leader and then where we are now -- they interloped in the meantime to say several things. there were people like margaret sanger. there are people who made their -- there are women who made the world worse in the words of my very good friend cato burn who wrote a book by that title. women who made the world worse and why did they make the world snores why do they make our country and our families and our communities worse? because they made us focus on a list of grievances. instead of a list of how we contribute to ourselves, our families, our communities, our nation. being a woman involved in politics amounted to 5 things we must have or we're going to pound you. take from them, give to us, we won't be happy if you don't give it to us, you're dead.

where is the -- where is the expansiveness, the generosity? in my mother's words, that is not attractive and my mother was not proactive because she knew what it was to be a lady. jane fonda, some of you are too young. some looking in the '80s who would want to look like that. who would want to act like that. they're mad all the time. i didn't want that even as a child. there was just something that was a model that i didn't want. somehow they convinced a whole lot of people, especially, men in power, let's just be honest, that to get the women's vote, you had to prove that you would liberate them and what is lib nation liberating women means that you must buy in to the sexual exploitation of the women. you my buy into what makes them

miserable every single second of the day, abortion. you must buy into these demands or you are not a real man. and if you run for office and you don't agree to these demands, you're not a real woman. in fact, it was a wedge in the feminist movement at the time. there was a group of women who abhorred abortion in the '70s that you don't hear from now. but the split came about because the money came from the abortion movement, but the vast majority and the leaders in that movement also believed that pornography and prostitution were killing women and exploiting them. they were making them consumer goods like elizabeth caddy stanton was referring to. they were making them commodities and putting them up on the chef and put back there. there was no money for them. there was only money for the abortion movement which became the center of the movement. do you see any connection between a great human evil that

we are suffering every day in every city that didn't get addressed and that is still living now. the group that was marginalized was the group that did not want women to be trafficked as consumer goods; put back on the shelves and be put back out as prostitutes and victims of pornography again and again and again and again. i'm reading every day now, and i bet you are too, the consequences of that split in the movement where women didn't stand up and the women that did stand up who really said do not treat our girls and our women like this got marginalized and pushed aside because where is the money coming from? hugh hefner, and if prostitution where a lot of people didn't see a big problem in it. we see the pain and the big fallout from it but they didn't see it then. what we got inside was not a

philosophy of, you don't build the rights on the backs of other human beings that -- whose rights are broken. we had a model that said, you men, you kids, you're obstacles of success. what are we going to do to help you step aside so that i can march through? that tended to be -- that has been the choice. what happened to ourselves, our families, our communities? what we give, the giving to all those things actually produces in our own lives and our families and our communities? well, the response is, in political terms, has been some of the founding of the susan b. anthony in the early '90s -- there was not a remnant when that whole philosophy was certainly -- was certainly front and center. since that time we have -- we have all together worked for a time when the year of the woman in 1992, which was only the

barbara boxers and the gloria steinems and the nancy pelosis of the world were the victors, last year, which was the life of the pro-life woman. it's very rare now to find an authentic woman leader who has been viable, who in this last election didn't get elected. it was their day. it was their time. in combination, of course, with other factors. but the year of the pro-life woman was absolutely last year. and going from about -- close to zero, women leaders, like you, to the type of woman that is now prevailing in public office, four governors races -- and you i'm sure were also very involved in, attorney general's races, house races, and not even to

mention the enormous number of state-based races that i'm sure you're involved in that we just couldn't stretch to, to reach, this is the time. this is the time and thank god you are here to give voice to what is actually happening. and i really believe down to my bones and it's the reason we started the susan anthony list so long ago that it has to do about this tradeoff, about who we are and how we see ourselves as complementary to men. as always with an eye out for the vulnerable among us. you know, in the south, you know, frankly the mama grizzly thing, it's a little too -- it's a little too aggressive but you know what i mean. that we will protect our families always. and we will always -- i mean, think of any corporate atmosphere where you understand or in an office atmosphere where you understand where someone is suffering. you know and our antenna tells

you that you can actually reach out. this is what the political process and what politics in general in america will benefit greatly from. so regardless of the velvet hammer which let's just say it has to be. what is the velvet hammer? the velvet hammer is, we are who we are in terms of everything i just said. let me just tell you this, you cross that line we will be the mama grizzly. you pretend to authenticate real human life and you don't, well, then you need to look for a job in the private sector, okay? and so there are women who speak for us and there are women who don't speak for us. and we together will have the muscle to make sure that they know who they are and who they're not. and in the process of doing that, which we have already done, we will encourage women like everybody in this room to run and do exactly what we said because no longer will they say it as beneficial to run and be -- and be someone who buys into this idea to be a real woman, you have to buy in to old

guard feminism which sees other people as obstacles to their success. and look, what i'm not going to do is go through a bunch of polls but i just want you to know what you probably already know, but at least on the abortion issue, we are so at the -- we're not even at the crest yet. because of what we've known about what abortion has done to hollow out the soul and the body of women and we've gone through some years of experience about what that all means, and we've watched it, you know, polls are dramatically moving in our direction among women. more women label themselves pro-life than they do pro-choice and that's just a label. that's just a label which means really not a lot unless you fill it out. in the early '90s, 50% of college-educated women were basically for abortion on demand. now 35% of college-age women are for abortion on demand. and overall, women generally are

for abortion on demand 26%, a quarter of women mainly in their over 40 are for abortion on demand compared with 34% in the early '90s. everything is moving in our direction. and the 70 and 80% category in terms of the polling and undergirding what we already know to be true, which we would fight for even if we weren't on the polling positive side of this, 70, 80% of women support late-term abortion bans. second and third trimester abortion bans. parental notice, oppose funding for abortion. you know, undermining our consciousness with our tax dollars. so in summation, i would just -- i would just like to sort of continue the conversation that you probably already have been involved in already, and that is -- you've already made a

decision to be engaged in the political process. but we all will go back and try to make sure that other women make a very good decision about being involved in the political process. and it is a decision. it's not fun. i mean, who really wants to do it? it's really kind of dirty. it's really not all that fun. people fight, you know, we're not all super confrontational. but we do it because we love. and there's no other -- there's no other compelling or impelling reason to get involved. and that will sustain us all in the tough times. tina fey who -- i hope you've met lindsey matlock who's our political director she turned me on this book. we may not agree with tina fey on a lot of things but she did say in her new book "bossy pants," when people say you really, really must do something, it means you really don't have to.

no one ever said you really, really must deliver the baby during labor because -- so when it's true, it doesn't need to be said. okay. we really don't have to sacrifice all the things that you sacrifice. we don't have to. it's a decision. but it's a decision like the women that we are natural beneficiaries of, whose roots we are returning now slipping over the '60s business in the meantime. we will do what they did. if we dig down and recruit other women like ourselves, to see yourself either as a candidate yourself. and let me just say this. not everyone is a candidate. i'm never going to be a candidate. never. but i'll always find the best candidates to support. it's a discernment process. it truly is. i see it as a vocational question that has to be asked. not everyone should do it.

but if you are, do it whole hog. and if you run the first time, something doesn't mean that you weren't called to do it. it means that maybe there's something else that you need to do in addition to run again or run for a different office. there's some things that need to be adjusted. but it is a calling. i truly believe in this time that especially women running for public office because of the sacrifice from our families and from our communities that it takes, it is a vocation. and what is that revocation about? it's about retaking ground that has been -- so that we can speak for ourselves in the majority. when we return to our roots. and we -- we start to promote -- well, no, we don't start to promote. we continue to promote the antithesis of what barbara boxer who has already peaked out nationally, maybe not in california, but she certainly peaked out nationally, we continue to promote what we know

is a winning message among women. and, look, barbara boxer woke up one morning and decided to run for school board. if she hadn't decided to do that and doors didn't open after that, we wouldn't be burdened with barbara boxer right now. marilyn musgrave did the same thing. diane black did the same thing. women who are truly speaking for ourselves -- for us now made that same type of decision. kelly in the senate was a great spokeswoman for us and who fought planned parenthood vociferously in court. and that's where i'll truly close. we do have everything we need in this country. other countries don't. we have the blessings of liberty. we have the inspiration in the model. and we have the true gifts that women like you have been given when you embrace them and share them in the political climate.

you'll just be incredibly attractive. you already are. and that's a great model. so thank you for having me. and i'm really thrilled about this initial conference and we'll continue together. thanks. [applause] >> there was a flood in fort wayne. i mean, people were down there filling sandbags desperately keeping the river. air force one stopped. reagan add motorcade down to the flooded area. took off his jacket -- my memory

is he filled three sandbags and hello and hi to everyone, got back in the car, went back on the plane. but that night, what was filled in the airwaves was not three sandbags. it was reagan filling sandbags with his shirt off. >> thanksgiving day on c-span, abc's sam donaldson, nbc's andrea mitchell and former senator chris dodd talk about the legacy of ronald reagan. new york city mayor michael bloomberg and arianna huffington talk about the opportunities in the u.s. and astronauts john glenn, buzz aldren and michael collins are awarded the gold medal. for more information on the schedule go to c-span.org.

>> next, more than 300 members of the u.k. youth parliament gathered in the house of commons for a debate. the students aged 11 to 18 discuss several topics including public transportation and university tuition fees. this is three hours 20 minutes.

>> 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, display your passion and 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 on to 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, begin 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 of offered and do so as leader of the house and on behalf of the government. as you said, it's the third time you've sat here in this chamber not -- i think that shows what a positive and successful event this has become. if you talk to mp's they'll tell

you this chamber has an extraordinary history, a unique atmosphere. i can think of no better way of engaging young people in the political process than seeing you engaged in that chamber and take part in debate. mr. speaker, you may have seen the comments in earlier years that the standard of debate and standard of behavior of youth parliament at times exceed that of the normal proceedings in the chamber. so in addition to you learning something from how we use the place, perhaps we can also learn something from how you use the place. earlier this year we started a system of epetition so you and the public can table motions on things you think important and then we have debates on them in the chamber, hillsboro and a recent subject on financial education has just gone through the threshold. i was interested to see -- you used the same process to choose the debates for today. and well done, all of you, on contacting 65,000 people, getting the ballot papers and

informing the debate here. two final words. firstly, a word of thanks to my ministerial colleague who has not just responsibilities for driving up opportunities for young people but whose department has provided financial support for the u.k. youth parliament so your voice can be heard in public affairs. thank you, mr. speaker for the role you played. i see many colleagues here natasha, the gallery and tessa and simon, hillary bend somewhere behind the speakers chair and there may be others. i'm grateful for them showing up and the staff of my house and my own staff who welcomed you earlier on. and it just remains to me to wish you it's a good day and very much some of you return here and sit here in your own right in a few year's time. [applause]

>> george, thank you for that which is greatly appreciated and i know that you wouldn't want to omit mention of the honorable gentleman, the member shipley, mr. philip davis. he's here. he's with us. he's observing. [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 be keen to name-check them because i think it's fantastic if our parliamentary colleagues are showing support for the cause of representation by and of young people. please now give a warm welcome to the shadow leader of the house of commons, angela eagle. [applause] >> well, thank you, mr. speaker. and it's a great pleasure to follow the right honorable gentleman, the leader of the house of what i'm going to call george because i can get away with it today. and i'm going to be forgive him

for calling him maria. i'm angela. it's a confusion for everybody and he's just done it again. i would like to name-check my predecessor in this role, hillary bend who is standing in a place where, mr. speaker, you can't see him, but he's here looking at the debates that we're going to have today. and i just want to say a few words of welcome from the opposition benches because i know that every one of you will be keen to get on with the debates and try to get in. and i think there's certainly a lot going on at the moment affecting young people, the trouble of tuition fees, the reform of university admission procedures changes to education and skills training. if i may say so, i think you picked 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 britain's young people. your politicians past and

present have led a number of successful campaigns and influenced the national agenda, for example, to improve political education in schools. it looks like it's succeeding. you campaigned for recycling and campaigned for fairer bus fares for younger people and i think what you all share and i think what you probably share with others, the slightly older politicians is that you believe in the policy of politics to change things for the better. and so it's an inspiration for me to see so many of you here today who want to do just that. i was always fascinated by politics when i was growing up. and i became an mp because i want to play my part in changing the world for the better. my parents taught me that it was nothing that i couldn't aspire to do and they always encouraged my youthful idealism. unfortunately, there was no forum quite like this back in the 1960s and '70s when i was

growing up. but i did make my first political speech when i was 8 years old. and i stood for the labour candidate in a mock election in school. i lost sadly but 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 awe-struck 14-year-old who organized a special school trip just to come and see the house of commons. and back then you weren't even allowed to touch the green benches much less to sit down on them and you weren't allowed to clap in the chamber. and we're still not allowed to clap and perhaps that's something we can look at in our modernization role. [laughter] ..

>> angela, thank you for those words, too. a couple of 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 thereby that you wish to contribute. i think also it's important that people should state their name and the region of the country

that they represent. and i think it would help if just before starting to speak, people would pause 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 won't have the official report of these proceedings to be accurate, but to capture just what a broad spread of representation they are enjoying today. then order, order. youth parliament, the first martian of the day relating to public transport passionate motion of the debris to to public transport. to move the motion, i called mr. jamie davis. [applause]

>> transport has been raised consistently and continually as a main issue fo for the u.k. yoh parliament since 2002. and today we're here to decide how priority for the issues chosen by over 65,000 young people across the country. today, we are here to work to improve the lives of 8 million young people we represent. and it is today we're here to decide what we can do now to help make a better future for all. transport affects every young person, whether it is getting to your job, getting to school or college, getting to the doctors. public transport is a pillar in the lives of young people. there are three key areas within public transport that today i'd like to highlight. price, consistency and accessibility. price is an issue clearly shown when the question is asked why -- when that young customer is a young person who is often is

poor in education, here is -- and his minimum hourly wage barely covers a one-way ticket? the department of transport website makes it clear, government wants to ensure that bus travel in particular remains within the means of those on limited incomes. but the mystery is, why doesn't the suppression people and young people are in receipt or in low art restricted income. young people are forced to pay unreasonable fares and taken advantage of in the reliance of public transport and disney to be changed. addressing the second point of consistency, in return for the extortionary affairs, services that many young people receive are unacceptable. ukyp spins, a 30 young people claims that public transport did not take them to where they want to go. a quarter of 10 people being

affected by the frequency or rather lack of it. alongside this we have multiple examples of poor bunch of indiscriminate treatments toward young people. we need to tackle these issues and guarantee that where the public transport system that is fair and consistent, allowing equal opportunities for all. which brings me to my third and final point. thousands upon thousands of young people are left in the sad situation where they are considered lucky just to have one bus to get into town. with thousands more left completely isolated without any public transport at all, and, therefore, denied the opportunity that many of us take for granted. too often it seems to me that we are happily accepted as adults when we are -- treated like kids when it comes to having our say in matters that affect us. and it is for this and the reasons i've outlined tackling the problem of price, consistency and access that we need to do with public transport

and deal with it in a constructive and logical way. so for every crumpled up buster geving about, for every journey of had to make him and for every single young person that you represent, i urge you to support transport of for use passionate in the coming year. [applause] >> and jamie, thanks for getting us off to a cracking start. i called ms. maria neary. [applause] >> hello. i am maria neary, member of youth parliament for north bristol south west. and i am arguing against the motion to making transport our national campaign topic. i believe on the issues require

rss at this time. it is an area within the wide issue of funding for young people, and there are various other alternatives young people to get around. our national campaign topic needs to be encouraged and crucial. at present, issues such as tuition fees and a future for the u.k. demands more attention. transport has been an issue for many years. because we have seen we are not in the right position to effect great change in this area. this is not a problem for young people. instead, we should focus regionally on improving specific aspects of transport here for example, accessibility for disabled people who say they feel like second class citizens due to poor unawareness and accessibility. at present, it is not suited to

a national campaign strategy. there are huge variety of other ways to get around than the most popular forms of public transport. at present, government advised local authorities on how to ensure young people can travel to positive activity such as youth groups or sport teams. but immediately turning the buses and trains is narrowminded and '90s. instead, the government should promote cycling in a similar way to a similar way to borrowing bikes which have 110,000 subscribers so far. with this solution you killed three birds with one stone. both walking and cycling are carbon free, great exercise, and chief methods of transport. young people need more funding,

not just subsidize fares. families living in poverty don't meet transport costs, as was education, health care and employment expenses. the national foundation for educational research found that 33% of young people claim they would have continued in posed high school education if it more money for transport 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 opportunity due to insufficient funds. this is not about basic public transport. it is about the impossible financial situation many young people across the country find themselves in. and for this reason it is imperative that educational maintenance allowance is reinstated and youth funding

protected. it is up to you to decide what is more important, taxing the number 43 bus to your local shopping center, or saving a child from a lifetime of poverty and deprivation. thank you very much. [applause] >> maria, thank you for that. i hope we'll have some takers. who wants to take part in this debate on public transport? what about the young men at the back there? >> thank you, mr. speaker. my name is craig, nyp of scotland. all other young people that passionate transport was a huge issue, 77%.

[inaudible] it costs a reasonable two pounds. but for people sitting in the bus it costs five pounds. i'm sure you all agree that the economic downfall is unacceptable. to jump is absolutely passionate it cost me two pounds tend to get to train to glasgow and the bus back. then it cost me six pounds. that's over three times more than i paid when i was under 16. that is why my constituents and i think the transport should be the next ukyp, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. okay, the young woman here please.

