50% less likely to die of coowe rectal cancer. -- of colorectal cancer. this is a screening test. now, we certainly know about mammography, we know about all this. is my colleague aware that what the blunt amendment says is that any employer, religious or not, any insurance company, religious or not, can withhold any one of those preventative services from being offered to employees if they had some kind of vague moral objection? so is my colleague aware all the work he put in in many sure insurers covered for our people, preventive services such as mammography and colorectal screening and h.i.v. screening and all of these

important benefits, plus a list of essential benefits just as important, that all of that could come to nothing if the blunt amendment passed and an employer woke up and said i know a good way to save money, i'll just say i have a moral objection and not offer any of these. is my friend of wear of how -- aware of how deep this blunt amendment reaches into health care reform? mr. whitehouse: i thank my chairman and yes, it is kind of astonishing the breadth and the scope of this amendment. as if c.e.o.'s don't have enough power over their work force, as if they haven't done enough to offshore jobs out of american factories and over to factories overseas, now they would be able to dictate what kind of health care their employees can receive, not based on

marketplace considerations, not based even on health considerations, but based on their own unchecked moral or religious beliefs. and i think it's a terrible mistake to go down that road. but i think it's a double mistake. i think it's wrong to go down that road in the first instance, but it's also wrong while we need jobs so urgently, while our highways crumble and our bridges deteriorate and waterworks continue to fail and we have the ability to put people to work in america at good jobs, you can't offshore a job building an american highway, you've got to do that here in this country, these are important jobs, this is important work, we should be getting about this and i think it sends a terrible signal to the american people when the united states senate taking up this piece of legislation has to be led off into all these other

battles that have nothing to do with highways, nothing to do with infrastructure, nothing to do with jobs, are simply an exercise in political gamesmanship. and it's unfortunate when there's real stakes for real families on the table, and real time slipping by as we don't get this done, we get jammed up enough around here, as hard as you've worked, as hard as the chairman has worked to bring this to the floor and be ready, here we are snarled again, stopped again, dealing with irrelevant issues again, all for the entertainment and distraction i guess of people, but it's not about jobs, it's not about the economy, it's not about the our infrastructure, it's not about laying the foundation for future prosperity and it's frustrating we have to go through this exercise. mrs. boxer: i want to thank my friend. when i looked at him i thought you are one of the few people who has such a stake, a personal stake in two things that are coming -- you know,

have been merged together, unfortunately. the blunt amendment by would allow anyone to opt out of providing services my friend worked to make sure the american people had, plus three weeks we're now delayed on a bill my friend helped me with so -- so strongly and so powerfully. i wanted to make sure people understood that in your state, that you've worked so hard to make sure people have access to health care. the blunt amendment would -- would drive a big, you know, mack truck through this, not to use a kind of funny analogy but the highway bill but that's what it would to, in the meantime stopping us from getting onto our work creating all these jobs. well, my feeling is we will defeat the blunt amendment tomorrow. i'm very hopeful and with that in mind, madam president, i'd like to introduce a number of letters into the record, if i might, without objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. they'll be introduced into the record.

mrs. boxer: thank you. the first one is a letter from the cancer action network asking us to vote no on the blunt amendment. on behalf of millions of cancer patients survivors and their families, we write to express our opposition to the amendment proposed by senator roy blunt. and they talk about the fact that it would permit employers to refuse employees insurance coverage for any health care benefit guaranteed by health reform. and they're very, very strong on this, and they talk about the implications of this provision could result in coverage denials of life-saving preventive services such as mammograms or tobacco cessation based on employer discretion. and that's a new letter. then we got a letter from the trust for america's health. they say the blunt amendment would allow any health insurance plan or employer, religious or not, to exclude any preventive

service if they decided not to offer it. the seiu, service employees international, they call the blunt amendment an extreme proposal that turns back the clock, madam president. the human rights campaign letter, the blunt amendment would place the moral objections of any employer over the health of millions of americans. 80 organizations signed a letter that says the blunt amendment means employers and insurance companies cannot only deny access to birth control but any health care service, and that's signed by afdc cats -- advocates for youth, america votes, the aids institute, american association of university women, american college of nurses and midwives, american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists, american medical students, black women's health imperative, catholics for