>> because public transport is ever rising, it cost me 16 pounds a week to get to work and twice this week i've been late because of public transport and that is catching the two buses earlier than any. if government wants us to do public transport, more than cars and buses, more than cars, with low emissions they need to lower the price, especially or accessible for families as well. thank you. [applause] >> how about the young woman with a pink top, please. >> my name is poppie simmonds and i represent york. there have been suggestions that we should prioritize on people who cannot afford transport and other things as well. or prioritize greener britain. i would argue that transport covers both these issues.

if we're expected use public transport and low emissions, and we should be able to afford it. lowering costs of transport would also make it more accessible to people who ask for it, and in a less economically sound position than ourselves. i use, the best way of catching to purchase one stone would be to address transport as it doesn't just help the people who are less advantaged, but also the majority who are just having a little trouble affording transport. to address the majority of young people, and to affect the most people in a positive way that we can, we should really address an issue that does reach all young people, not just the ones that benefit. [applause] >> thank you. how about the young man here? >> people are talking about the

costs, and local colleges on the northwest people are -- [inaudible] the thing about people talking about bus passes, if i'm 60 oh, yeah, and i've been paying money into the system for all that 60 years, once they turn 60 if i do not have a car i will expect free bus pass. we're not here to discuss elderly people. we are here to discuss young people. now, you are talking about it cost me 16 pounds to get to work, it cost me just to get to school. most people in this room can't afford public transport, but most people in here would have a two or 300-pound phone in the pocket. you do not need a phone. if you need to get to school you don't need a phone. you need money for your education. you need money for your bus pass. if you're going to work, your earning a salary, so without salary you need to start to be smart and put money away for

your transport cost. you say what you 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 you pay more for one day but you are also earning more money. so if you have a problem with public transport, you're going to is all right, i want it cheaper, where is that money going to come from? u.s. government to give money. i would rather give money from that to save workers who do our job, who also give back to the communities. where's the money? [applause] >> i'd rather be, double the prize ticket to the local shopping center, to get to my college, yes, and have hp or whatever it is to get on the bus. i would rather passionate.

[inaudible] i would rather have passionate because it into the big meeting on a bus isn't going to affect me 10 years down the line. these people downstairs, yes, 10 years down the line we have to do with the work they've done for the absolute remember all the things they've helped me out with. and that's all i've got to say to you. [applause] >> thank you. very much indeed. now, if memory serves me correctly, this young man is from north hampshire and want to hear from him. >> mr. speaker, i would like to place the attention particularly on the availability and accessibility as well as the cost. are here today i heard other speakers about people, young people locked in implement or education or training. in some areas it's about 25 cents, 25%.

now, -- you may only have five or six buses a day, and yet young people who are out of work, out of 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. i spend five pounds a day to use the bus so i can go and volunteer at the youth club and support other young people. it is clearly an issue. young people want to work. they want to take jobs. if they're in an urban area it is for difficult for many, i mean, the townsend or the city center. and if they do not have the buses, how can they get to work? sometimes it can be dangerous. this is something we need support. and that is why i will support

this motion. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. the young woman in the third row. yes. >> hello. one of the things that my constituents want me -- one of the things my constituents wanted me to say today was particularly and transport to and from school. in the five years i.t. get on on the bus every morning, i at one time or another had to walk part to school because the bus broke down. finding a way back from school because the bus broke down. had a window on my bus cave-in, and at one point fell out, almost fell out of a moving bus. additionally, they wanted me to raise the facts that it's so expensive just to get to school. many people in my constituency, and i think across the country, are paying upwards to a thousand

pounds each year to get something, to get to somewhere they have to be by law. and this is just from seven to 11. the price increases where you are not allowed on the bus. so, if you're in a family with just one child, this 1000 that you might be able to afford it. but most families cannot just have one child. they have to, three, four children. and once they get into this kind of region, for the whole seven years their young people now have to be educated. you are getting into the same as paying a deposit for a house. and if you think about, and other times you know someone will miss the bus or needs picking up somewhere, or suddenly gets sick at school have become him in the middle of the day, who is going to pay for that? the fact that it might ask of the easier and cheaper for family to move house next to their child's school, then send

them on the bus, that is ridiculous. it is compulsory to be in school. every single day. if i don't show up then i am cast as a true. if i make to it because i can't afford to get there, my parents are put in jail or have to pay further finds. [applause] >> there are families that could be using this money to put food on the table, put above over their heads, just survive. cannot these low income comes in at the ones who receive subsidies? everything, every single day i have to be in school. this country puts emphasis on education the last century or so. so why can i not have, at a reasonable way of getting there? [applause] >> thank you. what about the young woman here, please. >> i am from the west midlands. this year, a travel card that

allows young people to travel on the bus. this makes transport more accessible, more affordable and gives people more freedom in society. things like this need to initiate across the country to allow young people to access education, working, volunteer work. and i think we should adopt this as a national campaign because it is something we can achieve. that's what it should be our national campaign. [applause] >> what about the young men here just in the second row. yes, you. >> we will try to come at a cheerleader. the gentleman here in the second row is the person i had in mind. >> people against this motion have said it's not an issue because issues like -- the

university and something more serious. but i think that public transport is the way of becoming, getting young people on the job. especially people in urban areas were either. [inaudible] [applause] >> what about the young man in the back row? yes, you sir. >> we need to remember why we're here today. we are here to select a national topic. i think we're all immigrant the transfer is an issue across the u.k. however, being in a row background from wales, a scheme that will work you will not work in london. likewise, -- were living in such a diverse society now that they,

no one's scheme will cover the whole of u.k. therefore, i think we should be against this motion today because we cannot select one scheme to affect the whole of the country in the three localist and centralize areas, rural, urban, whatever, yeah, whatever sort of area is required. [applause] >> thank you. the young lady here. >> southeast the if this isn't an issue than young people, clearly it is an issue because i think in my constituency people have said that is the number one issue. i don't think it's about the cost of transport. its accessibility. some people choose not to go to what's going to want to go to just because they can't get there. if i want to go to college in another place and i can't get there, i can't go. that is the end of it. that is affecting my education and other people's education as well. [applause]

>> i'd like to hear a voice from the southwest, from this side of the house. someone from the southwest. who have we got? three of you, okay. the young person in the second row to the back. yes, the striped tie. >> i am from the southwest. i totally agree with maria, and with this young man and this young man here. we have a better -- should spend money on much better important things. this organization costs lots of money. or a simple thing as passionate in my constituency, this is an issue at this money could go to better things such as the youth term. or even, trying to think. [laughter] yeah, youth --

[laughter] yeah, and sports these. [laughter] i think we should say a few things about this issue. i didn't agree with this motion, and i support this organization, this kind of by for transport or use transfer, that kind of money could be going there. and yeah, so think about the motion, thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i'd like your somebody from london. yes, the young woman in the second row. >> has a. my name is song. being from london i'm fortunate enough to have bus travel when i need education until i was 18. and this was a great advanced i think they should be in other parts of the u.k. from past expand and allow the a

lot more flexibility going to or from school, not relent on my parents to come and pick me up. it was a lot safer because i'm staying in libra, he could get dark pretty early says a lot safer. and it made me become a lot more independent. and as other young people said,. [inaudible] a greener britain, less congestion, less pollution. and low income families this way out to be a step towards ending child poverty. and that's what i believe we should support this motion. [applause] >> thank you. one young person who standing up earlier. i think should now have the chance. yes, you in the back row please. >> item from the region york shire. i've got a free service where we can go from place to place but

we use this card that is free for children under 16. i really don't know, to be honest. it's really got -- i was helping out, we wanted to go and get our stuff from mcdonald's. so we went -- it was a short journey and we got a dream. so why can't that be spread around the entire area, the entire country? thank you. [applause] >> we are running out of town but i think rightly someone from northern ireland who wishes to speak in this debate? no. all right. [laughter] you're setting yourselves up for a subsequent debate and we respect to pick somebody from the northeast? yes. young person here. please. >> i understand the transport is an issue for young people and definitely in our area it is.

the transport is more than regionally and local areas. so we can't really, like said previous, we can't really have a system that works for the whole country. we need to focus on transport more regional levels where it can be achieved instead of national levels where it probably won't work right around the country. [applause] >> thank you. i'm afraid time is against us and we are going to have to wrap up this debate. and to conclude this debate, i called mister james potts. [applause] thank you, mr. speaker. we have seen this morning to issue a public transport is one that is close to the hearts of young people in the u.k. today. whether it is buses, trains, trains, or even ferries come using them to get from a to b. is essential.

without it i know i would have been able to travel here today and make this speech. however, our public transport systems are in need of improvement. as mentioned by my fellow nyp scum the costs and prices and punctuality of all key areas that we believe should be changed. if travel comics make these improvements today in research has shown that it cuts 20% in bus travel as 13%. plus in rural areas and introduction of more service with great frequency we would reduce dependence on cars and helped to cut carbon emissions. furthermore, a national plan would benefit all users of public transport, not just young people. by providing service more people would feel inclined to use public transport especially young people with disabilities. additionally, this would help to combat the negative stigma that is often associated with public

transport. this byte this, as we've seen, there are viable alternatives to using public transport with walking and cycling being healthy alternatives that still protect the planet. nevertheless, some might say there are more important issues we should focus on, particularly the governments current program and spending cuts and all its implication. indeed, if young people have more money in their pockets they might not struggle as much to meet with a high cost of public transport. to conclude, wouldn't you agree or disagree? this issue is final in the vast majority of young people's lives, including those of young people inside this chamber today. without it many and people would have a very isolated chance and let's just say in this chamber, with the exception of clinton of course, -- [inaudible] [applause] despite this, the short journey walking and cycling is a greener option. ..

on the lives of young people. if i am chosen as our national campaign to hope that you make a difference to an issue that affects the majority if not all young people. for us to change an issue that affects us all. first to change an issue that we can make a difference to you. go to change public transport. thank you very much.

[cheers and applause] b. mike james, thank you. all of the front bench who have contributed and the 14th at bench contributors. before you have onto the next debate, i would like to welcome him and i think you welcome a number of my parliamentary colleagues who are here this morning. test amounts, liberal democrat member from wow, christopher pincher, conservative member of parliament from tamworth. i know there can be handy, but i'm sure she will present yourself any minute now someone who has been a consistent champion of the young people, the liberal democrat, jay swenson who is here. and i am delighted to see matthew handcuff from west suffolk co. is in the gallery as well. it is great that you are here, colleagues, and supported these parliament. we move now to the second debate

and the consideration of the second motion of the day with 18 to tuition fees as printed on the order paper. just before i called an overt emotion, perhaps i could just make a plea. those of you who have spoken you've done so extremely well. i hope you will agree not to try to speak a second time because there are lots of people who haven't yet spoken for a first time. and those of you who either haven't yet tried order was tried and not been called, please try again. i won't be able to call everybody. that is just life i'm afraid, but i will do my best to accommodate as many of you as they possibly can. to move the motion, i.: please welcome mr. harrison carter. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i propose that the u.k. youth parliament say no to tuition fees and gas to a graduate tax.

we've done everything possible academically, but fall short. ema or income supports we can't seem to get that help to simply afford university. it has become a stark reality in this country that young people not only think twice about going to university, but dismissed categorically the idea altogether. the prospects that that underemployment is one for that many young people makes university in part to go. in the u.k. youth parliament report access denied, one in three young people said they wanted to go to university but were not able to do to financial burden that comes with studying and living away from home, a figure that is set to skyrocket with proposals by the government to increase university tuition fees to a maximum of 9000 pounds a year.

what is more? past increases in the threshold were not and are still not enough to ensure that everyone who wants to study at university can. crippling debt is locking out thousands of young people from their right to education and their right to a stable working future. the graduate tax in principle provides a safety net for graduates to come out of university and our table to find a job. the higher education standards authority revealed 28% of u.k. graduates were out of work three and a half years after graduation. that's over a quarter. that is over a quarter of graduates. the income threshold for graduate tax would ensure that people in this situation would pay nothing until they were working in even better a person on an average salary 30,000 pounds would be 37 pounds

better off each month. it could be argued that the abolition of university tuition fees that benefit young people more, but contributing to a system that we benefit directly from every contribution we must all be willing to make. the problem of the current system is that tuition fees are snapped up by the treasury, are not used to fund universities directly in line with the graduate tax to be the formation of an independent body. this organization would distribute graduate tax revenue directly to universities. this would offer a range of opportunities for universities to compete globally. we can hear arguments about the facts with university of education. but so that be the basis of your decision. i am sure the politicians would look to be at the center of this debate in the spotlight, but

don't let them be. it would be naïve quite frankly to not get some things that we will inevitably gain from the service provided. this does not situate the self-interested business health of education that guarantees the same quality of education for everybody. young person after young person, generation after generation. the simple logic is about money and without resources, what do the universities become? attacks the same pay the money when you can. no need to accrue massive debt and then pay when you can. is it right to accept fear as a barrier for higher education? no. is it right to support and ask for a little extra, absolutely. should universities be given the money they deserve? of course.

other countries is in our duty to educate and his undergraduates is our right to learn. next year instead of being a 9% drop in university application after speed guys, we will promise after. this debate is ongoing and it's time for us, the uk's youth parliament to settle. today, we must show our commitment to every single young person we represent. both for fairness in education, for better education and forces and find an education vote for this campaign. [cheers and applause] >> harrison, thank you for that. to oppose the motion i call alex huston.

[applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. a graduate tax is completely wrong. but so is the current tuition fee system. both these expects student to pay for their higher education. they also charge students different minds for the same degree. government shows that over their lifetime graduates earn on average over 100,000 pounds more than those without degrees. they therefore pay much like tax and as a result they pay the cost of the higher education. our current system leads to a postcode lottery. the n.y.p.d. pays nothing for a degree in scotland's. plus the m.i.t. or grimsley page 27,000 pounds for exactly the same degree.

the is just over it totaled 9 million pounds were they choose. plus the nyp pays 9000 pounds only if they choose to study in northern ireland. we are all part of the united kingdom, but if you're english it's going to cost you. [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> this isn't fair and it is an equal. so what do we do about this problem? we must make university degree truly current. there are far too many people studying degrees to account for various adult only wonder why graduate unemployment is rising. we must reduce the number of university places while increasing opportunities that vocational colleges.

if we did this come a degree which really return to being a mark of excellence. this change would make both tuition fees in the graduate tax irrelevant. all nyp should oppose this motion. i ask you to vote against the campaign. a graduate tax is not the way forward. that is why i am opposing it. we should be campaigning for our mps to take responsibility for their actions. they never pay for their degree, but they expect us to pay for ours. my generation, our generation didn't cause economic mess we are in. i suggest that each mp puts their money where their mouth is and pays the degree they've already got. [cheers and applause]

as mps want to go for a graduate tax, we were up to what they make them pay. so, ed miller band, and you may win tonight but your party betrayed generation of students. you introduce tuition needs. david cameron, i suppose paying for education is nothing new to you. [laughter] [applause] what 27,000 pounds compared to the cost of going to eat in. and then there's nick clegg. you are like that promising to scrap tuition fees. that went well, didn't it?

[laughter] [cheers and applause] so that 27,000 pounds for an ad, and nick. and they can all afford it. i urge you to vote against the campaign. let's make mps pay for their degrees. thank you. [cheers and applause] i can only assume that when i let stand for parliament it will be as the leader of the newly formed huston nights. [laughter] thank you very much indeed for that. can we have a speaker and a voice from scotland on this matter? that would be of interest. what about the young women here.

>> thank you, mr. chair. i am from her scotland. i'm lucky enough to be able to escape tuition fees hit so hard not to apply for, english universities. tuition fees very considerable part of where i as i'm sure you and many people we represent will apply. i believe therefore any method repayment of those fees is a method that should be thoroughly investigated. a graduate tax it not only alleviate new students, creating a system that barely charged the benefit they receive from their degree, but also create a more accurate network of universities for all students no longer deter non--- no longer deterring them from height in academia and creating a site of equal opportunities that we as a reduced parliament have at our quarter.

[applause] >> what about the young man here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. education, education, education. the words by tony blair. no tuition fees to find how by nick clegg and his constituency. the politicians that the education with the universal right for young people of increased to 3000 pounds and 9010 to 9000 pounds. someone who is four months younger than me has to get trouble than i do. we are told every day by politicians that that is a bad thing. the situation we are in a moment is a bad situation. we can afford to be in debt. yet when i cannot university i'm going to be in 27,000 pounds. great. the tuition fee is going to pay less per month. i'm not going to pay as much per month as i did under the 3000 pounds.

yet i still have to pay 27,000 pounds of my young money for an education, which any westernized politician would say we have the right to. it doesn't make any sense. granted, the politicians didn't have to pay for their university fee. we shouldn't have to be -- either. [applause] >> young man in the third row please. >> and james l. smart, subnet structure in the west island 10 miles from the welsh borders so when can they of the differences between each of the nations. and on that topic i think it is atrocious that certain scottish liberal democrat mps are allowed to do in favor of the tuition fee rise in england. i am completely against the rise in fees as one of the things my constituents talked about most this year along with public

transport. very bright people are being put off the university because of the massive debt they will incur. however, i believe the graduate tax is not the solution and would cause former problems in the current system. i'll just give you a few. to the e.u. means any student from country must be treated in an equal weight to those from any other country. an english student are entitled to the nature of that country. the problem is that not many schools in england teach the national languages to be their countries while other countries teach english said there are many more systems -- there are many more students than going to other countries. with current system and although

it's more difficult if not back when the student leaves the u.k. it is possible. as there is no e.u. wide tax system, it would be impossible to cut the tax from the e.u. nationals when they return to their country without greeting e.u. law. this also applies to the u.k. tax. if i graduate and move abroad, how does the government pay tax for me? i actually got my degree for free. and this would encourage people in the highest paid salaries to move abroad so you could avoid this tax. also, dropouts. if i didn't complete my degree, do i get a graduate tax? is disincentive to someone who is on track to receive a full degree. instead of getting a low mark they could drop out a few weeks before they're finished. they haven't got the degree so they don't have to pay the graduate tax. finally, this would not abolish bad. students still need to pay for accommodation, textbooks, food and transports.

so they will still graduate but the debt which needs to be paid off along the side of graduate paths. does the system has felt the benefit that graduates have without these major flaws. although i don't agree with the recent rise in tuition fees, i would strongly urge my fellow some names of this ridiculous proposal is new benefit students and the risk of serious financial implications for universities in the future. there are much better options we can consider instead of a graduate tax. [applause] >> what about the young woman in the back row with the yellow top and black jacket around us. yes indeed, you. you have arrived. >> okay, i am rebecca made off.

the graduate tax to get rid of that and we are throwing around the word that like it's the worst thing ever. there's different kinds of debt. this healthy diet and healthy diet. go in spending thousands and thousands of pounds on handbags and shoes is on healthy debt. that is not going to benefit you in the future. but if you make the calculation that universities are going to mean you can have a salary you want, then surely that's the calculation you could make and you can invest in not any should say okay, i'm going to have to pay it back slowly and transform a thousand pounds now that you pay it back. you pay that last amount. so shouldn't you look at that. it's an investment in my future. [applause] >> thank you. what about the woman in the third row here. thank you.

>> i had any mccullen and ever-present admin. it has been proven not going to university and getting a degree as 12,000 pounds to your salary. if you think about it, and authority more one year of your degree paid off instantly. and as well as the following year, if you think about having to pay graduate tax, that only covers your tuition fee. it does not cover all the accommodations and food and living costs that you incur when you go to university. i do not propose that you vote against this notion, but i thought that we should change it and make it new. it should not just say no tuition fees, but it should also say no to university costs and graduate tax is incur all of the cost of university. [applause] >> thank you. gentleman for northern ireland. >> i am from northern ireland and i would like to reiterate my

colleague mr. huston. i believe education at the third level university should be called for the talented and diligent your money should be pumped into vocational courses and dreams in the long drawnout war. those who pay for tuition say the pen is mightier than the sword and the silver bullet opens opportunity for all of us. [applause] >> thank you very much. what about the young woman in the front row here. >> bolivia baller, west midland. it is presented by the ec you potentially an exercise in rebranding. at the end of the day it does not help that the astronomical raising fee, cable and other programs or tax decisions are made plain that the extortionate fears that we will all be subjected to from said number 2012 of course apart from wales. cable himself admitted we only pay a form.

on the other hands idea we'll pay more. university educated nurse at 836,871 pounds if the government implements the tax on earnings over 25 years. on the previous system they would've paid in the region of 10,000 pounds. it is safe to say this disadvantage alone epitomizes exactly when no other country in the world is on the system. please oppose this motion. thank you. [applause] >> the young man -- yes in the row 2 to back, please. >> thank you very much. i am jack chamberlain and i represent dublin. like many here i was aghast when i heard about the increase in vmi strongly opposed it up until his past in this chamber. however, now that is the case and i will be paying these fees i look at them or close the recipient of coming out of university and earning a very realistic salary of 30,000 pounds, i will be paying

just over 60 pounds a month. this is very affordable for people and is possible to live on the 21,000 pounds threshold alone. so any more you pay on top of that is a price worth paying for the degree you get. because of university tuition fees, these are all paid up front. this is not what stops anyone from going to university. what people need to look at is the cost associated with slipping away from home for the first time in the cost associated with the additional courses as a textbooks. that is not what this debate is about. we work with the graduate tax, i would do is increase tax for a country that doesn't have any money at the moment anyway. because the administration to switch systems is that where it the benefits of a graduate tax commotion is why think we should oppose the motion for a national campaign.

[applause] >> a moment ago, wales was referred to in passing and therefore if we could have a speaker from wales, that would be great. the young woman there with the black cat. thank you. >> i am from wales and i we should campaign. for a start education is needed to assist them. if you want to make heard, you need to start a new public transport. people need to be heard how to deal with those things in single affair and child poverty. people need the education to sort these things out. [inaudible] if you're paid an unreasonable salary and not many are getting the jobs you want to come you're not going and opinion anyway

because it says you only have to pay when it is a certain amount of money. [applause] >> thank you for that. just beyond you, sir, forgive me. there is a young man there who wishes to contribute a bit like to hear from you. >> thank you for a much speaker. i remember being a young fat girl child we want to achieve your best -- we want you to achieve everything we want you to go with no fear and no tax. what would happen -- what has happened? a young person is now going into coming away with words and actual costs. we are destroyed and scrappy young people's future. we have to be -- the only people that can afford the service people.

if i may say one more thing, a lot of people from other countries in europe come to england. they don't have to pay the 9000-pound tuition fees. however, if you're from england and your account person, you have to pay to 9000 pounds tuition fees. and even though this fund by the government -- i think the slowness of the right thing. the reason being is because even though this love has two subjects which cost 9000 pounds they will still impact alone by the time they are in their late 50s. the government seriously has to reconsider this motion of the something else forward if it will work it is going to be accessible for young people and most importantly the future of young people at universities for years to come. think about young people. think about people who are getting started and who do not have as much money as yourself at them first and put young people first. and that is why i'm here today

at the nyp to support young people. [applause] >> thank you for that very fluent and impassioned speech. as i.t. or somebody from yorkshire and humber side. what about the guy -- no, you are busy looking around. it was you at the red tide that i had my. >> i am the nyp from east lincoln like was mentioned alice's peace. on the radio this morning had 25 cents billion people in in education and employment. this is really serious because one in every four people i think in my constituency will not have the opportunity to fill their

potential. in the u.n. declaration of human rights, and says that higher education should be accessible based on ability, not ability to pay. the fee as it stands at the moment isn't based on ability. it's based on ability to pay. and this is wrong. they say that they fear the day. they fear having not bad. they see their parents at home to get loans to pay the bills and put food on the table mnc these months and they are stressed that their parent or having them think i don't want that. i don't want that stress. i want the best of both, so i will not go to the university. on achieve my potential. that is due in this country a disservice. 12% yes people on this country,

so education this year. that means there's going to be 12% less doctors, lawyers, teachers, people from cambridge that will be educated. last night and the of people who come from poorer areas is very low end is seriously needing to be improved in these graduates with your great way to encourage more people to go to cambridge. [applause] >> can i have to speak nyp from the northwest. what about the young woman in the very back row. yes, you looking around. >> nine and is not dry and i am from the northwest. i want to address the tuition fees with segregation from the poor and rich. it is clearly divided.

but the graduate taxes we are going to have stress after the degree. doing things like scholarships and an increase in scholarship will develop more. and more people will be allowed to have higher education. that is my point. [applause] >> thank you. i'd like to hear someone from the east midlands the debate. >> what about the young woman in the back row. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am hayley and i am from east midlands. i believe that universities should be seen on this investment. everyone has the option to go to university. and once you get a degree, and you will be earning extremely more money because either a degree and you'll be able to pay off your fees. i'm sure the u.k. tax payout a degree that we already pay enough tax. would anyone want to retain any

more attacks after the degree that they should be seen investing in? if you can't get the job after your degree, then maybe you shouldn't be getting your degree in the first place. maybe you should be going into vocational education that will help you more with your future. i don't think that graduate taxes the right way forward. we need to fix the current system and improve it and educate our young people more so they know what opportunities they have to get the best out of their education. anyone can go to university if they have thee can go to univerf they have the abition. anyone can go to university if they have the ability, anyone can pay off their fees after their degree if they get the job. thank you. [applause] >> we are pleased to be joined by stephen gilbert, liberal democrat member of parliament from dorsal. i'm glad i got that right.

and by very appropriately guide opperman, conservative member of parliament from packs them in the northeast of england and that is very fitting, guy, because we need now to hear from a young person at nyp from the northeast. what we got? young man in the back. >> cameron around from northeast. i just like to reason issue with the gentleman from yorkshire over there. he says we have to completed and oversee graduate tax. blasting what is the congo as an independent body. we want to students to graduate to a national insurance, income tax, pension contributions taken from. the last thing i want is another graduate tax because the problem is that affects what the graduate taxes. the tax on jobs appears in punishment -- looking to have an education to get a job.

i think that is completely to have a graduate tax on the fact that i actually have a job. thank you. [applause] >> i am very sorry, but time is against us and we do have other debates. so we do need to wind up this debate and to conclude that, i call ms. poppy simmons. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. hello, i've got some things for you all to think about. under the current tuition fee system, when a student uses the money to cover the cost as many do, when they graduate they will pay 9% of their earnings with a salary of 21,000 pounds. now if you are paying a percentage of your earnings as a contribution towards service you have used and hopefully benefited from, isn't that quite a bit like a tax? thinking about it this way, the

two systems are remarkably similar. the only differences the rate of tax on the threshold. so that will be a mountain of payback to be different. we know we need to pay some paint towards the cost of our university education. but which is the best way to contribute? we've gone from one extreme to the other over the years. we've gone from paying nothing to possibly paying up to 9000 pounds. and what we as the u.k. parliament passed a question now is whether a graduate taxes the right next to. while it could be, especially it often acts as a barrier to the university and therefore having a graduate tax system could potentially open up the possibility of going to those who never even dreamed about it. also, as harrison commented earlier it was discovered by the national union of students of graduate earning 30,000 pounds

would be 30,000 pounds better. however, this could also be a step backwards. due to the fact that undergraduate tax system there is no sabol you for your degree, meaning two people in the same force could end up paying hugely different amounts for it. something many would question the fairness outcome especially alex as he showed us earlier about the different n.y.p.d. and what they pay. the truth is that people seek debt, but they equally loan tax. if there's three things we complain about the most of its tax and the weather, especially on a daily base. when speaking to counsel, and many gave some excellent reasons of whether we should have a tuition era graduate tax system. and when i realizes that there is no clear-cut answer to this. your job now is the u.k. parliament and your people is to vote on which you think is

right. you've heard some brilliant cases for and against us to be motion being a major campaign and ultimately it took the vow. thank you very much. [applause] >> poppies, thank you for that. we move now to the consideration of the third motion of the day and of course the last of the morning session relating to bullying as printed on the order paper. to move the motion, i call mr. david kron. [cheers and applause] >> hostility is not inherited. antagonism is not genetic. the tendency to torment and the inclination to intimidate are

not people of the human nature but are learned behavior. the poisonous source of our intolerance, prejudice and discrimination is ignorance, preconception and divergence. to tackle bullying but it is rapidly flourishing and in full bloom should be nothing more than a sinai resort in adversity. to call the troops to rot before it could affect is a true victory in the name of equality. to simply punish a bully for targeting a person might believe that an instance of suffering, but won't challenge the deep-rooted appeared to simply disappear in an individual for attacking a person based on their race might remedy that particular problem, but won't eradicate the racist undertones. to simply penalize someone for mocking a person with a disability might cause a train

close that chapter of ridicule, but won't solve the ignorance of the condition. the quality can only be attended or education. equality can only be fixed within schools foster a culture cared to rest by respect. when the extended curriculum encourages young people to embrace the characteristics that make them each unique, get volumes that bind them all. humanity. suspension from school is a short term plan that cannot fully cover the deep wound of misunderstanding and ignorance. effective rehabilitation counterreformation and education is what we need. despite recent work that still remains the variation in the intensity of the problem from school to school and policies are often drafted blindly without the full support of

parents, students. no piece of legislation in our country without due consultation and discussion, so why should the rules of our schools be treated any differently? how can a matter of personal safety and well-being of children and young people be left chance? cellmate in the holiness the perfect match for what it's actually hurtful criminality. in younger children may not realize how their support of the frivolous words are actually the origin of a punishable crime. to verbally attack a physically assault a person on the street is unacceptable and while a consequence, the fact it is taking place in school make it any less severe. we with the crime -- what is it over acceptable. it is unacceptable to be prejudice in public, so why

should it be permitted in private? research has shown that six in 10 h. 1014 would commit a crime. it simply, if we do not immediately highlight and tackle the issue, they risk falling into an embraceable and ongoing cycle of illegality and immorality. there appears to be a worrying separation between what some schools to sign his bullying and let others decide is not. despite research that suggests is in issue three times as prevalent as racism in our schools, to intervene in almost half of all in and says that instance. silence is an unspoken acceptance and intolerance by staff. and to ignore the issue will only allow it to the letter and to intensify.

in more than 60% of the cases, the student said nothing was done. and until every potential instances recognize and prevent it and every transpired incident is challenged in question, we cannot begin to strive for communities for young people until every child can rely on every staff member to tackle every situation with conviction, confidence and concern. we cannot plan to take a zero tolerance approach to bullying. the current situation is reliant upon independent charities as a growing number of teenage suicides was dwindling self confidence and increased self-loathing. young people are being failed by the policies we have now. 170,000 young people for every single day to and from school because they are being bullied. we can discuss tuition fees,

transport and energy, but the foundation is primary and secondary education. and if we want, there's 170,000 young people in school and then they come in the first step is to make this issue our priority. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> david, thank you or that terrific and uncompromising start to this important debate. just before i call the opposer of the motion, i noted in passing that was now been joined by the liberal democrats matter for shetland comes liberal democrat chief with him. so mr. alistair carmichael, show yourself. [applause] >> to oppose the motion i offered dvs co. in. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. bullying house, it is and always

will be a very serious issue. yet this is some in the government, schools and society as a whole are all very aware of. schools in scotland are strongly recommended to have an antique bowling policy, that every single school in england, wales and northern ireland is required by law to have a policy against bullying. members of youth president, this issue is being addressed. this campaign proposes the u.k. nyp should make schools change the anti-bullying policy and approached that involves those students and professionals. a superficially intends on improving anti-bullying policy seems that the good news. but it is the way that we feel

with bowling that we are compassionate creatures. we naturally feel and punish the bully accordingly. but members of parliament, a campaign on zero tolerance towards bullying makes one harmful assumption, that vick done so overcome the often terrifying obstacle of telling someone about their suffering. research shows that 30% of just 10 to 14-year-olds who have been subject to bullying did not tell anyone that they have been bullied. these are the most vulnerable children that must be held if they are already dealing with. the motion is yours. despite the flaws of this motion

are the outlines, whether or not and act upon individual incidents of bullying that they witness or even if they implement the rate policy, and it is not something that is a member of youth parliament can tackle. u.k.-wide p. in its youthful passion has to often suffered from naïve ambition and not delivered results on this campaign. it is time that we tackled an issue that we convict. we must fight the root cause of bullying, not the recurring symphonies. a root cause of this issue is sadly far too deeply ingrained in society to make any impact. surely this issue lies in the way we are educated. more than that, the way we can go throughout life been a part

of society, encouraged to compete with one another in schools, of the dangerous social hierarchy that we all seek to climb to the degree where intentionally and systematically harboring another human being seems acceptable. the problem is bullying, not how we deal with it. members of use part of that, we must start a campaign where we can all bring about real change. do not let this unachievable motion passed. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. as always, great pressure and time. i'm going to appeal for extreme brevity and speeches if we can deliver that content will be able to get a reasonable of number people in.

i'm looking for somebody from the west midlands. yes ,-com,-com ma young man here. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. one of the main causes of rolling infecting certain types of "rolling stone" from the fact that some young people do not understand or accept other people's beliefs or background. i am lucky enough to have grown in a multicultural area where it had the privilege to learn about other people's cultures. not all young people. therefore i believe it should be more systemic education system to encourage young people to respect them when. thank you very much. >> thank you. young woman in the second row. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask you to think back to your own education. i'm sure everyone in this room

can think of someone close to them who is experienced bullying. if that is the case, surely the government are asking young people have to go to school and they shouldn't be penalized or punished. we can make a difference studios and people who can't face the bullying. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. what about the women here in the second row with the long blond hair. >> and emily carter from the southwest. we are u.k. wide p. and we are the voices of young people. so surely, we should have this in our main campaign as we want to tackle this and we want to help because you want to help all of the youth. we want to help the young people of society and we want to make things better, not just things

like transport, such attacks, we want to help people have a more endurable life. and should be going to university, but surely we need to help people before they get aired when they are in a situation that they can make that more comfortable for them. it will be a positive future. [applause] >> admit it's time for another speaker from london. okay, let's have the young man in the second row. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible] -- from working with the community, we don't know that the lien at any level leads to lack of achievement and

divisions within community. the more that needs to be done by all parties to ensure the bullying at different levels. [inaudible] but it snowballs. it escalates. the top 10 hot education and quality in their -- [inaudible] especially in a place they should feel safe, a school. it is our children's interest, so though for this motion today. they will no longer be a problem in text efficiently.

we would be a safer and happier tomorrow. then the student body and generations that come will be safer and have here. [applause] >> how about a voice from scotland? maybe from scotland wanting to contribute. you are indeed. with a tear from you. >> while i do think there are fantastic topics, it has to go by local forces to create the policies of individual skills and make a mammoth task for you with all these local authorities or the approval authorities to work on one to be a great thing to see and i don't think it would be possible and i think you may be fair to spend elsewhere.

thank you. [applause] >> how about the northeast of england quiets anybody from the northeast? yes, what about the young woman with the bright blue outfit. >> thank you, mr. speaker. he said you could use parliament to make a difference. well to me, just because it does not mean we should not try, is that the truth that proves to me how much bullying is embedded in our society that we cannot be bullied ourselves. thank you. [applause] >> what about the east midlands. who would have for the east midlands? >> i'd like to talk about a specific issue. >> i'd like to talk about a specific issue in bowling which

is, and bowling. it is one of the most prevalent forms in our school and intensely discussed in some it should be picked on for orientation. we heard earlier that teens are bullied and 17% received death threats, which is unacceptable in a society like ours. it is one of the own u.k. charities. america's many national campaigns and we need a national young people supported campaign that we can -- what is the word? which we can support. we should be trying to help these young people divided through their time at school. there have been so many cases of youth suicide and it cannot continue. thank you. [applause] >> anybody from northern ireland wishing to speak?

>> kory burch. this year the number of children aligned with depression or suicidal not increase by 300% since last year. among these polls, one statistic in north ireland is 87% of northern irish, lgb felt they did not do enough to help with their bowling. i urge you that this is an very important national interests. [applause] >> how about yorkshire? >> yet, what about the young guy there. >> yes, indeed. >> i think the bullying needs to be stamped out. we need to have the right way to get rid of bullying.

we are all special. with all got different talents. the world would be boring if we were all the same. school expansion and exclusion is the wrong way to get with it because it has not worked yet. however, i think is one opportunity we can use the media affect to flee. we've got spokespeople for the wrong reason. bring back our parents and schools that say get rid of this bullying we should be doing this. we should be in unison altogether to bring back an interminably get rid of it. [applause] >> somebody from the northwest. gas, the young woman -- i'm sorry, but the one in waving her hands around.