choice, reproductive rights center, center for women policy studies, coalition of labor union women, choice u.s.a., concerned clergy for choice, doctors for america, equal health network. i mean this goes on and on. the latina institute for reproductive health, planned parenthood, population connection, progressive majority, society of adolescent health and medicine, the national alliance to advance adolescent health and human services, the national campaign to prevent teen and unplanned pregnancy, trust women, silver ribbon campaign, union tehran universalist association, this is a long list of organizations that oppose the blunt amendment. this letter came in from the american pediatric association and a number of other youth organizations, they urge us to oppose the blunt amendment

because it could -- it doesn't protect children, children's access to preventive services. another letter signed by many, many more organizations, including spina bifida association, voices for america's children, children's health care, easter seals, family voices, fers focus, -- first focus, it goes on and on. american federation of state, county, and municipal employees. american association of maternal and child health programs, association of university center on disabilities, child, incorporated. all these organizations have come together and they say we are committed to the well-being of adolescents and pregnant women and urge to you oppose the amendment offered by roy blunt. so all you're going to hear from the other side is misstatements about how the blunt amendment is

nothing more than what we've always done. okay, then why are you doing it? it's because it reaches so far, we all support a religious exemption for religious providers. we all support that. we do not support the ability of any insurance company, nonreligious, any employer, nonloins, to stand up and say you know what? i don't believe that vaccines work. therefore i don't think they ought to be made available to my people and they say, well, why, and they say i have a moral conviction. you know, i have a moral conviction that people should have known better before they took that first cigarette when they were 11 or 12. therefore i'm not going to give any treatment, too bad. they'll just get lung cancer. i mean seriously, that's what the blunt amendment will do. it will allow anyone,

nonreligious, to say they have an objection and not offer a host of preventive and essential health care services, including contraception. so tomorrow is our time. we're going to defeat the blunt amendment and when we defeat the blunt amendment, we're going to move on to the highway bill, hurray, and maybe, just maybe, people will listen to senator olympia snowe who said that we should not get tied up in knots over these controversial things and we should do what's right for the american people. and i certainly support that. you know, there's just one more thing i want to put in the record and that's the testimony of a woman who tried very hard to speak to this panel of men. this panel of men who were called by the republican chairman issa to testify about

women's health. not one woman there, but they were the experts. they denied this woman the chance to speak, and if she had been able to speak, this is what she wanted to say, that she had a friend who went to the doctor, the friend had a cyst on her ovary and the doctor said you have to take birth control, that's going to help those -- those pills are going to reduce the size of that cyst. she couldn't afford the birth control pills and her employer wouldn't cover them so she couldn't take them. she's a student. she wrote that this cyst was so painful i woke up thinking i'd been shot. she wrote without taking -- this is what they are her friend told her. without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. she had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary and her friend says she's not here this morning, she's in a doctor's office right now.

since last year's surgery she's been experiencing nine sweat, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. she is 32 years old. and she quotes her friend saying if my body is indeed an early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will help me have my own children. i will have no chance of giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that i paid for totally unsubsidized by my school would not cover my prescription for birth control when i needed it. and so her friend says now in addition to facing the health complications that have come with having menopause at an early age, increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, she may never be able to be a mom. so, mr. president, when we're talking about the blunt amendment, we're not talking

about some obtuse issue. we're not talking about some philosophical issue. mr. president -- mr. president, what we are talking about when we're talking about the blunt amendment is a young woman, a student at law school, who couldn't afford to pay for the birth control pills which would have saved her her fertility, which would have saved her horrific pain, a painful operation where she lost her ovary simply because she couldn't have access to her birth control pills. now, this is not about, you know, some argument that doesn't have real consequences for our people. your constituents and my constituents deserve to have access to preventive care. they deserve to have access to essential health care, and the blunt amendment will take that away from them. they'll take that away from them, and all on a highway bill. all on a highway bill.

so let's keep the blunt amendment away from this highway bill. this highway bill is a product of strong bipartisanship, as the president has told the senate. let's keep it clean. let's keep off it, these extraneous amendments that will roll back environmental laws that are cleaning up the air. will keep the arsenic, the mercury out of the air, the lead out of the air. let's not roll back, you know, these laws on a highway bill. let's get the highway bill done. we have other arguments about other issues. let's put those issues on a relevant bill. this is the time now for us to pull together, not pull apart, the nation needs us to work together, it's an election year and it's a difficult time. there's a lot of name calling going on, back and forth in politics out there on the campaign trail. we're still here the last i

checked and we're supposed to be doing our work for the american people. we have a chance to do it on this highway bill. let's defeat the blunt amendment in the morning and i thank my friends for coming over to the floor so eloquently today and speaking against this dangerous precedent-setting blunt amendment which will turn back the block on women's health and on our families' health. thank you very much. i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, are we in morning business? are woo in a quorum call -- are we in a quorum call? i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to join my colleagues in opposition to the amendment offered by senator blunt. it is discouraging that when we

should be having a debate on our nation's infrastructure and surface transportation needs, we are instead talking about women's health and contraception. as the senator from california noted earlier, my state is a state that understands the importance of upgrading our infrastructure and investing in surface transportation. i live just a few blocks from the bridge that collapsed in the middle of that river on that sunny day in minnesota, eight-lane highway in the middle of the mississippi river. so we understand the importance of investment in infrastructure, and that's what we should be focusing on in this bill. instead we have taken a different turn. now i understand that there are many different perspectives and opinions when it comes to issues related to contraception and women's health. however, we shouldn't be talking about them when we're supposed to be talking about infrastructure, highway, roads, and bridges. people are free to give speeches.

they are free to talk about whatever they want. but this amendment doesn't belong on this bill. nevertheless, it is here, and i think it's very important that we address it and the american people understand what it would mean. unfortunately, this amendment impacts more than just contraception. this amendment ultimately limits our ability to address our health care challenges through prevention and wellness. chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer can be avoided through prevention, early detection and treatment. we all know that, right? that's pretty common knowledge in our country. during health care reform, we made great strides in improving the health and well-being of our nation by strengthening preventive services. we eliminated co-pays and cost-sharing for essential services like ma'am tkpwrals and -- mammograms. i also thought to include the

early act which promoted early detection for breast cancer for young women. these types of preventive and early detection services are vital to so many people in this country. as a cochair of the congressional wellness caucus, a bipartisan caucus, i have also heard from numerous employers who understand that a healthy workforce only increases productivity and output. it would be unfortunate if we eliminated access to wellness service that is keep our nation's workforce strong and productive. because of the necessity of these services and the benefits that they provide to men, women and children, including contraception, i ask my colleagues to oppose the blunt amendment. the blunt amendment would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover any of the prevention services, any essential health benefit or any other health service required under the health care law. allowing these entities to deny

critical health care to the millions who rely on these entities for insurance. the consequences of this provision would mean employers and other organizations which for any reason would refuse to offer coverage of lifesaving praoefrpbsive services -- preventive services such as mammograms would be based on employer discretion. that's why i don't think it's a surprise that organizations like the american cancer society, the america academy of pediatrics, the american public health association and the march of dimes oppose this amendment. i think we all know that those that support american cancer society, march of dimes, american academy of pediatrics, these groups tend not to get involved in contraception issues, right? and that goes to show you right now that this amendment is much broader than just talking about contraception. annually, this is according to the american cancer society,

annually seven out of ten deaths among americans are attributeed to chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke. the health care act made significant strides to stem this epidemic by assuring patients would have access to essential care that would address prevention, early detection and treatment, all necessary elements to improve the health and well-being of our nation. and this is according to the cancer society. unfortunately, the expansive nature of the proposed blunt amendment would directly undercut this progress. i'm concerned, mr. president, that the broad-based nature of this amendment would prevent men, women and children the preventive services they need as a result of the personal beliefs of a single individual or an employer or an insurance company. i do not believe that this is the way to protect americans in need of health care services, and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection, the corum call shall shall lifted. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i come to the floor with sadness and reluctance because we are actually debating an extraordinarily worthwhile, even historic bill, that would not only improve our infrastructure, our roads and bridges and highways in the state of concondominium and throughout the country -- throughout the state of connecticut and throughout the country but also provide jobs, enable more economic growth, promote the effort to put concondominium adds our country back to work and my reluctance is that we are debating an amendment that distracts from that essential task. the work that the nation electronicked us to do and to make our priority creating jobs