[inaudible] [inaudible] -- obviously this could lead someone spiraling into depression and also their ascendancy. the problem is almost impossible to come forward, that even when they do is to figure out how someone is rolling a particular student. it would take parent police. as a result, the teachers can i.d. and contend -- they could contend that they could control bullying and the undue burden on

them due to the lack of jobs available. can we actually do anymore tackle with the bullying? thank you. >> we have been joined. i don't see him now, but illusory moment ago. stephen have earned. stephen, thank you for coming and supporting the use parliament. we may see them again in a few minutes. i do need a speaker from wales. yes, the women made in the back who was just holding her hand up. yes, indeed. thank you. [inaudible] >> it is more hard to hide it -- [inaudible] is often hard for people to speak out, the one that harms people the most.

i support this motion. [applause] >> and what we got here from the east of england? yeah, that guy with the black jacket -- silver jacket. >> i am david marcus sent today would someone just tells one insult to somebody, bullying is just overrated to be honest in my thing that we need to change what we define as bullying because too much -- there is a problem but that comes down to parental control and parents not doing enough to discipline their children. [applause] >> i am sorry that we've run out of time. we have managed to accommodate each region in each of the three

debates with the exception for the first debate. i want to come in from. but no one from northern ireland wants to speak in the first debate. since then we've accommodated every region. i know it's never enough, but to conclude the debate i call now mr. robert littleton. [cheers and applause]

>> assistance collected shows that over one-third young people experience bullying or discrimination during their childhood. that's about six rows of people in this chamber. enough people to fill to hold double dekker buses. is there enough people for you to consider this, the most part, issues facing young people today. but as we have heard, there are

also many reasons why this motion should not be selected as the ukyp top priority. there are number of antibullying laws already in place throughout the u.k. in england, wales and northern ireland, schools are required by law to have anti-bullying policies. bearing that in mind, is it still necessary for us to make this our number one campaign? another issue surrounding this topic is that bullying legislation is extremely difficult to generalize across the whole country, as each region or nation will have its own specific problems and solutions dealing with bullying. shirley we would not be foolish to great one rule for the whole of the u.k. as we are proposing. another problem is that the face of bullying has changed greatly over the last couple years. with the development of a new age of bullying in the form of

cyber intimidation. when you cast your votes today, you must ask yourself, will this proposed motion deal with the prevention of cyber bullying as well? your decision today could have enormous consequences. your vote could change a thousand lives, or it could just change one life. either way, you can make a real difference. so please, way both sides of the are you going to the conclusion, should we have zero tolerance approach, for bullying in schools? thank you. [applause] >> thank you, robert. that concludes the morning session. the youth parliament when now adjourned until 1:30 p.m. we do, we are being broadcast, return in time for 1:30 p.m.

sharp. i invite you all to return to westminster hall for lunch. order, order. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> speaker. >> please be seated. order, order. youth parliament will consider

the motion of the day relating to child poverty as printed on the order paper. to move the motion i call the next speaker. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to start off by thanking you for this tremendous opportunity for us to speak at what is known as the motherland of all democracy. at the age of five in 1987 i saw a dream to speak from this very box. never in my wildest dream did everything it would come to so fast. i also like to thank my constituents being this is my last time speaking on behalf of the youth parliament. by constituents, the lesser youth service, it would take the whole allocated speech time. especially my region of east midlands and a few special people, my mother and younger sister who have supported me, deputy city mayor, his kind messages, and my local in peace,

mr. john asher. also my mentor, and others who have worked with many young people raising their aspiration. and also my inspiration, who i like very dearly. [applause] >> and mr. speaker, i mentioned this today because it didn't sit very well with i'm here to debate about. child poverty is one of the biggest issues in our country yet it goes unnoticed. with over a third of our young people, our children is equivalent to nearly 4 million children living in poverty. this is atrocious. we are doing a disservice to our children, our young people. and it is time we make sure britain's future is bright. so if you believe in a brighter future for britain, if you value

a brighter future for britain you should vote for this motion. life expectancy is also one of the biggest issues where child poverty plays a crucial factor. when you look at recent statistic from a child born in chelsea has the highest life expectancy of britain, as compared to glasgow were some of my few honorable friends are from come has endless life expectancy in any comparable developed nation. so if you believe in britain, and i do, you must believe in a britain for all our people, not just the privileged few at the top of society. so if you believe in better life for our people, you should vote for it. and look what we've already achieved in some of our local authorities. the deputy city mayor has said that the commission to tackle child poverty consisting of counselors, academics and members of parliament to set realistic targets, and tackle these issues by 2014 before the end of their term in office.

this is something which every local authority in britain can adapt and replicate, for the young people. and when you look at the county of leicestershire, and young people did research into piled kashmir child poverty which had findings incorporated into family poverty strategy. this is what we can do. this is what each local authority across britain can do to tackle this. aspiration and education, the chances are if you're born in a deprived area, and he deprived family, you may not get a high level of education due to lack of resources. and it's a waste of time. so while the dash that when the former prime minister said education, education, education, u.k. youth parliament, i take today our three main parties are, aspiration, aspiration, aspiration. and mr. speaker, aspiration is a big word but what does it really mean? it's the hope and ambition that

you are able to progress and achieved regardless of your background. it's the belief that everyone has an equal chance in life and it's an equal opportunity for every. when we look at youth unemployment which is at its highest rate in recent years, in northern ireland 50% of young adults in one ward are living in poverty. this must change if we want to have a better future for britain to my fellow nyp here today is a very successful campaign to tackle youth unemployment. so if you value britain's three biggest priority, education, aspiration and employment, you should vote for it today. and social mobility, mr. speaker, is also something at the hands of this injustice. apart from a few individuals, aspiration ones have gone out to achieve fantastic things, it's very hard for young people to be born and raised in poverty to progress on to some of the highest jobs in the public and private sector. so if you'd be in social

mobility you should vote for this. and you may say why choose child poverty over transport? why choose it over environment, bullying or truancy? you choose to because this is the foundation for all these. he chooses because yet another generation are entering a cycle of poverty, a very vicious cycle. you choose this because the people in power can do and should do more of to help end child poverty. at ukyp is a powerhouse of aspiration. it's inspired me to run for elected mayor, at age of 1 18 making me the youngest candidate in britain to disappear and i believe if i can do it, every single one of you can do it, too. looking at child poverty rates in britain reminds me of a movie, back to the future. marty mcfly who was stuck in the 1950s. let's not leave our children, our future, our constituents and

our young people back in the past. let's make this change today. economic stability for our hard-working families must be the basis of a more flexible and progressive future for britain. it's our values as a country, as a youth parliament, and our instincts as siblings, neighbors and representatives that makes, that no child in our country should be left behind. so when politicians talk about the promise of britain, this is a promise of britain. when they say change we can believe in, this is a change we can believing. when they say let's build a fair britain for all, these are the first steps towards building a. this is the foundation. i can see some faces around to thinking, he's using slogans from all major parties. these are the promises all the three parties in the last election. so if you believe in a notion of progress for britain, you should vote for this today. i'm an optimist but i believe in the power of politics to change things. so with all the personality

rubbish you can come and reflect how much things have changed in your local authorities in your cities. and change because applicable decision in your local authority, it hadn't changed for you in office. so i think today is the to be proud of the achievements we have done in every single of our local authorities. [applause] >> a mandate for change -- [laughter] that is all i ask. u.k. youth parliament, vote december 2011. [applause] >> every single child, every young person living in your constituency is calling out to you today asking you if you hear their concerns, asking you if you would help them achieve a better future. we must seek solutions that benefit the many and not just the few. [applause]

>> mu-hamid, a splendid speech which i think you were just about to conclude. [laughter] extremely grateful to you. it's not over until it's over, because this is a fight we have to win. there is a choice between public by the end this or you ignore it. it's not a choice of a political opinion. it's a choice of future and i tell you this, never ever let child poverty back to do the damage is done to our society over the years. so tomorrow when you go home you can wake up to another five or so years with this issue being brushed under the carpet with millions of children, chance of being ended in poverty, or you can elect to campaign with new hope, fresh ideas and vision for the good and better of britain. [applause] >> and i can see the expression on her face i have gone over times i must end here. [laughter] but it's because i'm passionate about this a few just as much as you're all a passionate.

and we get this right and things can only get better for britain. >> thank you very much indeed. [cheers and applause] >> will mu-hamid, thank you very much for that speech. to oppose the motion i called jess symons. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. i've represent wales. i in here today to oppose the motion of child poverty what you may think that you as child poverty is entirely a large issue in the u.k. lee's ask what is poverty? how were we meant to make it without not getting caught up in technologies? we can look at countries such as somalia where the male life expectancy is 48 years old and the 50% of the children are enrolled in primary education. most people are likely to you to reach life expectancy under five

is 182000 per year. we can look back at united kingdom, our country, a country of prosperity that gives out hundreds of millions of pounds to countries such as somalia that has male life expectancy of 78 years to secondly every port done called our rights our story in 2007 found out that 65% of people in wales has never had the rights explained leaving only 8% aware. although these statistics are only for windows can it represents a missing link which can only be stretched across the united kingdom. looking at the united nations review on children's right in the u.k. they believe that the way people are treated in acrylic justice system is more than issue of poverty sure that it is not our priority. thirdly, child poverty is one of the biggest vehicle of this policy, disadvantages in later life and high crime rate. for example, it is quite as high in fat and south england,

reflecting the high poverty rate in these areas leading to a life of crime. looking at the national commission report on the national minimum wage, the commission displayed how can people are one of the hardest hit over the age of segregation of the national minimum wage. to quote between 1999-2007 average earnings of young people rose roughly in line in those of adults after the minimum wages. since then it has become evident the wages and people have increased at a slower pace than those of adults. this leads to lack of resources, lack of inspiration and essentially poverty. finally, my point is this, to end poverty now coalition is in must from all over the u.k. that tries to tackle this problem every single day. it is part of the goals, two of which are rather in improving child health and universal primary education. these goals is to to be cheap i 2010, including these have not yet been met. that deadline has been extended on the context of these goals have not been reviewed.

will is changing to incorporate what is important in the present-day? we have global leaders, government, and so many people, and if they can make a difference, how can we? so i urge you to think about what is realistic when you make your choices. what is achievable in the next election. think what we can do to make a difference to young people all over the u.k. and make way for the next generation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to call this gentleman here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have mentioned before we need to talk about what is poverty. is poverty a child who has the food, water and shelter? is poverty dax. [inaudible] we must remember that every young person matters. and what we do this is a big

campaign. ukyp representatives can make changes. we were elected to do this and they can improve and change the lives of young people. and, therefore, i believe we should end child poverty and they changed not only in our constituencies but in society. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. and looking for young person from the southeast. yes, the young woman here. >> i do believe in being poverty is a big issue, but as my other to go nyp's mention, we cannot do anything about it until we all realized what poverty actually is. if i was to go into my school, for example, and talked to my school colleagues and ask them what poverty was, that would more likely safe am and/or drought. but that's not it really. i mean come into we actually change what people expect a we

can do anything about because there's a way of judging what is and what isn't poverty at the minute. [applause] >> thank you. the woman at the far end, yes, you looking around with a pink top i think it is. >> when you said probably you don't usually think u.k. however, as i would distinguish child poverty is a major issue affecting a third of all children in the u.k. and i believe that the winners we can create from this conference we can eliminate the depression u.k. is failing and failed poverty. many charities offer ways for these children to go and expect a normal life so they can see how a normal life works. and they get inspired and to get motivated and take it kashmir this is what we need. we need to inspire them because

they have visions, and some of them are so intelligent. they just don't have the opportunistic many of them same data at the same things like beaches. this is a chance we need to offer to come into this with this conference. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. forgive me. this morning and possibly the first debate, somebody stood up at the back because he thought that i was calling him. if he wants to speak now, he can. he is not obliged to if he doesn't want to. >> thanks. [laughter] i'm jack lewis from london. it is also a national disgrace. for example, you can see it affects on a% of children. in germany one in six children, and in finland in 2007 about 11% of children in poverty. in the u.k., a third of children. so it is a national issue. i don't think we should adopt it as this is ukyp campaign to many

things already being done. some of these things include local chances working with young people to improve their lives. and one example of this is passion that the partnership. since 1997, crime has been increasing at rapid rates, but the intervention is holding aspect child poverty and crime has reduced by 30%. and also i come from a very affluent area of london, and many people are they unaware of issues surrounding child poverty and what the definition actually is. so i think before we should adopt this as a camping i think equally we need to be educated about exactly what child poverty is and how we can tackle it. and also, more things to be

promoted such as campaigning and different types of cherry should do more charity work before they should be taken on as a campaign. thank you. [applause] >> what about this young person from the east midlands? young man at the back. >> as this with the last opportunities be can house, i want to express my gratitude of house like a special type special person, without support i would undoubtedly not be the person i today. i couldn't agree with the gentleman from lester. the current impact is this just under 19 people who are unemployed and dax. [inaudible] the society stigmatize young people telling them you're all the same, you are lazy can give no ambition, you are not express. nonsense. young people are ready for work. look at what organizations and

future you have already achieved i complaints at the heart of the brisket and in symmetry what changed everything if you believe in the future of this country then you must believe in our young people from all walks of life. we must unite to ignite this change and support these efforts. this is a fight we have to win for the future, and i urge each and everyone of you to give your constituents the future they deserve by voting for this motion. thank you. [applause] >> anybody from northern ireland who'd want to speak in this debate? northern ireland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 4 million young people live in poverty in the u.k. in 1979, this figure stood at one in 10. and now stands at three in 10. this can no longer be ignored. the u.k. has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrial world. child poverty costs 25 billion

each year due to this deteriorating situation. we must look at our european neighbors for inspiration. as a child poverty and many member states is as low as 5%. removing child poverty will ensure that we live in a just society, and an equal opportunity is available for all. support this motion, thank you. [applause] what about a young person from the southwest? >> i must say you have jumped up with huge into to a number of times. you lifted yourself off the floor. [laughter] we need to hear from you. >> right. so -- [laughter] we associate poverty with places like kashmir but the real issues lies with in england.

>> here, here. [laughter] >> people are not being aware of what he does. one in 20 people in the united kingdom are homeless but i don't think sleeping on park benches. i mean they sleep under and sofas and go to school next day. we don't see. we know that poverty leads to a lack of education. weekend forward and tell him to life of crime and dysfunction. if we tackle it now when we tackle it early, we can get it before it is completely out of touch and we can help society. [applause] >> what about someone from the northwest? who do we have from the north was standing up? what about the young men here? >> mr. speaker, we've seen 600,000 more children in politics when all the while -- we are seeing passionate. [inaudible] we have seen seven and 50,000

people with living about the 5000 workers losing their jobs. colleges are you seeing less applicants. all the while youth unemployment is sky rocketing. it's imperative that we choose this campaign because we met must be taken is aware we can stop it. by 2013 there will be 3.1 million children living in poverty in the u.k. we cannot and must not choose others over children's lives and future. thank you. [applause] >> what about a young person from wales? who have we got from wales? what about the young woman here, second row. >> hi. im from north wales. thank you, mr. speaker. i think it's disgusting that

young people in such a developed country such as the u.k. are in poverty, are we really in poverty? or are we just, like the norm? so, we need to figure out what poverty is before we tackle the issue. and i don't really think it's our issue to tackle. it's too big, an and this team s in place already. thank you. [applause] >> what about the east of england? who do we have about passionate this younger person you're with the ginger hair. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i totally agree that child poverty is a big issue in the u.k. however, is it realistic for u.k. youth parliament to achieve to end child poverty in the next 12 months? i think we need to come instead,

help prequel break the circle within a poverty. we need to help them, so let's not cut this youth services because they help in poverty. to help them get out of crime which many people turn to when they're in poverty. we need to think of other issues, other than ending child poverty that will help end child poverty in the long run. let's not give up. thank you very much. [applause] >> what about york shire? who have from there? what about the young man back in the middle of the threesome. [laughter] >> then go for it, man. [laughter] >> i don't support the motion,

but i support state was being put about this motion. i wanted to say a few points about the to think it's big issue. my constituency has some of the most crime damage in the u.k. all of us in your have been elected to support and stand up for people like in my constituency at the national level. things are getting worse in the u.k. funding cuts are stopping young people from every opportunities, and cutting them a good life. like most of us enjoy here now, having a real fantastic opportunity. and young people are at the future so we must make the future right, not just stuck in the damage of poverty. thank you. >> how about the northeast of england?

what about the young woman there, thank you. >> child poverty is indeed a severe issue for all of our constituents in all other areas. why we survey should take steps to combat the terrible opportunity facing so many young people all across the u.k., our national campaign should focus on realistic goals that will help all of our constituents, not the minority. all people for generations to come should benefit. not just a few. we were voted to represent a boy in a constituency. if we go for that campaign that is so that we simply will not be doing. child poverty is such a broad issue, and it has so many factors and yes, we should fight every single one of those factors. child poverty is no longer something affects the u.k. some say the issues today.

we should shout and make noise. but not for here. this is not easy we do not oppose child poverty because we do. we should put measures in place to help those affected by a. but we are in danger of affecting the silent majority, other issues must take precedence. [applause] >> i need to call sean the morrison to conclude this debate and then we have one more. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, and mr. speaker, i am -- i feel is finally important to summarize arguments instead of being presented on child poverty before and against the motion. such a conscientious issue can be a little too close home for some, and obviously everyone

possible we would have this problem abolished immediately. no one would ever see this. [inaudible] eradicating poverty and hunger in the world is already a priority for government. whether anyone of the -- their target of housing a proportion of people with incomes of less than 1 dollar a day, albeit at a much lower rate. the government could does seem be struggling. so how realistic is it for us to take on such a task? so many resources are having problems tackling such a basic issue. what can we do as a group of passionate young people with limited budgets and even more limited time? however this kashmir child poverty is a very real issue for many families around the world, even here in the so-called united kingdom. of course, the poverty in our own country is very different

and its very definition, like africa but our poverty is a growing problem. especially in the times of economic downturn. some economists claim is over by telling us that a fraction of a percentage of gross experience in the last quarter. in real terms, this means nothing to those facing financial hardships. the end of october, this population growth does not hide their horrific passionate 17,000 children die of hunger every day. with population increasing at such a rapid rate, more young people will be born into poverty than ever before. poverty is something of which we are all aware. we're causally bombarded with dark headlines. even in the monarch is it was headed toward the poverty just like 69 other families in the u.k. we define being few poverty if

amnesty's been 10% of income on heating and electricity per year. in my very own constituency, 50% of its under 16's living below the poverty line which just goes to show that poverty is all around us. just so, you know, this that are no more pressing issues here today. i don't say this in a tacitly. i say this meaning that we had the opportunity. ideologies are all well and good. we have to consider how we tackle issues in our own ways. our government is already attended to address child poverty. but they are rather frivolous about issues such as access to higher education, public transport and bullying. it was much easier for us to embark on where we be able to experience and see the difference that we come out of the u.k. youth parliament means. we are evil to influence government industry chamber on monday morning.