and promoting economic growth. we are debating an amendment that seems fundamentally flawed. i am respectful, as is everyone in this body, of the moral convictions and religious beliefs that others may hold. i believe that this amendment is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. it is unacceptably flawed in the way that it is written because it essentially gives every employer anytime anywhere with respect to any medical condition, any form of treatment the right to deny that essential health care and those services based on his or her undefined

religious beliefs or moral convictions, quoting from the bill itself, "religious beliefs or moral convictions without any defining limits." insurance companies can even deny a person coverage for mental health treatment or cancer screening or h.i.v. and aids screening simply because that employer or insurance company may believe that the causes of those conditions somehow violate his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions. this amendment would threaten access to a number of clinical preventive services such as diabetes screenings, vaccinations or cancer screenings, essential preventive services that have been proved to reduce health care costs and save lives. and those services should be guaranteed to every american,

without cost. in my home state of connecticut, one of the smallest states in the country, approximately 270,000 women would lose access to preventive care if this amendment is passed. and around the country, some 20 million women would lose that kind of access to preventive care. that is a result that simply is unacceptable. the amendment goes too far. and it would endanger the lives of millions of americans, would completely undermine the progress, and we have made progress in providing crucial health care services to millions of individuals. i oppose this amendment because of its practical implications, because of its apparent

unconstitutionality, and because it flies in the face of sound public policy. at a time when we are considering a bill that deservedly -- the transportation measure -- has broad, widespread, bipartisan support in this chamber and across the country, we are again polarized. republican versus democrat regrettably divided and potentially gridlocked because of an amendment that has nothing to do with transportation or putting america back to work. that should be our task. it is my priority. it should be the priority of this chamber at this historic moment in our history when we are reviving a still struggling

economy, when people are hurti hurting, striving to find work, and when we should be doing everything in our power to put america and connecticut back to work and enable economic growth. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: mr. president, i rise today to urge -- the presiding officer: senator, the senate is now in a quorum call. mr. akaka: oh. mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, it is rescinded. mr. mr. akaka: mr. president, i ask to speak before the senate for

about ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. akaka: thank you, mr. president. and i rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose the blunt amendment which would lead to devastating health outcomes for over 20 million women across our country. just two weeks ago, i applauded the obama administration's decision to require health insurance plans to provide coverage of f.d.a. approved contraception needed for women's health care without co-pays beginning this august. the final rule issued by the department of health and human services was a tremendous step toward improving the health of our nation's women and their

families, a step that was long overdue and one made with due respect for all americans' religious freedom. tomorrow we will be voting on an amendment that would not only undo that progress, it would move us backwards. what is especially frightening is that this amendment goes much farther than just reversing the rule because it is not limited to religiously affiliated entities. the proposal would allow any employer or health plan issuer to refuse coverage of any service for any reason, not just religious objections. if an employee had any moral objection, it would be permitted to refuse coverage for critical

care such as alcohol and other substance abuse counseling, prenatal care for single women, and mental health care too. the way this measure is worded, employees could deny screening and treatment for cervical cancer because it is linked to h.p.v. or refuse hiv-aids testing and treatment due to an objection to ways the viruses can be transmitted. they could even refuse to cover certain f.d.a. approved drugs and treatments because they object to the research that led to the drug's development. major national pediatric

organizations recently voiced their concern that if this amendment becomes law, an employer who says they object to childhood vaccines on the basis of personal beliefs could refuse to cover these lifesaving and otherwise costly medical services. in short, this amendment allows corporations nationwide to overrule the religious and ethical decisions made by the people they employ and to trump the health care advice of their doctors. if this amendment passes, it will discriminate against most of those who need financial support. that is not right.

all americans deserve access to health care. we cannot allow partisan ideology to hurt the health of our women and children. if we do, our sisters, daughters and granddaughters will pay the price. if we defeat this amendment, the final rule will save most american women who use contraceptives hundreds of dollars each year in health care costs. health experts agree that birth control helps to save lives, prevent unintended pregnancies, improve outcomes for children, and reduce the incidence of abortion. another point raised by my colleagues, senators gillibrand and boxer -- and i thank them

for promoting awareness on this issue -- is that 14% of women who use birth-control pills -- and that is 1.5 million american womens -- use them to treat serious medical conditions. some of these conditions include endometriosis, ovarian cysts, debilitating monthly pain, and irregular cycles. religious principles are deeply important to me as a christian so i am glad that the current rule accommodates conscience objections, conscientious objections and exempting religiously affiliated organizations from both offering and paying for birth-control coverage for their employees. at the same time, the core

principle of ensuring all women's access to fundamental preventive health care remains protected because the care will be offered directly by the insurance companies. to deny any women access to affordable health care, as this amendment would do, is unconscionable. it could have devastating effects not only on her health but her family's as well. in speaking with women's health advocates and providers in hawaii and across the country, one of the most common recommendations i hear for improving women's health outcomes is to ensure access to effective contraception. across the state of hawaii,

about 150,000 women seek access to birth control every year, and almost half of them depend on financial assistance to obtain it. right now, women in states that do not have plans that cover birth control face costs of around $600 per year. women and families who cannot afford it can end up facing tens of thousands of dollars in costs arising from complications from unintended pregnancies and other health care problems, costs that taxpayers often end up supporting. with these facts in mind, i am not surprised that a survey has shown that 71% of the american

voters, including 77% of catholic women voters, support the administration's requirement to make birth control available to all women. i firmly believe that religious liberty is protected under the new rule. while access to these preventive care does not discriminate against anyone, no matter who they work for or what the occupation is. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this dangerous amendment which would set back improvements in preventive services and women's health care in this country. mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time. a quorum is not present.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. durbin: ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, it is suspended. mr. durbin: mr. president, tomorrow morning the senate will vote on a measure which is controversial and has gathered a lot of attention across america. it's an amendment offered by the senator from missouri, senator blunt, and it relates to the health services that will be available to people across america. and it calls into question an issue which we have debated since the earliest colonists came to this country, and that is the appropriate role of religion and government in america. it is an issue which has been hotly debated, contested in the earliest days of our nation and

was finally resolved by our constitution in a manner that has served us well for over two centuries. the constitution speaks to the issue of religion in three specific places. it states in the first amendment that we each have the freedom of religion. that is, the freedom to believe or not to believe. it says there will be no official state religion, no choice by our government as in england where they chose the church of england, but in our government, there will be no choice of any religion. but finally, there is a provision which says that there shall be no religious test for office. these are all constitutional provisions which although sparing in language have guided us carefully through over 200 years of history. we see around the world where other countries have not been as fortunate to come to ground and basic principles that have kept

a diversity of religious belief alive in the country. time and again, we have seen differences when it comes to religion lead to conflict and death. we see it today in many places around the world. and so when our government is called on to make a decision relative to the role of religion in american life, we should take care, stick to those basic principles that have guided us for over two centuries. the issue before us today is what will be the requirements of health insurance that is offered by employers across america. what we have tried to establish are the essentials and basics of health insurance and health care. we are mindful of the fact that if the market were to dictate health insurance plans and policies, they may not be fair to the people of this country. i recall an instance before i came to congress working in illinois where we learned that

health insurance companies were offering policies which refused to cover newborn babies in the first 30 days of their life. well, of course, that was done for economic reasons because children born with serious illness can be extremely expensive in that 30-day period. so we changed the law in illinois and said if you want to cover a maternity, if you want to cover a child, it's from the moment of birth. that became the policy. to establish basic standards so that families buying these policies would have the most basic protections. this issue that we are debating with the blunt amendment is what will be required of health insurance policies across america when it comes to preventative care. we asked the experts what basics in preventative care should be included to make certain that we don't overlook something that is fundamental to a person's survival or life, and one of the things they said is when it comes to preventative care to offer to women across america

family planning services. well, that, of course, is the nub of the controversy, the center of it. some religions, the catholic religion in particular, has strongly held beliefs about family planning. they have been opposed to what they call artificial forms of birth control from the beginning. at this point, the controversy came up because although those religious institutions that are strictly religious such as the church rectory, the convent and the like are exempted from any requirements when it comes to health insurance, but what of those institutions, religious sponsored institutions like universities, hospitals and charities, what should their requirements be when it comes to health insurance for their employees? and so the obama administration said their employees should also receive the most essential and basic services including preventative care for women,