therefore it's important to choose an issue that can be changed and not just an issue that an mp will pay lip service and then forget about completely. thank you. [applause] >> shona, thank you for the. that concludes another excellent debate. we've just been joined at the back of the chamber by nextgov.com the labour member of parliament. nic, thank you for showing your support for the youth parliament. the youth parliament will not consider the fifth and last motion of the day relating to a greener future as printed on the order paper. to move the motion i called mr. kyl fortin. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. greener country is a concept as we talked about without real action for far too long. climate change is already

affecting us. what were once once-in-a-lifetime events have now become for our generation the norm. harsh winters, tremendous floods and hot summers. well, maybe not. we as a youth parliament must stand up and campaigned for action now. the national coordination of cycling, all people, no matter where they live in the u.k. to that same basic steps of cycle to become a recycle 40%, that saves 18 million tons of co2, the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off our roads. imagine what we could do with even more recycling. it's simple and easy action. secondly, we must use more renewable energy. we have seen setbacks in his era such as the recent closure of the organic carbon capture and storage, but in scotland alone

there's 25% offshore wind, 25% tidal energy and 10% of suede power. the u.k. together has a massive renewable resource, with public and private investment we can harness that national power. but you would build a technology for this? young people. today, with nearly 1 million unemployed young people in britain. we've heard from contributions from members where one in four young people are unemployed. a greener future and means long-term sustainable jobs at some of those young people, noting the wind turbines and solar panels and building a greener future. and thirdly and finally we can take central and easy actions at home. home insulation and power saving technologies can all play the part in a greener britain. they help save money for consumers which means for young people, their families, or in some cases themselves have money freed up.

in conclusion, better recycling, green jobs for young people by designing and building a green energy future, and saving energy, saving money are all clear steps towards a greener britain. this campaign is suited for the here and now. we simply don't have the time to waste. this government has promised to be the greenest government ever, so let's work together to build a greener future for britain. [applause] >> tile, thank you for the very lucid statement. >> i'm brian. the future is bright in the future is orange. it's not. it's bright but it is green and it's already got young people

written all over. [inaudible] any politician would save things on the work best when it is unsustainable. sustainability dax it's tackling a problem from the bottom up looking at the foundation of what's wrong. the only way we can be green is by being sustainable. the very basics of greener future is built on three things. recycling, renewable energy, betty energy usage. we can work hand-in-hand with partners on specific sustainable goals using scientific methods. carbon offsetting is equivalent of passionate again, things will back down to sustainability. the decomposing soil need to grow trees quite often emits more greenhouse gas than the trees actually build for the first 10 years of their life. this is just one example of

rushing into the green campaign has or got quite wind up in the long run. the department of the environment 40% of domestic waste is now recycled. 40% 10 years ago, that was just 11%. in the first five years of this decade, waste on average has annual co2 emissions per person by more than average body weight. 75 kilos co2 per person. take a second to look at yourself that you're on tv after opec think about the fact more than your weight in a greenhouse gas killing the environment has already been reduced in your household. prove is indeed proof we needed. paper, plastic and glass works. we already winning. recycling is great but if we get energy right and we can tackle climate change and sleep soundly

at night dash ma dash mac. a wonderful idea but we can't ignore and keep our fingers crossed. great britain, wind farms after wind farm would into our pockets far sooner. the "inconvenient truth" is there's no magic and. [inaudible] they need three times that for maximum output. how is that the efficiency? wind farms take longer to pay for themselves a nuclear and coal power station. it's ridiculous campaign to push renewable energy when at the moment it provides or 3% of its tiny maxim but when energy usage is already going through the roof. climate change is a universal

born principle. the very things we campaign to do would be in the coming years. a teacher of mine, he once said there is no free lunch anything. if there's no magic wand we can wait and hope that britain gets greener overnight, no way we can do it. the campaign has been in existence for people like greenpeace and u.k. climate change coalition. they are watching really well but the only way we can campaign for green future is by spending a year on a. we can't spend your making decisions that could effect the rest of the u.k. for years and years to come. campaigning for the future isn't a sensible idea. [inaudible] that was great but this isn't the way to do it. we need to reduce energy use and stuff like that but we don't

need to be campaigning for renewable energy and that kind of thing. so don't vote for green future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. the general debate is now open. can we have someone from scotland? what about the young guy right at the back. thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. although i don't actually support this motion today, i do believe of the other motions are far more pressing and matter, i would like to address two points on this debate. first, i think we should be looking for our local authority to put more pressure on us to do our best in helping the environment. my local authority gave us recycling things and paperbacks to make sure that we are actually making active effect on our environment. and secondly, i think we need to look at consumerism and

environment. we are a consumer nation. we love to in take things into them away when we want. we need to look at how we can address this issue by ensuring that we sustain our consumerism whilst not damaging the planet to such a great extent it is all about getting a little to get a lot. and although i don't support this motion, i do believe it is something that must be changed in britain today. thank you. [applause] >> the young woman at the very back. >> i am from suffolk. as an organization we are tasked with representing youth issues. as young people, is this really a key to point for us to before? of course, ukyp supports the greener future but we must prioritize our campaign to actively battling the young

people of the u.k. [applause] >> thank you. okay, what about yorkshire and humberside. what about the young woman here? >> as ryan said, the u.k. has developed sufficient in amount of energy and waste we reduce. i think in a country we need to develop it nationwide. we need to dash mac a lot of areas such as the green been. glass recycling is not consistent throughout the u.k. i also believe local authorities should provide allotments in situations like that to allow constituents to develop their own energy resources and help provide a better, greener future

for britain. thank you. [applause] spent what about somebody from london? a big list of people from london. i think you are about to burst. we must hear from you. [inaudible] >> no. [laughter] >> a theatrical performance. >> i am from london. in the manifesto states that we want to use more renewable energy. if we use wind turbine. a lot more money would be needed to create these turbines. and you have to think about people, people's homes. what are you going to put these things? you can't force people to recycle and less as a consequence, teaching them what dash but how would you enforce this? this would be the beginning of the new england. this will be setting an example to the older generation of how much we care for our country and our constituency.

the small things we did the would mean a better future. thank you. [applause] >> what about the east midlands? who do we have from the east midlands? >> we cannot enforce dash mac what is it when they present in the green bins what should not be there. when they go out. [inaudible] they do not want them on the land. they are far better in the seat. [inaudible] it's healthier for you and help you for this country. thank you. [applause] spent what about the norse dash

at the northeast of england. this person doing a merry dance. [laughter] >> we need to stop relying on fossil fuel because everyone knows the amount of oil is going down. so much so that any country will do anything to get the last drop of oil which will cause tension between countries relations. i support this campaign because it doesn't focus on the majority of young people. it doesn't focus on the minority of young people. it focuses on every single young person in the united kingdom. [applause] >> you are nearly there, i'm sure. [laughter] [inaudible] the government needs to start

this up. i reply to this court, we do not do challenges because they are easy. we do challenges because they are hard. and until every single youth parliament member in this chamber today, i urge you to pledge your allegiance -- [laughter] rise to the occasion, and in the words, imitate like a tiger and show what you have done. [cheers and applause] >> maybe he hasn't heard within a matter of minutes i have to say present to you, to inform the honorable gentleman, the member of the north east somerset, mr. jacob over the fact he has been named in the chamber. now, let's have somebody from the southwest of england. while. i see now the approaches.

what about the young woman here in the third row. yes, indeed. >> from the army wells their services. and i'm looking to support this motion but as ryan said he has to work for what you want and we have to work to get a greener britain because nothing comes easy. especially dashmac we're not going to get anywhere. this isn't just for us young people. it's for our children and their children and their children. industries going to carry on until a generation. so this isn't just to help us. this is to help everybody, not just the minority or majority. and not only won't help people in the u.k., it will help people around the world as well because u.k. isn' is an influence the countries that are not quite as developed. so we are sort of like though an

inspiration to other people and other countries. so, therefore, if we recycle and we renew and we reduce, and, therefore, everyone in the world will hopefully do the same. thank you. [applause] >> what about somebody from northern ireland? what about the young man here from northern ireland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think we should vote for a greener future for britain. there's so much better and you can just be a small thing that can make a big difference. for example, cigarette butts, to live in the van and set them on the ground, putting it in the bin can make a big difference. chewing gum has cost thousands of thousands of lives each year to get it cleaned up. such a waste of taxpayers money. the letter that was just thrown on the ground.

[inaudible] even more can be done. the bottles, cans, the piece of paper used on the ground can be recycled. that is just a little bit of what can be done. there's a lot more we can do. and that is why you should vote for this motion. thank you. [applause] >> let's have a speaker now from the west midlands. who have we got from the west midlands? you been standing quite a bit. >> okay, basically i've always supported recyclers and it's only been a massive thing to me. i'm all about saving the world. so basically, to me if you do a little they can really make an impact, like when we are at school, recycle the paper that were thrown in the bin like to me, -- to our generation and our children and their children. and it might not be our biggest

issue in the youth parliament and it might not be the most important thing that we've talked about tonight, but it is something that will help safest and it will help save the world, as you can see. and i really want you to think about it and make a decision, let your decision and cast it, because this is something that can make such a difference to us, so thanks. [applause] >> what about a speaker from the southeast of england? okay, what about this guy here. thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. leon man. me i draw everyone's attention to a related point? ambitious experiment that might affect each and everyone of us into, but you may or may not know about it, but you might have to pay for it as well. it's 4 p.m., it's a billion countup passionate billion

pounds project together to invest such a huge sum of money, taxpayers money into a single megaproject, i think it's more for the progress to only go ahead with it if we're 100% sure that has a strong economic case and a strong and find? as well. but so far i'm not convinced. the young people in buckinghamshire are not convinced and the many people across the country are also not convinced. so let us put it into context. it is equivalent to every household in the u.k. contributing to 1000 pounds each. and for every four miles attractive bill, it's equivalent of - -- [inaudible] many think tanks and ngos already bouncing the case. the government has indeed also admitted that it will at best be carbon neutral. now i do think that we should

invest in green infrastructure as an economic growth. infrastructure projects have improvements to existing rail networks. existing road networks to reduce emissions, to improve efficiency and to reduce carbon. but not 32 billion pounds project that is due to begin in 2017 and due to finish in 2025. i think money can be better spent elsewhere to make britain dashed that britain greenup and in with a quote from what my constituents, if the coalition for me believes that labor has -- then they should do the right thing and they should do the sensible thing. [applause] >> i need to hear someone from wales. what about the young person there with the very blond hair? >> thank you, mr. speaker.

basically i don't even have to -- [inaudible] basically i have seen a lot of people talk about great ideas, how we can do a lot of things to the environment and how we can save the world. but we need to think of how we're going to get to that stage. with some things that talk about today. do we want to be spending the money on an issue so huge? you have recycling but don't have talked about the green gases we can use to make electric cars. that's one huge factor that we be developing in maybe 10 years. this is such a big project and we have only one year today. the world is changing. we have many years where we can make a change and i think with the different things we've seen, more things that we could change easier. thank you.

[applause] >> members of the youth parliament as you know i'm striving for balance. you might be interested to note that my a system has just turned to me and said, mr. speaker, you need a woman from the northeast. so i need to call to speak a woman from the northeast if one wishes to do so. please. >> i am from the northeast. people have said that it's such a big issue which is out of our hands. but it is such a big issue and it is only getting bigger and is only getting worse. it's an issue we need to tackle now because in years to come it which is become bigger and harder to tackle. this will be an issue that will affect young people, not just in this generation but in many generations to come. and of those many generations to come they'll be able to -- it will be too big to handle it if we do this now we may be able to tackle this issue and people won't have to deal with it later on when it is too big to deal with.

[applause] >> okay. i could do with i think another speaker from scotland, if there is such. what about the gentleman right at the end, just pointing at himself and now looking back. the chap in the front row, the very front row. >> before i talk, i represent scotland at before talking about how we should focus on a green future, studies have shown -- recycle. so if we can make it more available to everybody, we need to focus more on local authorities and make it more, give it the more opportunity because -- [inaudible] then it's not going to happen. [applause] >> how about london? who do we have from london? certainly some of who hasn't spoken before.

the woman with the pale blue top. yes, you. >> thank you very much. how cute are the penguins and you look at the landscape and it's absolutely fantastic. how beautiful it is and how selfish we are cannot even be be able to recycle, because we're lazy and we don't want to split our rubbish and we don't want to take -- [inaudible] this is a pragmatic campaign. everyone in the u.k. can work on this. and as my fellow nyp said, the government has already signed forms to say that we have to reduce our carbon emissions by 2015. let's work with them. let's hope them. let them help us and we can really make a change. that's my point. thank you very much. [applause]

>> what about somebody from the west midlands? i think that you are in a status and controllable excitement and we must hear from you. [laughter] >> i do think like making britain greenup is a good issue but it don't think, i don't really see a national campaign. ..

>> i think -- sorry. adiabatic i don't think this is a private complaint. it is tied because it is the transport is where you get more people go in on the buses. people do buses are not in the cards. if you're not on the cars, less carbon omissions. [applause] >> okay, i think we need to hear somebody from the southwest. what about the southwest? this young man here -- yes, blond hair. >> thank you. in the first of my colleagues --

i am george whole. the environment, and greener britain come a greater future. a future that's going to affect every single part in this room and every single person outside of this room. we thank you for a decision that can only be reasonably answered with one answer and i'm afraid we can't support this project. you can use parliament has one opportunity this year to make one decision to support one project, one project, not two or three or four. we have to be reasonable. international trans-atlantic communication, copenhagen, everything at the environment. the problem still stands. i completely respect every single person in a sermon i believe everybody in here can be who they want to be and do what they want to do, but i have to look at a reasonably come reasonably, respectively a look at what u.k. fund is really capable of doing.

this is a global issue, not a u.k. issue. it needs to be left to people in the foreign office and people working internationally. people who are special in that area. we are not -- i'm afraid that we are not and i will not say that we are in a cannot say we can do it. i can say we cannot my own people, how he can become aware he can do when they can come of it this theory is not one of them, not yet do not now. [applause] that is when you say i can do something to my people that i represent. i can do something for my constituents he is an adult and we cannot support this. it's something that can affect young people that we represent now. [cheers and applause] >> as i got one from northern ireland who wishes to state? we haven't got a young woman from northern ireland wishing to speak? about the lady who stood quite frequently in the red dress, will have you. >> elizabeth mayle and

southeast, mr. speaker. however portend it makes a difference. we are getting better at it. but the environmental agency hauled us into time that we only had eight years last. so this is awful. something has to change. but this can't change the u.k. like lots of the outset because it is not working because they can't be one project that fits all. we have different local authorities in different sized people so we need to go back to local authorities to make the change they are. but when you think about things like people dying, poverty campaign of people not having features in this state. thank you. [applause] >> this is far and away the most difficult thing i am afraid. we have reached the point at which we must conclude the debate in the mess called -- i know it's disappointing for

people who have stood and tried. we were as far as we can to accommodate a wide variety of people as possible, but i now hope you'll welcome mr. alec howells to conclude the remarks. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am alec howells. before i begin i would first like to first like to give it thanks to the rightful gentleman appeared whose a passionate speech earlier in is really the one i want to keep in mind throughout the speech. i would like to make a personal promise as a nyp consists you see here here. [laughter] i'll begin my summation with stressing the size of this issue across all of the following point. this is really the most important thing you must keep in mind. climate change affects everything. it is the largest challenge faced by man today.

the planet we live on is the global machine, the site were natural balance of the world is skewed to human action. and there's some things that must be done. it can be debated here of course in us and our priorities. soon you'll be voting for which campaign you wish to be the national one for the next year and a last keep in mind the following points we haven't cited in the greener future for the national campaign. we can talk of issues such as transport and tuition fees and underwent canopy we can see every single consequence to our action. every single application to our word. a greener future simply invite says. the enormous issue means that will be campaigning into the grand beyond to us the accounts motion and answers have not yet been figured out in the things we campaign for such as renewable energy could well be deemed redundant and a large amount of time. an exciting adventure adventure, do we want to take this risk? on the other end of the scale we

must keep in by the relatively the we can be such as recycling, which is coordinated on a national scale with our help could really revolutionize this country's carbon footprint. the smaller targets read a more general benefits such as potential employment and possibly more household income hitting more than one third with one stone. the question you ask yourself in respect to these points is doing what to raise campaigning for something which could be redeemed redundant in a number of years or would i rather campaign on an issue where it can be sure of my answers have definite predictable and practical outcomes? and explain ask you to keep in mind if the president in this issue. there's two outcomes to this debate. i believe the kamal combating the issue with national and worldwide organizations. we are already doing so. or you work on individually and are local to sutured season

regions, helping local authorities with requirement unique tour areas. as the notion argues the country is working on the issue. but the agreements such as 2008 u.k. climate change holding the country to account we can be sure something will be done. do you want to campaign i miss you prioritize that the country always the one where they may be no voice to replace ours? the four motion would however argue that it shouldn't be held anyway. this issue touches all of mankind. it is infinitely larger than i was and has indications well beyond what we can imagine in our lifetime. are we obliged to step in and help together? should we campaign us because it is such a large issue? it is their duty to do so. our closing up domestic note. i want to remind you all of the power we have. the true question you must ask yourself today when he reached the ballot box is not what can

we do. we can do anything. no matter how insurmountable issues may feel, no matter how colossal and unapproachable, no matter how much opposition we may face if we work together as an organization of young people, we can make irreversible changes that will benefit young people for generations to come. the only question you must ask yourself is, what is it our duty to do? regular responsibilities as members of the youth parliament light? should we be fighting injustice to the youth in the areas where there is no other voice are either -- should we be giving contributions to the worldwide fight about problems much larger than ourselves. ukyp, has to come when you place your vote today, ask yourself carefully come away to the duties really like? [applause]