including plamg, -- family planning, and that's when the controversy lit up. the president, i thought, came to a reasonable compromise, and here is what it says. if you have a religious-sponsored university, hospital, charity or the like, then you will not be required to offer health services such as family planning if it violates your basic religious beliefs, your health insurance policy will not be required to offer those services. however, if an individual employee of that religious-sponsored institution chooses on their own initiative to go forward to the health insurance company, they can receive that service without charge. so the women will be offered these preventative care services which are essential to their health, and yet there will be no requirement of the sponsoring institution to include those services. it is strictly a matter of the employee opting for that coverage.

now comes the blunt amendment. senator blunt of missouri said we should go beyond that and allow employers and insurance companies across america to decide the limitations of health insurance policies and whether or not those limitations -- i should say if those limitations follow the conscience and values of the employer. keep in mind, we have gone way beyond religious-sponsored institutions. we are talking about individual employers making that decision. think of the diversity of opinion and belief across america and imagine then what we will come up with. we have heard many things mentioned on the floor. my colleagues have made reference to them of individuals who may have a particular religious belief and own a business that has no connection at all to a religion otherwise and decide then that under the blunt amendment, they will limit health insurance coverage accordingly. we can think of possibilities. someone believes in conscience that a woman should never use

birth control and says then that will be prohibited from being offered by the health insurance policy of that employer. so at the end of the day, we would have a patchwork quilt of health insurance coverage and many people in this country, men and women, denied basic health coverage in their health insurance because the employer believes in conscience it shouldn't be offered. that is an impossible situation. it goes beyond the freedom of religion to imposing someone's religious belief on another in a situation that could endanger their lives. the blunt amendment would be a step in the wrong direction for this country. i think what the president has seized on is a reasonable course of objection to allow religious-sponsored institutions to follow their moral dictates when it comes to the health insurance they offer but to still protect the right of individuals to seek the protection that they need. i know that it's going to be a

controversial vote but it's one that's important because i think it strike the right balance. i think it reflects back on decisions and values we have established as a country and that we should work to protect, even in the midst of a presidential campaign where the rhetoric involved in it is very, very hot and inflammatory. mr. president, at this point, i would like to make a statement relative on another subject, if i could have unanimous consent to place it in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak of the atrocities that are being committed every day by the syrian government against its own citizens. thousands of whom have stood bravely month after month against unspeakable violence simply to ask for basic political freedoms we take for granted in this country. and i rise to speak of the indefensible and inexplicable support of this brutal regime by russia. it has now been almost one full year since the syrian uprising

began in march, 2011. by some reports, over 6,000 innocent people, civilians, have lost their lives in syria. the exact number may never be known. humanitarian groups have been prohibited from even assisting the wounded and reporters prohibited from telling the story to the world. syria's third largest city, holmes, has been bombarded with rockets and bombs by the syrian military for over three weeks with scores of deaths, shortages of food and medical supplies. one report describes rockets, 11 rockets slamming into a single apartment building in the space of two minutes. as soon as the barrage stopped and people started to rush to get away, it started again, killing even more. the result, a horrific trail of dead and dying in this building from the fifth floor on down. those killed in syria included two western journalists. some suspect they might have been targeted. the murder of a well-known video

blogger, ramney al-sayid supported that claim. in this photo, you may see the results of the syrian government's bombardment of the city of homs. sadly, this is likely one of the many burial ceremonies that the people of that city have had to endure recently. just a few days ago, it was reported the bodies of 64 men were discovered in a mass grave on the outskirts of the city, and the women and children who were with them have gone missing. the independent international commission of inquiry on syria, working under the u.n., submitted its most recent report on february 22. it said the syrian government has accelerated the killing of its own people, particularly in homs, resulting in the deaths of nearly 800 civilians in the first two weeks of february alone. from the report, it is said on several occasions in january and