>> thank you for that speech to conclude our formal debate proceedings. in the course of the five debates, which have been heavily and impressively subscribed, i've been able to cause having the speakers from what we call but that tension. and every region has been represented and although set in tea, 35 have been meant and 35 have been winning. does that mean that there is total satisfaction and amounts of food spawned complaint? of course it doesn't. it is never possible to please her satisfy everybody and i absolutely understand the sense of disappointment people might be able to hear me speak and didn't have the chance. and i can feel me, come back on a subsequent occasion i will try to accommodate you.

and keep working on it, keep practicing, keep honing your skills and the rationale coming for the ideas in scripture readings were proceeding. we'll hear more from others in due course. i'm going to do something very exceptional for any politician and certainly for me and that is to mention a couple other people who i think do warrant a mention. as far as i can tell there are at least two members of the press who have been here pretty much all day and probably all day. and i think they do deserve a mention. and i hope they won't be too shy. they are quite shy and sensitive souls and they may be reluctant to be identified, but i'm going to identify them. one writes for the independent and he is simon. simon, show yourself. [applause] if there are others that i haven't noticed, they will be

frightfully put out in a probably get bad press. i'll probably get brideprice anyway. i'm used to that. i'm keenly glad he has taken an interest. and the other person's history occurred wiki politics.com. give them make big round of applause. [applause] i think that's really very good news indeed. the youth parliament will now vote for the main debate and topic for the year ahead. those of you on high rate should leave the chamber by the tour behind me and turned last into the lobby behind me. those on my left should leave by the doors at the far end and turned last into the no lobby behind you.

in the lobby, you'll be given a ballot paper with a five debate choices. you should place across against the topic that you think should be the main ukyp debating topic, the main ukyp debating topic for the year ahead. hand your paper to the doorkeepers in the lobbies. afterwards, return to your place in the chamber. house of commons will be on the hands to assist you. the division lobbies are now -- order, order. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> order and not order a back colleagues, thank you for that.

it will provide a permanent reminder of a very successful day. before anything else he said, and very conscious that there's one person here who i am going to ask to say a few words. and really quite simple explanation for the importance i attach to her speaking and is twofold. since she was elected to the house in 2005, she has been a champ in of the rights, interests and opportunities of young people and a passionate supporter in the chamber of the right of young people to air their concerns at the highest level. a big believer in the use of parliaments. and the second characteristic of this number, the honorable member for northeast duke

scheier is that she chairs a very important duly established and highly affect his committee in the house called the back bench business committee. and she is getting real opportunities for back bench members sometimes on the strength of key petitions involving members of the public and sometimes simply on their own initiative as a member of the president to secure sites for debate in the chamber of the subjects for which they wouldn't otherwise be time, for which the government for whatever reason has not chosen. so her role in this place very important role. that member of parliament is natasha angle and i'm going to ask her not to say some words. please give her a very warm welcome. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you primus, mr. speaker. it's my only second time at the dispatch box. it falls to me to stay thank you to a whole list of people who have made today possible, what made it possible for you to perform in the way that you have. i would like to start with lawrence would come in is the deputy thousand nine. [applause] and next to him, robin faul. [applause] and the two have been more than anybody else in the last months after time i've answered them, so everything is gone very, very well. the thank you very much for all you've done. [cheers and applause] also paul harvey.

[cheers and applause] and dominic lovin. [cheers and applause] and all the securities staff. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much for all the work you do all year round, but especially today for making today a very, special day. [applause] i've got the key ukyp people and before it started than i what to say big thank you to all the youth workers. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

and the other i've done a lot of work with these two people actually over a number of years who i know how much are they put an estimate to stay possible by david clegg and antonia -- [cheers and applause] and next to them and the officials boxes tom murine who heads up the education team in parliament. [cheers and applause] i also want to say thank you to

stu clark hsu has been here throughout the day. [cheers and applause] this is andrew callan and the one who has been here off and on install evidence. both of them and andrew particular have a massive supporters of the u.k. youth parliament sitting in the chamber. [cheers and applause] and a personal thank you to a member who isn't here, but it's philip davis. he was single-handedly responsible for almost making it impossible for the u.k. youth parliament to sit here, but as he told me in the corridor earlier i said what are you doing here today? he said he's been a part or big supporter of the u.k. youth parliament, just not here. if the thank you for coming here.

[cheers and applause] and the biggest thank you must go to one person and we all know who this is, without whom none of this would've been possible. when he was still a humble backbencher, he and i spent many hours trying to organize and campaign to get people to stay late hours to speak in favor of having a u.k. youth parliament here. without you, mr. speaker, none of this would've been possible. the biggest thanks goes to you. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] i was a very, very brief few words. my new friends is that as long as you don't show us something we don't care what you say.

there's absolutely no chance of that at all because i think which he demonstrated today is that the art of archery is alive and well and it's happening in the u.k. youth parliament. i think you've demonstrated to us today the importance of the chamber. i think over the last couple of years, increasing the mps to look to their constituencies and to choose the caseloads and campaigning to keep their feet and judging by the quality to be here today think we really need to work. so one of the things we could really from you is how seriously to take because it really matters what he said he matters and people are listening. we've learned from you -- i have at least i hope the beauty of short speeches. you can say a lot in a very short space of time. and i know that robin has mentioned this already that he hopes some of us take that into our everyday life in the chamber. the youth also shown an enormous passion and commitment to the causes you are promoting today and especially shown us how important will experience it is

to do things and i have learned about unhealthy diets. thank you very much for that. i think also you've demonstrated that you are outside their important topics to us. we are about to find out which one you will campaign on, but i think the art of politics is all about prioritizing. but the subjects you have chosen for campaigning doesn't mean the other subjects are important. it just means you as politicians are prioritizing and that is what i think really matters. another important thing said today was your adults and you are paying your pounds, the children when it comes to having your voices heard. i think he demonstrated today that you are not children. you are young people with strong voices and we are listening. [cheers and applause] this is the third year of the

u.k. youth are sitting in this chamber and i've had a brief word with the minister. after you sit here, you choose your debate. you choose to subject you want to campaign on, the weakest mps in our parliament haven't done enough i don't think to take his issues forward. so tim and i have the discussion and we personally will commit to ensuring that whatever debated is that the campaigning issue you have decided to campaign on today. but we'll see what we can do about getting that further up the government's agenda. so that is something i think you have done today to make sure that we will progress the issue that you put on today. [cheers and applause] and finally to say, this is the first time we've ever had and that we care. it's in a massively successfully. thank you for introducing,

mr. speaker. but the theme of this year's event and hopefully will continue forever more, the theme this year with stories of the i think actually at the end of this part of that week, i think are very biggest thank you goes to you while in the u.k. youth parliament for having written one of the most important captors and destroyed democracy today. thank you all very much for coming. [cheers and applause] the macintosh a commit thank you for that magnificent speech. i want to start by underlining that thinks that you have expressed, not nearly on your behalf for my behalf for tim's behalf, but on behalf of everyone here present to all the youth workers and the start of the house as a result of whose teamwork we have been able to

translate aspiration to fact. it has been a formidable effort in each and everyone has gone about his or her work meticulously, conscientious and end with their interests in mind. now natasha referred to the history very briefly at the affluence to secure the u.k. youth parliament in this chamber and she generously and rightly referred to the president earlier today by philip davis and i referred to phillips presents because he was a principled and passionate of you right here. he has the right to hold that view, but he did turn up earlier and he's a good sport. and i hope that one day we might be able to turn them around. i would want to undermine another point in that is that in the end as a result of campaigning by you and your supporters over a period of

years, there was strong support across all of the parties for you to be able to meet and debate here. and amongst those who were early and visit race champion the jury to meet here was very fittingly the children's church, 10 lord meyer who is here today. i remember 10 speaking on the subject. he cannot seek the consistent on the issue and for many years in opposition he was response well for children and family issues, so he knows the terrain and he met people and listened and took an interest in hands and on your side and he deserves a big round of applause. [cheers and applause] but you know, colleagues, when the idea was debated in this chamber and there were passionate opponents, there was one who was very strongly

opposed to your being here. he is no longer a member of this house. [applause] but not for that reason. [laughter] the conversation i had with him was a private one and it will remain a private conversation, but after he became speaker to think he had heard that i had decided to take the chair of these debates. they originally going to be chaired by the deputy speaker of the time come the chairman ways and means. i said to alan comments okay you can spend the day in your constituency. i want to choose debates to demonstrate my support for the cause and parliamentary spot for the cause of young people meeting here. and alan readily that. in this member who had been supposed that came and said i heard you're going to treat these debates? he said it will be an unmitigated disaster.

and i sit here and made this point here before but not all of you will have heard it. i didn't accept that at all. i've been here 30 years or more. i know what i'm talking about. interesting when you were elected, but what is your argument? after some coaxing i managed to persuade the honorable gentleman to give me his argument. his argument with this. he said at the very least you mark my words, mr. speaker. chewing gum will be last dollar that the chamber. [laughter] and the worst patents will be used and the damage to benches will be done. i said if that's your honest opinion credit for right to express it, but you are profoundly and grievously mistaken. and in my view, you absolutely should not stereotype caricature and misrepresent young people. [cheers and applause]

can i say to him, i predict that those young people come to our house of commons as they will, they will be proud and pleased and privileged to come here and i'd make simply two predictions. eight, they will speak well. and they will behave better than we do. [cheers and applause] and i hope you will understand and forgive me and indeed agree with me when i say some end that i don't usually is a popular when anybody says it. i was right on both counts. [cheers and applause] and the great thing about the u.k. youth parliament is not just its dynamism and its energy

and its idealism and its persistence in effect to mess, but also as representative character. i think in conversations with natasha and 10 in the past we have agreed about this. site not discussed it with jay simpson from the lib dems as well. he really takes years of representativeness, virtually half of your members are women. you have a very substantial portion of people in their parliament from ethnic minority communities that so enrich our diverse country and you've got people with disabilities as well who are all in caged in the enterprise of representing them people, telling us what you think expressing your views, giving voice to your fears, trying to advance the aspirations not only of yourselves, but if your communities. and in the process of coming here, you not only win respect, but she honed her skills and you

learn to do it better and better and better. and you are performing on a scale and with an assurance that most of us as elected members of parliament today could not have boasted at your age. so that is the staggering scale i think of your achievement that you are doing so well now in very few members are in analyte inc. were doing what you are doing by way of public speaking and not his campaigning when they were in their teens. and really in concluding, i just want to say one thing that is quite significant. you have debated five massively important topics chosen by you, dear to your hearts, central to the feelings and concerns of the people you represent and the mass of young people across the country. reference was made but how

natasha and 10 had spoken and agreed that in relations to the topic you choose is your priority the government would seek to ensure that progress was made in elevating the issue of the political agenda and that is right in oakland because it's a clear result. tim and i and natasha and i know that one of the people often complain about is well, it's such a among would-be business. it's difficult to get change. politics is a deliberative process. it does involve debate and discussion and continued debate and discussion and you don't always get change you want overnight in some cases you don't get all that you want at all. but it is good if you can say here is a staging post. here is evidence of a positive, concrete, identifiable results in the fact that we put quite getting mass on this issues is great. from my point of view but i

would say is you have had five days on five important issues in the very least that i can guarantee to you is that mine personally will write to each of the sponsoring departments that is responsible for those debates and ask the relevant secretary of state to respond to me in to the youth parliament. siliceous very briefly recap and reminds ourselves that you have debated public transport. i will ask the secretary of state for transport, justine greening to study the debate and to send me and the parliament a response. similarly, on tuition fees we talk about the department and university innovation and skills and i will ask the secretary of state hansons cable to respond to your debate.

there is a debate on bullying which falls directly into the bailiwick attends department. i know he and i together cannot secretary of state to respond. on child poverty falls to secretary of state for work and pensions. he and duncan smith to respond to your debate. and on the greener future, i think it's actually in essence a joint responsibility of the secretary of state for environment food and rural affairs and the secretary of state of energy and climate change, chris hume to respond. i'll does in the service will be sent to debates that relate to their department and to respond in writing. that's some indication that we attach to you to ensuring your representative and ensuring that your argument receives a considered response. [applause]

>> as one of the most stimulating days in the political calendar as far as i'm concerned. it's moving towards a close and i think is right that a member of the parliament before i announce the results of the vote, that a member of the youth parliament should have the last few words. please give a night in memphis and, deafening welcome to the member of the youth parliament and about to call, charlie finch. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. yet again coming u.k. parliament has made history by facing the house of commons. we are british or being here and proud for taking part in speaking on behalf of young people across the u.k. well done. your passion and energy in the debated it is inspiring and shows a country that young

people really do care about society. thank you to have run for taking part in thank you for this sub nines anti-semites who want able to be here but he worked hard throughout the year. a lot has taken place behind the scenes planning this event and make it impossible. i feel i can speak for all this when i say we have all had the most amazing day and experience will never forget. thank you for your hard work. [applause] our attendance today would not be possible without youth workers and regional coordinators who have not only moved to appear that continually support us in our votes as members of the president is to carry a campaign at the local projects. [cheers and applause] thank you also to our fantastic

team who worked so hard on our behalf to ensure the u.k. youth parliament event are truly used. [cheers and applause] the british youth council for everything they've done because without them we would be here today and we wouldn't have these parliament. [cheers and applause] the house of commons staff prepared for the great facilitation committee 10 gordon for funding of u.k. youth parliament by the british youth council and a special thanks to you mr. speaker for fighting our travel in this truly inspiring amazing day which i will remember the rest of my life. [cheers and applause] finally, i like to thank the

65,000 young people who voted on our ballots to decide the debate. together we've demonstrated that politics are important young people and one that should be heard. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, surely. i have told us a thousand as many people who voted in previous thoughts on this matter. i am of my staff is accurate, but that number is given. it's a remarkable increase in the level of interest. thank you very much indeed for every and each side and that all of you have done. as you can tell him clutching a piece of paper in my hand. and i've got the results and i think that i will read the results to you in reverse order.

well, i think we ought to have a bit of suspense. there are five motions in fifth place with motion number two, no tuition fees, yes to graduate tax. [applause] with 36 votes in fourth place was the motion on a greener future for britain. [cheers and [applause] with 43 votes in third place with motion number 30 tolerance towards bullying in schools. [applause] with the defendant votes -- 57

votes in second place with motion number four, and child poverty now. with 79 votes, the notion that the largest support with 107 votes with motion number one, nick public transport cheaper, better. [cheers and applause] order, at order. [cheers and applause]

>> as they fled in fort wayne. people are down there filling sandbags, deftly trying to keep the river. so air force one stopped. in a motorcade to the flooded area, took off his jacket. my memory is he filled three sandbags, said hello and hi to everyone, got back in the car and went back on the plane. but that night, what was still the airwaves is not three sandbags. it was reagan filling sandbags with his shirt off

>> in the name of the greatest people that have better trout this earth, i draw the line in the dust and toss the cop went before the feet of tyranny and i say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever. [cheers and applause] >> next, a discussion on the failure of the joint of the

reduction committee to reach a deal to save over $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. from this morning's "washington journal" is 40 minutes. >> on your screen, mr. koepp and services for president for policy of the group that you just thought represented there in addition to that, he has an opinion, miss on fox news.com, chairman of the internet freedom coalition. he's got an new book out. thanks for being here. so what was the super committee all about? >> guest: well, in my view when it became about pretty clearly in the past month or so is raising taxes and the question became how much and for whom the structure of it was such that the phaseout of adaptions that mr. lovell. and deductions that included marketed interest at the local income tax. that would have a lot of people

hard. the above contributions given the direction it to ever see them deadlock and we didn't really address the spending problem that i would've hoped, but we avoided a worse outcome of having a major tax right now during a down economy. >> host: since independence at a group of voters opposed sides need to convince are the next election, or with the political fallout from n.a.b.? >> i think republicans benefit to the extent that they did not destroy their brand. if they come to an agreement for both parties are going to raise taxes they would've lost a key brand differentiators. speak about and if it's republicans from the perspective they cannot continue to be seen as the party that will not raise taxes. that's politically powerful. that said, everyone looks bad from the perspective of failing

to come to grips of federal spending and the level of the dead and a general concern about the fiscal condition of the country. at another tavern on the benefit of the their party, but we'll certainly have to date anti-incumbent move. >> well, i think it is a minus for him actually. they want to see stronger leadership in the house. there was a good sign that he would veto efforts to turn off the automatic cuts. that showed a level of engagement that has been lacking previously and i hope he follows through on that if they try to turn off the automatic cuts ever thought of their cuts and reforms. i think he should've been much more involved. your member back in january the president proposed a budget that was so unserious and was struck at 970 and every single senator including democrats voted against it. then he said at a new plan that

cuts $42 give a speech in the cbo said we can't score a speech and never gave any specific on what he stands for. democrats have not introduced the budget. i think the president needs to do more in terms of specifics, but real cuts on the table and introducing a budget this next year that does much better in her seriousness to be in the conversation. the >> will put phone numbers on the screen. you can e-mail us or send us a tweet. we are glad to have your questions or comments for someone. in the final hours of the super committee it was reported that senator kerry was really trying to work hard to broker a deal, both externally by being on the talk shows on sundays in the capital. let's listen to a clip. >> all we ask now for these guys is 350 billion, 350 versus

2 trillion they say no because they want the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest americans extended. so the whole deal is being held hostage to this idea that the wealthiest people in america ought to get a bigger tax cut while everybody else should save. i don't think anyone in america thinks that's fair. >> your reaction. >> guest: it's not true. the extension or non-extension of the current rate from the expiring bush tax cuts could not and were not an issue in the super committee because of the baseline. the baseline to use in the super committee against which they won't .22 and was judged with the so-called crew mob a site that consumed all of the rates expire at the end of 2012. an extension of the straits and the super committee contacts would've scored a huge revenue loser and increase the would've no scored revenue would not help them achieve their target. so because of the baseline, that was political posturing never something the super committee could have seriously done. the real discussion as i said

was about an itemized deduction and what level it would phaseout and so on and so forth. republicans were surprisingly willing to raise taxes. there were some draft that i heard about but had offers of high $640 billion in new tax revenue and i think republicans should offer that. the problem is on the spending side, not the tax side. it's interesting to see and they keep saying the exact same talking points even when facts are quite different here in this case are public and suffered considerable tax hikes and democrats we want trillions in new taxes. we went to increase spending out of the super committee and pay for that with really huge tax hikes. the greed of democrats that prevented us from getting a tax hike. >> host: that plan on adding my seduction put forward by pat to me, former head is very much been on your side of the aisle on tax debate. what you make of the fact he was willing to negotiate?

>> guest: i find it surprising. it is a great physical conservative and i didn't overlap with him. he came in after i left, but i still have an opportunity to know him over the years and i was surprised that he was willing to entertain a net tax increase and it would have been a mistake to raise taxes on this economy right now. i understand his thinking as i understand i not talk to him, but his thinking was if they give us everything we want, for to fix the fiscal problem in this country, we will go ahead and offer a tax hike the democrats cannot claim that was the impediment. i think he thought it was important in terms of the optics, and terms of the willingness to do something that doesn't make a lot of economic sense, but democrats were demanding politically if he could get a solution to our country's fiscal problem. i disagree with the logic because in my view a net tax

hike moves us in the opposite direction from solving our fiscal problems. i believe washington will spend every dollar he gets his hands on from taxes and every dollar with borrowing. when you increase taxes i think it increases spending and encourages them to spend more. i think is at cross purposes with albany to do to get federal spending under control. he made a different calculation decided offering that he thought was worth it to take away the democratic talking point to show they were willing to do something they believed was a bad idea to fix the fiscal problem in the country. amazingly he didn't get credit for it. you're john kerry say he refused to raise taxes despite the fact the most conservative member of the super committee expressed a willingness. >> host: at couple questions that i would about what protocols. first of all we get a lot of tweets from people who follow politics and talk about the cobra there sunning at the americans for prosperity. what level of physical involvement do they have?

>> guest: david coke is the founder of the americans for prosperity foundation and so in the capacity as chairman of our educational foundation he is involved in governance of the board meeting and so on and so forth and there's also been a fan to contributor. we have over 80,000 other financial contributors and was never taken a position on any policy issue about the consequence of our supporters. we do the work that's important for a free economic policy and people whoever they may be spend money if they agree with what we're doing. so that's the direction in which support never pay for play type situation. post co. and the 2010 campaigns come to your that about $1.3 million in the election causes. if that number right? >> guest: the sec disclosure requirements for so-called electioneering activities are something i've never greatly understood.

if that's what friends say, in a technical legal sense it's true. but it's to understand we never advocated the election. we engaged in no express advocacy and did nothing after citizens united that we could have done before and didn't factor before. i like to see was focused on issue education and genuinely on things that cutting spending and taxes and unnecessary burdens of regulation. we focus on those issues especially around election time cassettes and people are most attempted public policy issues would think you can do for maximum impact. to us elections come and go. we want to win this policy fights and that their mission. >> host: have you ready for literature strategy for the 2012 campaign? will be state-based or individual races going on were fiscal issues are doing a national thing? >> guest: almost everything a state-based. state chapters and 34 states and terrific field staff who are day-to-day focusing on fiscal and economic faith at the state and local level as well as engaging federal size is

appropriate. from time to time their certain national issues we think are the really focus and engage as we did during the health care fight in on the spending side. our primary focus has been on the state level and will remain there. we afflicted or programmatic activities for 2012 and clean that up with some great detail and it will largely be followed up issues have been focusing on. the health care love, spinning program. >> host: jeff, democrat, good morning and welcome. >> caller: she brings about taxes for tax rates, but they need to go up to solve along with cuts to entitlement programs. also under bill clinton's entire tax rates, he created 23 million jobs under the bush tax cuts. she only created for but one william jobs. how can such a difference when

corporate america has had a lower tax rate? >> the most is again tax rate was not the individual income tax hike, where the economy remained relatively poorly performed in the biggest changes 1997 but we have a capital gains tax cut which was a bipartisan deal that president clinton signed it we lowered the rate from 20 to 20, one of the biggest reductions in the cost of capital and as a consequence he took command of cap will innovation, economic growth, the entire tax them as a consequence. i thought that was a great policy, cutting capital gains tax and i think during the bush era there were a number of policy errors that overwhelms the benefits of the progrowth tax cuts. the 2003 tax bill is very well defined and the 2001 will was poorly designed. almost nothing in terms of bang for buck reducing the marginal rate on savings investment and

income and so forth. we also have major increases in spending during that time which we drank and economic growth and regulatory process on the policy of the united states at overbuilt housing and encourage people to buy homes they couldn't afford and of course that led to the crisis. it is far too simple to save a look at tax rates in hunting versus tax rates under george bush. but i will say if you can promise and guarantee along with going back to clinton era tax rates we would also repeal every regulation of com unconnected clique mob of suspending you can get support from some republicans. i have seen democrats offered going back to policies and spending and regulation as well as taxes. postcode let me put a couple statistics on the screen and if you would offer your interpretation of what they should and for people. 1470 households with income of $1 million in 2009 with zero

federal income tax piercers in iraq, 18% of the average federal income tax or to the wealthiest 400 americans. and this from ap, hedge fund managers and private equity funds generally pay 15% capital gains at a rate and no payroll taxes. >> guest: well, i'd be interested in what the definition of income is here because if their taxable income they would've pay tax on the cert money than they benefited from some sort of special carveouts or credits for something of that nature. of course the bank to see all that done away with, but would like to see it done away with in a revenue neutral way in a program tax reform that will get rid of the special provision people use to punch holes in the code that benefit narrowly targeted groups and use that to lower rates for everyone which should be progrowth thing to do. you don't just get rid of loopholes and say we will use it to grow the government because government spending is out of

control. use it to lower taxes for everyone. if you did that we'd be supportive of that. on your last bullet point, proper tax treatment depends on the character of the underlying and come. if it is capital income should be taxed as capital gains. i'm very disturbed by the idea we should tax capital income as if it were earned income because we think people involved are politically undesirable i think would be a very dangerous precedent that could lead to the worsening of the double taxation of capital and other features of our code. the current treatment of carried interest is correct in this text is capital income and frankly we should repeal the capital gains tax entirely un- arty tax income. >> host: republican, you are on. >> caller: hello, how are you doing? >> host: great, what is your questions? >> caller: my thought is until we remove occurs, it's not going

to happen. i don't care if it's barack obama as president. i don't care if it's whoever is going to be the president. until we moved occurs. if you want to know what that is? >> what occurs? >> caller: the curse is that 84% -- don't cut me off yet. 84% of the people in the united states say they are cursed. 34 and did the christians pay tithes. the bible says we have brought god and so there is a cost on the u.s. if you don't believe it, look at chapter three. i'm an evangelist and i can tell people how to get rid of the curse. >> host: thank you from florida. just all have to defer to someone with greater theological knowledge than myself am not

one. >> host: g no, you are watching on independence. >> caller: hi, i just want to say the policy of the government for the last 30 years has been spent and borrow, spend and borrow. even your last vice president cheney said that doesn't matter. while we borrow so much money, $13 trillion, who is going to pay the bill? 1% whose wealth has gained from 8 trillion to $45 trillion or 99% whose entitlements and benefits will be cut. it is a choice between the two. it seems that the conservative element of our society wants to cut social security and medicare and medicaid and let the 1% go

free. so i just want to hear your comments about. >> guest: i want everyone to go free. i don't think we should punish the rich for their success. .. >> guest: the really tragedy is not the trillions and trillions in broken promises, but the tragedy is even if it

keeps every promise, it's not enough to be comfortable in retirement. it's a terrible rate of return. people get negative rates of return even if social security could afford to pay everything it's promised. we transition to a system of real investment with people have personal accounts, own control, get a return on, every work does much, much better. look at fundamental reforms rather than brute force cuts, there's a way to address the problems to leave people better off, and look at these as solutions for the 100% and not divide on the class. it's underminds our ability to have real solutions to the fiscal challenges. >> host: robert from kentucky, republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question would be is why do they want to hold the taxes down so much on the rich man? in the 1950s when i first started filing taxes, the

recross maximum rate was 100%, and seems like that was good for a few years there, and then mr. reagan, when he was in there, he cut the taxes one time, and we started going downhill. he had a perfect chance to wipe out our deficit, i mean, what we owed in ore deficit if he'd only left the taxes up higher for a little while longer, and mr. bush did the same thing cutting the tax, and now we're back in a -- he cut the taxes and instead of giving the chance, clinton had a good, we could have wiped out the debt. >> host: robert, we'll pick it up from there. gleg well, the history is instructive, but not for the reason you think for a very, very different reason, and we had top rates as high as 95%,

and john f. kennedy cut them down to 70%, and reagan cut it to 50%, and then again to 28%, and since then, there's been creeping back up, at 35% now and could go to 39.6% under current law. 23r when he -- from when we had the 96 #% all the way to 28%, the federal government never collected more than around 19% of gdp, 19% of the economy in tax revenue, and there's an economist at houser who called it houser's law, and no matter what rate you have, you get about 19% of gdp out the other end, and that has implications suggesting we should want lower rates to have a larger economy to get 19%, a larger denominator and if we are going to balance the budget, it has to be on the spending side that elevated to 25% because if

you jack them back up, you get less work effort, avoidance, evasion, capital flight abroad, and you still get around the same 19% of gdp, but it's a smaller gdp, a smaller denominator, and that makes the level of spending more difficult to finance, and so the challenge for the tax code should be how do we maximize economic growth? how do we make the denominator we take 19% of as big as possible? for that reason, we want to focus on eliminating double taxation, capital gains tax, death tax, ect., and keep it low, flat, and uniform. the higher rates makes you feel good, but they don't raise more money for the federal government. it's counterproduct. >> host: here's an e-mail saying i'm a retired teacher living on pension and social security. how does your group account for

the fact i pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest 1%. >> guest: you're not. there's a myth out there for people like warren buffet who benefit from higher taxes and the outrageous features of the death tax. he buys up family businesses destitute out of probate, and he has his money in a trust, and he dodges taxes. overwhelmingly, higher income people pay higher taxes. there's a myth it's a lower tax, but the capital gains tax is a surtax on already taxed income. have if it's 1%, it's a higher tax than ordinary income because it's an additional tax on income already taxed, and so if you look at the actual tax from the irs, they don't bear out the claim, and moreover, if you look at the -- if you look at the tax treatment of capital for what it is, a punitive additional layer of taxation on already taxed income, it's already more clear

the rich are paying lower taxes is not accurate. >> host: patty, indiana, democrat. >> caller: yes, i think we desperately need campaign finance reform for one thing. we're not a democracy anymore. anybody that knows what that means, i think, would agree with me. >> guest: i wouldn't. >> caller: maybe you don't. >> guest: i don't. >> caller: why are we protecting, why do we feel we need to protect the rich? the bible says it's easy for a cam mel to go into the eye of a needle and for a rich man to go into heaven. christ taught socialism. i'm not completely socialist, i'm a conservative socialist. >> guest: a conservative socialist?

>> caller: yes. > guest: sound like some kind of moron. >> caller: i don't think that's very nice, your thinking, i guess. what do you think the solution -- if i were making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, let alone a million, i would feel privileged and feel it was my duty to contribute others, to the government. >> host: patty, thanks. >> caller: how do you think we should do that? how can we -- >> guest: it's an interesting point because even the super rich who claim they want to pay higher taxes like bill gates senior and warren buffet do not make additional voluntary contributions to the united states treasury even though they can write checks any way they want, but they support private charities because they make the same calculation that other folks have that private charity

is advancing people, and as a consequence, they say we want higher taxes, we want taxes imposed on other, they do not make the contributions to the u.s. treasury, themselves. whether you consider yourself a conservative socialist or a conventional socialist, i think the idea of forced redistribution of wealth is one that's very foreign to most americans, and moreover, our democracy functioned well a year ago when people of the country overwhelming rejected stimulus policies and bailout policies, and huge government regulations and the promise of higher taxes from democrats. there was one the biggest landslide elections in the country, including a lot of people who were supposedly safe, and including places where little moneyfuls spent. the mood of the country was expressed, and sadly, washington ignored that, and that why i think people are getting more angry that a year later nothing's changed.

>> host: an e-mail from joy who writes, revenue his historically been between 25% of gdp. considering we've been in two wards for a decade, it seems natural the rate needed to be higher to cover the costs. if the revenue now is less than the historical 20 # plus the amount covering the wars, are you agreeable with increasing taxes to this level? >> guest: you can't increase revenue to the level of spending. i don't think you can get it out of our current tax system. maybe if there was a national value added tax, maybe you can get more revenue, and in the 1930s, we relied on a lot of excise taxes as the way to finance the big expansion in government, not the high income tax on the rich that provided most of the revenue for the new deal. they provided a third. two-thirds on taxes like tires and movie tickets, things that

broadly hurt the people they were trying to help, and i doafnlt think you can get much more revenue out of our current tax system if you put a broad based tax on folks, that hurts people more than it helps them to the extent there's been a lot of spending that we have not paled for which is absolutely true. the solution is to cut that spending, not to try the likely impossible task of bringing taxes up to that elevated level of spending. bring spending down to historical norms, and then we'll balance the budget without tax hikes. >> host: next up, republican, clifford from wisconsin. >> caller: good morning. my idea is to put a 1% national sales tax on the people because the 49% or 50% who doesn't pay taxes, at least they contribute something, and i think sunset every year our tax rules. the republicans are kissing grover norquist someplace, and they don't want to raise anything. i think for the good of the

country, we have to do something. thank you. >> guest: i don't think a sales tax would be for the good of the country, but it would very much be for the bad of the country hurting a lot of folks, and it would hurt our economic growth, and as i said, you know, the overriding concern for tax policy and fiscal policy and regulatory policy should be to get the economy moving again. we can't create jobs without a growing economy. we can't grow an economy with uncertainty and missal overhang or the reality of higher taxes. it's not going to help. it's going to hurt. we have to get moving again to straighten things out. >> host: a viewer named roy wants more clarification writing this on twitter, dude, what your actual plain to pay down $15 trillion of debt. you can't grow your way out. >> guest: well, dude, it's to reform the drivers federal

spending to grow our way out. there's two elements to a plan. you have to have cuts to spending, lower the trajectory of spending and have economic growth which is a prerequisite to have a fighting chance of getting the fiscal situation under control. first of all, you have to have progress policies meaning the house is going to vote on something called the rains out, and the senate has to pass it as well. get regular tores off the backs of the american people, get the economy moving again, and have tax reform, ridding of the loopholes and have a low flat rate spreading the value to everyone, and getting the economy booming. we're not going to grow our way out of 23 if we don't change the spending side. on the spending side, we have to do the big thing, block grant medicaid and the other welfare programs to the state, cap them,

let the states run the programs. let them innovate. it will work for the welfare programs. we have to reform medicare by being honest with the american people. it's a system of limited fie nice resources. we can't pay for everything for everyone, but we have to give individuals on medicare control over the dollars so that they can make the choices to have competition instead of going the other direction saying bureaucrats decide, and we're going to have a system of rationing which is what obama set up in the obamacare law, and in social security, we have to move away from this scheme. we need owner's control. there's three ways to make the books balance in social security. slash benefit, raise taxes, or bring real investment and with a real market return. the third option is the best because it's the only one leaving workers better off rather than worse off. that's where i focus on the three big pieces, and there's

discipline on discretionary spending as well, and i think a lot of programs can be eliminated completely and almost every program in the federal government can benefit from a significant cut, and, again, that's why i praise president obama for saying he's not allowing congress to turn off the sequester cuts unless they replace them. i hope he makes good on that threat because there's plenty of room to cut in every program. >> host: the "wall street "wall street journal" printed a column today -- conservatives romney and electability. is he electable? >> guest: i think so. i think that any republican nominee has a good shot at wins because of the poor performance of the economy that weighs on the incumbents for good or ill. i think he's done almost everything wrong in economic policy, but the reality is with the economy performing as poorly as it is, no matter who the republican nominee is, they have a good chance at winning.

>> host: if elected, will he support the views that you have been sharing this morning or is he a compromiser? >> guest: i think mitt roomingny has a strong economic plan that include the elements i tonged about. he gave a good speech to the group talking about specifically terminating a lot of federal programs and davis bacon, the union wage costs, and other things that would be productive and helpful. i don't know. i mean, the big issue with romney, as everyone knows, is he's changed his positions on a number of things over the years. i think if he is legislated on a conservative, economic plat form and that's what he's running on, the american people hold him to that and demand he makes good on it. if that what happens, that's what i expect to say. >> host: new york, independent, good morning, joey. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. everything you're talking about

so far, is spot on. cutting spending and decentralization of economic authority, and right now, the federal government, i think, is manipulating the economy too much because it's spending too much. the logic of, you know, oh, we just need to raise taxes and that solves the problems, that's ridiculous because as the american economy has historically shown, the more the government spends. the more it spends, and nobody solved anything other than the the economy, people, business, -- [inaudible] i think one of the few callers who has not reference the bible, but i'll reference the american constitution, and the authority for the federal government in the constitution is outlying article section 18 of the powers of the federal government which obviously, today, we do not follow whatsoever, and when the federal government began to

expand outside of constitutional authority, and it creates all, you know, all these spending -- it's unsustainable. our current system is unsustainable, and that being said, i want to know how you feel about the federal reserve system and its currency manipulation and the delegation of the constitutional authorities for 1912 through the federal reserve, just your thoughts on that. >> host: thank you. >> guest: i'm concerned about monetary policy, and i think that the fed has created an enormous amount of money, directly intervening in bond markets for treasury and agency debt, and they are masking inflation that's happening now because the money that's been created is still sitting on the -- it's still at the fed in the accounts of the various money center banks and they are paid interest on those access reserves to chemothem from get -- keep them from getting into the

economy. as the economy picks up, and money picks up, banks lend, there's significant inflation until the fed engineers a soft landing which i think will be very, very difficult and may not try it because of the risk they could crash the economy in the process, and the consequence of that is going to be that so much of this spending, which is financed by borrowing, and so much of the borrowing was not real borrowing, but fed purchases of treasuries will be paid for by inflation and the money in your pocket being worth less than it was the day before by the savings you saved your whole life worth less in terms of purchasing power than it was before, and there's a myth that inflation is free. government spending, you know, we, you know, if we don't pay for it in taxes, we got away with in and out paying for it. well, you paid for it either way. it's unfair and a damaging way to pay for inflation because it underminds investment and prevents economic activity from

going on. it's been a major problem. keeping rates long as we did is what created the housing bubble in the first place, and the financial crisis and so forth, and so i think i would like to see a monetary policy reform tieing the dollar back to a basket of currencies or gold, something that can't be manipulated, and reform needs to be part of the overall mix of fixing the economic problems that the country has. that said, it's the hardest one to explain to people, and i've been more focused on cutting spending which 70% plus of the american people understand we need to do, and if you cut spending, there's a need for this money creation from the fed because you don't have the huge deficits to finance. >> host: next up is new jersey, you're on, mitchell, democrat. >> caller: yes, i'd like to ask two questions. i would like to -- how many kids have gone -- [inaudible]

if you cut for this generation, ten people, and people born next year, every year. how do you compare that cutting with those people that coming after? no matter what you do, no matter what government does, it will be the same. it will be just the same because remember, you know, we got to have more generations that's coming, and we don't even know how much is coming. what are they going to do, so like we got -- [inaudible] all we got to do is try to make

make -- [inaudible] we got to pay double the tree and the tree that's providing the food. >> host: thank you. running out of time here. thinking about demographics in the future. >> guest: we face a challenge because the baby boomers are beginning to challenge, and the population growth has not continued at the high rate it was in the past, and we have three workers per retiree now, and down to two in the next couple decades, and changing demographics are the -- one of the reasons that we absolutely must shift to a system of real investment for the retirement programs rather than a transfer mechanism, bus with that, you need to have a constantly growing pool of workers to pay for the new retirees when they reach retirement, and demographics changed that that's no longer possible. the burden on workers would be

absolutely crushing if each worker has to support half of a retiree, and that's where we are headed. i think that is one of the reasons we've got to move to a system of real investment and personal accounts that workers can control. >> host: knowing the town as well as you do, what happens with the sequester process? >> guest: well, they will try to turn it off, and i think that the veto threat from the president is crucially important, and i hope that he makes good on that. you know, the exact composition of the cuts, some argued defense is hit too hard. i'm not a defense expert, but i've seen enough government programs to know there's got to be things to cut that are not mission critical, but if congress makes the determination that some of the defense cuts need to be put back, there's got to be other cuts elsewhere because at the very least, we have to get the cuts already promised, and actually more than that needs to be done to cut overall government spending, so i think the veto threat was a good development. i hope the president makes good

on that, but i'm skeptical. what i learned is even the most conservative republicans are willing to raise taxes. it's hard to cut spending in the town, even for republicans. any program you try to touch, the people who benefit from it are upset, and the people who pay for it pay so little for the benefit for the few of any given program that it's really a classic problem of public choice there, and it's difficult to cut public spending. perhaps the best we can do is limit the rate of growth and grow the economy to catch up. i want to see us get more. >> host: thank you.

>> in the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, i draw the line in the dust and toss the gaunt let before the feet of tyranny, and i say segregation now,

segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever. >> for most of his life, george wallace was a support offer of segregation, and the four term governor of alabama ran for president four times and lost. one of those efforts cut short by an assassination attempt. this week on the contenders, george wallace from the governor's mansion in alabama live friday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> last month, a senate subcommittee on health and aging looked at the impact of the recession on current older americans including social security payments, rising health care costs, and difficulty finding a job. this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, and i'm senator bernie sanders from vermont, and we'll be joined by my colleagues in a bit, but i do want to thank all of you for being here, and especially our panelists. this country is, i think, as we all know, is in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the great depression, 16 #% of our people are unemployed our underemployed, median family income declined by over $3,000. in the last decade, and almost all of the new income has gone to the people at the very top, top 1%. in the midst of this -- midst of all of this, it is enormously important that we ask a question that has not been asked enough in my opinion, and that is what

does this recession mean for older americans? how are they fairing in the midst of the terrible recession? what is the employment situation for people in their 60s? most americans, most working americans expect to be working throughout their entire lives? how many workers in their 60s have lost their jobs? have seen a decline in their incomes, and very importantly, how many older american workers who have lost their jobs are never, every going to get another job? what does that mean to the economy? what does that mean to the standard of living of that worker? both economically and psychologically. if you anticipated working until the retirement age of 65, and now you're 61, and you're never going to get another job in your life, and that's one of the issues that we are going to be talking about today. another very important question that i don't think has been

asked enough that needs some answers today is how do you survive economically in these tough times if, say, you get $1,000 in social security, -- $12,000 in social security, and that's virtually all of your income, and you don't receive a cola in two years? what's that mean to you? further j -- furthermore, this needs nor discussion, does the current formulation for social security koa lars adequately reflect the purchasing habits of senior citizens? i can tell you that in vermont, i hear over and over again from senior citizens who tell me, bernie, i don't quite understand how there think there's been no inflation when my prescription drug costs are soaring, health care drug costs are soaring, and we don't get a cola. is the current formula

adequate? tomorrow or in the near future, we'll hear what colas, if any, our seniors will be receiving. is the current formulation adequate or --

>> thank you senator and thank you for what you have done for seniors. we are going to begin with barbara bovbjerg and she is the manager and tractor for workforce and income security issues at the u.s. government accountability office. previously she was the director for retirement income security and managed social security and pension policy and management. before joining she led the citywide analysis unit of the district of columbia's budget office and we thank you very much for being with us this morning. >> thank you mr. chairman, senator franken. thank you so much for inviting us here today to discuss the effects of the recent recession on older adults. while the recession officially ended in june 2009, the economy has experienced a weak recovery

with unemployment still above 9%. older adults particularly those close to or in retirement may not have the same opportunities as younger adults to recover from the recession effects and still assure that they have sufficient savings for retirement. my testimony today will present the results of our work for the subcommittee on older americans well-being. our port which is being released today presents data from various mostly federal sources concerning the financial status of older adults. i am accompanied by michael collins are our assistant director for this project. things weren't especially great for older adults and 2007 before the recession. we previously reported older americans were heavily reliant on social security benefits with the fifth of beneficiaries over 65 receiving more than 80% of their income from the source. this reflects relatively small amounts of retirement savings for many older people.

almost half of american workers have no defined benefit or defined contribution pension to supplement social security and even those who do have a pension will still not have enough to live comfortably in retirement. in 2007 before the great recession began the median level of financial assets for households approaching or entering retirement was only around $72,000. this may sound like a lot of money but it has to last a retiree for decades. using basic rules of thumb for withdrawals this amount would provide for 5% replacement rate for those at median incomes. even with social security this isn't enough to support a middle-class standard of living. so older americans weren't especially flush prior to the recession and things have not gotten better. since 2007 annual unemployment rates have doubled from 3% to 7% for workers age 55 and older. these rates are not as high as for a other age groups likely because older people.

still, once an older worker does lose their job, they are less likely than a younger worker of similar skill to find another. indeed the median duration of unemployment for older workers rose sharply between 2007 and 2010 more than tripling for workers 65 and older and increasing from 11 weeks to 31 weeks for workers age 55 to 64. during this period period even among those employed the upper portion of older part-time workers who indicated they would prefer full-time work nearly double. the recession also left older adults with difficult choices regarding retirement savings. neither stocks nor real estate have recovered from their low points during the recession and continued low interest rates mean that savings provide little if any interest income after inflation. in the circumstances these circumstances those approaching retirement faith find they may not be able to retire at all.

those already in retirement and managing their own assets face reduced circumstances without time to adjust by saving more. indeed in an aarp survey 50% of older people who reported having difficulty making ends meet delayed getting medical or dental care or cease taking medication entirely. those with defined benefit plans are protected from market swings but increasingly older adults are managing their own savings by 401(k) plans are iris and are thus vulnerable to market volatility. the only bright spot, adults age 65 and older were some are protected during this period likely thanks to social security. although household income fell for adults age 55 to 64, those 65 and older experienced an increase in household income and similarly while property rates increase for those age 55 to 64, they decrease for those 65 and older. although this changes when

medical costs are factored in. it seems that social social security is an important protection as it is intended to be for those eligible for benefits. in conclusion, the great recession has had a profound impact on older adults. many of lost employment and wealth and have little time relative to their younger counterparts to make up the difference before they retire. some will not retire voluntarily that may either lose their job from layoffs or from fiscal disability. fortunately social security has largely protected retirees from poverty but it is intended to be a foundational benefit and not the sole-source of income. americans increase vulnerability to the fluctuations and complexities of the financial markets for their retirement security means they are increasingly unprotected from a retirement in reduced circumstances. helping protect a rapidly growing population of older people offers a special challenge as we seek economic recovery for all americans.

that concludes my statement. i hope are written statement will be submitted for the record and i await your questions. >> thank you very much. now we will hear from senator casey who wanted to make an opening statement. >> i want to first of all thank you for convening this hearing on this important topic and i won't be here for all of the testimony but i'm especially grateful. i represent a state that has, depending on what the latest number is, probably the third highest number of individuals over the age of 65 so we have i know at least over 1.9 million over the age of 65 and of course big number just below 65. i think what this hearing does is remind us not only of the gravity of the impact of the recession but it also reminds us how urgent the work is we are doing right now to put in place job creation strategies. we are finally at a point where

debating and voting on a series of job creation ideas and this report the gao has done and the other testimony from our witnesses should give added urgency to the work that we are doing because we have to do everything we can to prevent even further damage to people's lives and their communities. so it has been a horrific time for a lot of families and probably ever more so for workers and their family so we are grateful for the scholarship and the work that goes into this report and grateful for the testimony of our witnesses. thank you very much. >> thank you senator casey. let me begin ms. bovbjerg with just a few questions. you mention mentioned in your report that workers 65 years of age and older software length of

unemployment triple and you mentioned in your report that workers 55 to 64 saw the length of unemployment almost triple. and you also mentioned that one third of workers 65 or older are in low-wage jobs. in human terms, what does it mean if somebody is 65 or 66 today and loses their job or 62 and lose their job in your judgment and i know there are obviously exceptions but are many of those workers never again going to be working and what happens to their lifestyle if they are not, if that income is not coming in to their family? >> we have previously reported on the situation for older workers that they are less likely to lose their jobs than younger workers but once they do, it is very hard for them to get another.

they may have skill issues with shifting to another job. they may have health issues. they also frankly have employer issues. in employers will not always look to hire older workers, so it is very difficult for older people once unemployed to go back and get a job but if they are lucky enough to be at least age 62, they can claim social security benefits. unfortunately if you claim benefits at age 62 you are going to get 25% less on a monthly basis then if you wait for the full retirement age of 60. it's now 66. but it is still available to you and we have seen increased claim as a consequence of the recession. >> so very specifically what you are saying is that many more seniors taking social security at 62, at 25% fewer benefits,

less benefits than waiting until 66? >> that's correct. >> alright. could you elaborate on the gao's finding about the important role that social security and medicare and older american programs have in protecting the financial stability of our nation's seniors? you talk about poverty rate not declining when people reach social security and also what would happen if social security programs were cut? what happens at the eligibility age for medicare goes from 65 to 67? what would your guests be on the implications of that? >> let me talk first about social security because social security is there to assure a baseline income for older people and has done its job. it has reduced poverty rates for older people, fairly steadily since its inception.

clearly if people don't have social security to go to you would see a different pattern in poverty levels at age 65 and older but something you have to worry about and you alluded to this earlier with cost of living increases is older women and social security have higher poverty rates than the average that we reported for everyone over 65 so a concern in anything that might happen with the cola is what would happen with those older women who in their 80s may find themselves in poverty. now i cannot comment on the increase in the age for medicare. that's completely out side of my area of expertise but i can say the things that you hear from older people and the information we have would suggest that makes quite a difference to what they perceive they are able to spend on other things, to their

disposable income. >> senator franken. >> mr. chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. ms. bovbjerg as i mentioned in my opening statement, the older americans act is coming up for reauthorization and it really provides a number of services that allow seniors to remain independent in a way that actually saves the federal government money because these folks end up being able to stay in their homes instead of getting much more expensive nursing home care. and some of the services that are provided are home delivered meals or meals in congregate settings, job training which will appear in the next panel,

transportation, respite care for caregivers etc.. de son the findings of the gao study, would you say that the need for these types of programs will increase or decrease in the coming years as our aging population reaches an all-time high? >> they need will increase simply because of the demographics if nothing else. the baby boomers are entering their retirement years and as they get older there will be an increased demand for these services. we did do some work for the senate special committee on aging on this topic on the older americans act and discovered that the states in the communities that are providing the services are just overwhelmed and it will only get worse. the concern that we have is there really isn't much sharing of ways to address services.

there isn't a lot of targeting services, so while many people may be receiving services, probably the people who need it the most are not getting those kinds of services and we think the federal role there to help these communities, but just based on the demographics dave will be greatly increasing demand. >> and you know, given we are talking about the affect of the recession on older americans and given that you are seeing higher unemployment across all sectors and especially with seniors once jobs are lost, expansion of the time that it takes to get another job. and so, with longer unemployment and lower wages as we were saying and decrease savings and

there is an increase in the reliance on social security, is there not, and i think it's important really especially important at this time to maintain social security benefits not only at their level but to use the cola to increase them. would you agree with that? >> senator, for at least 10 years gao has been very concerned about social security because of the future financial instability of the program. but the importance of it to the american people and it is clearly something that is a decision for congress and we cannot make any recommendations but it is something that needs to be thought through very carefully precisely because of your point that people are so reliant and becoming more so on social security.

given your research what would be your dice to older americans particularly hard-hit by the recession? what are the strategies they can employee now to rebuild their retirement savings? >> i wish i knew. if you are already retired and you are reliant on a 401(k) or in iraq, you are reliant on the financial market you are probably really reducing your spending on other things. you are probably making a significant change to the standard of living. >> and there are choices made some times and our choice is between heat and medicine and between food. that is something that we should just raquette nice that is happening, right? >> people are making choices and our survey suggested that the first thing to go is medical care and medicine, even though

those over 65 would be eligible for medicare. >> i ended number of the senior meetings that i have held, it is very very common for people's only income to be social security for one reason or another. are at their savings have been to pleaded and they require certain medicine and they have to make choices and one of the things, and i will get into it in the next panel, is that the affordable care act is doing, is closing the doughnut hole which i think is a very important thing that we continue to do and i think a repeal of the affordable care act just that alone would be disastrous. thank you for your good work. >> thank you senator.

>> if we could bring up the second panel. ms. bovbjerg, the average income of a senior living seniors living in the bottom 20% quintile is $7500. how does somebody in your judgment survive survived in the year 2011 with health care and prescription drug needs? how do you survive on $7500 do you think? >> i think that they are probably tremendously reliant on the programs and the older americans act for example for meals and transportation. and they are very reliant on medicare. they are probably getting food assistance through the s.n.a.p. program. they would be tremendously reliant on supports like those. >> would it be fair to say that if those programs were cut it would be devastating for people

who are right now living on the edge? >> it would be very difficult for them to adjust. i think that is really our point and our work as they look at things happening with younger adults but with older adults, they have really limited ability to adjust. >> okay. thank you very much. we will hear from our second panel now. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we have a great panel here. we have some of the leading experts in the country on senior issues. and we are going to be delving into what is happening economically, financially for seniors and we are very very pleased and i want to thank all of you for being with us this morning. we are going to begin with dr. eric kingson. dr. kingson is professor of social work and senior research associate at the maxwell school's center for public policy at syracuse university. he is also codirector of social security works and a founding board member of the national academy of social insurance so we are very pleased that

dr. subbores with us today. >> senator, thank you. thank you very much senator franken as well and other members of the committee for holding this hearing and for focusing on human beings in particular because ultimately policy, these policies are about the lives of americans and we lose that too often. said thank you very much. as you mentioned, my name is eric kingson. i am a professor at syracuse university and i served the two presidential commissions on social security and clued in the greenspan commission in 1982 in most of my work is on the politics and economics of aging and now codirect social security works and cochair of the strengthening social security campaign which both numbers present today the issues in the programs have been extraordinarily supportive of. thank you.

nothing -- to summarize main points into the testimony, the written testimony into the record if i may. there is nothing, absolutely nothing that provides the surety of protection, the wide spread security of social security nothing is going to replace it in the next 50 years, 60 years. it is as the chart shows and i will be happy to talk about that in q&a, the single most important source of income for the vast majority of older people. for older persons with less than $31,000 i believe, roughly, it provides 75% of the aggregate income going into their households. critical, it's not going to be replaced. former presidents, former congresses were wise to establish the cost of living adjustment and it's my hope to maintain the cost of living adjustment and it is my hope that in the future, members of

congress will also be doing the same in trying to maintain a standard of the cost of living that accurately reflects the cost of living changes for older people, people of disabilities and others. the weight of evidence as has been mentioned, the weight of evidence concerning the current cost of living adjustment mechanism is that it understates the impact of inflation on older americans. it falls short of assuring that older americans maintain their purchasing power no matter how long they live, because it primarily does not give sufficient weight to the impact of health and health care cost increases on these populations. the alternative cpi or the jane cpi or the sohtz perla -- superlative cpi that is being proposed by some members of the supercommittee and has been

discussed in the deficit reduction, discussions, that alternative simply does not pass the smell test. it would only make his a situation we have today worst. we are not adequately in my opinion and in the opinions of others, adjusting for inflation. today, the chained cpi that is implemented will further reduce benefits. the woman who retires at age 65 living to 75 would get a benefit of $600 less in real dollars 10 years later at age 85, about 950 or so dollars last and at age 95 if she lives so long, it would be roughly $1400 less than it would have been if the chained cpi is put into effect. the consumer price index for the elderly which the elder americans act asked to be

developed by the bureau of labor's statistics cpi eased for americans over age 65 is a far superior measure of inflation but it's too is less than perfect but it certainly is better than what we have in place today. in terms of the impact of inflation on the older households in persons with disabilities the public would be very well served if initially the cpi were put into effect and congress requested further development and testing of price industries. we have an interest in an accurate cpi, democrats republicans all have an interest in that. the problem is today we do not have an acura cpi. i think if we get a more accurate cpi it would in fact increase, not increase but adjust benefits. we don't want a national policy that says the longer you live, the less purchasing power your social security has. that is what we will have if we