february, 2012, entire families, children and adults, were brutally murdered in homs. it is also note thad protesters have been arrested -- it is also noted that protesters have been arrested without cause, tortured and even executed. in october, senators boxer, menendez, cardin and i sent a letter to the ambassador for the united states susan rice urging that the syrian government be referred to the international criminal court for possible indictment for war crimes. certainly, the evidence for such charges is overwhelming and continues to this day. assad has paid lip service to reforms like the sham constitutional referendum last sunday, and the document's most important changes included giant caveats that they would, in effect, maintain the status quo as it exists in syria. one example is assad's introduction of presidential term limits to two terms of seven years each, that the clock

wouldn't start until assad's current term expires in 2013, giving him 14 more years in office, a total of 28 years? incomprehensible. secretary clinton described the referendum as a cynical ploy to say the least. on february 7, the senate unanimously passed a resolution strongly condemning the government of syria's brutal and unjustifiable use of force against civilians, including unarmed women and children, its violations of the fundamental human rights and dignity of the people of syria. additionally, the u.n. general assembly on february 16 passed a resolution by a vote of 137-12 that strongly condemned continuing widespread and systemic human rights violations by the syrian authorities, and last friday, more than 60 governments and organizations gathered in tunis under the friends of syria rubric, and they called for an immediate cease-fire, the provision of humanitarian aid and the u.n.

peacekeeping force. the international community is coalesced in support of the syrian people. i'd like to recognize once again the leadership of the arab league in building this consensus against the bloodshed. even some u.n. security council members such as india, south africa that early on had concerns about speaking out can no longer stand by silently as the killing continues. in the most recent u.n. security council vote earlier this month, they chose to do the right thing and to vote in favor of the latest resolution backing the arab league peace plan. however, sad as it is to report, this resolution was vetoed by russia and china. the exceptions to the international solidarity of support of the syrian people have been iran, china and russia. while both iran and china support for the assad regime is deplorable, it is even worse in the case of russia for it is

russia that has the most blood of innocent syrian women and children on its hands. russia is not only protecting president assad as he kills his own people, but it continues to supply him with the weapons to do it. how could any responsible nation take such action? in an interview following the friends of syria meeting, secretary of state clinton said, and i quote -- "it's quite distressing to see two permanent members of the security council using their veto when people are being murdered, women, children, brave young men. it's just despicable, and i ask whose side are they on? russia has chosen to align itself with a murderous regime, to impede democratic reform and to facilitate the killing of innocent people by putting more and more weapons into the hands of those eager to pull the trigger. despite 6,000 innocent civilians

dying, despite the overwhelming international consensus that assad has lost legitimacy to lead the syrian people, russia continues to sell arms to syria. according to media reports, shipping data shows at least four cargo ships since december that left the black seaport of akubars used by russian arms exporters for armed shipments. they have headed for or reached the syrian port of tartuz. separately was the chariot, a russian ship which docked at a sippary an port during stormy weather in mid january. it promised to change its destination in accordance with the european union ban on weapons to syria, but hours after leaving limosol reset its course for syria. the russian army of the syrian murderers continues. the sip rot source said -- the

cypriot said the ship was carrying sources for ammunition. i want to show a photograph here. this one is warship, an aircraft carrier docked at the syrian port of tortuz on january 8. what we couldn't turn into a poster is the video clip showing the russian warship captains being greeted like royalty by the syrian minister of defense who went out to personally welcome their ship. mr. president, rebel soldiers and an official who defected from the government of syria say moscow small arms trade with damascus is booming and the government doubled its military budget to pay for the brutal response to this opposition. that said, russia is in a unique position. it has president assad's trust and confidence, maybe more than

any other country. should russia choose, it could use this power and influence to constructively broker a real transition and an end to this bloodshed. the longer president assad holds power in syria, the more innocent people will die. the window for a more peaceful transition and ending is closing. now is the time for russia to lead in the right direction, to be a responsible global partner and to be part of a solution in ending the carnage, bloodshed and death in syria. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today to recognize two pillars of west virginia, an educational institution that is kwraeugts the people of our state -- educating the people of our state and a beloved figure who put our state at the forefront in advances of mental health. first please allow me tow recognize southern west virginia community and technical college for its distinguished ranking as the 14th best community college in the nation because of all the work and staff and students have done together to develop the skills necessary to compete in the workplace. all of us in my great state know about southern's dedication to active and collaborative learning, and we are so proud that washington monthly recognized the school's achievements and most recent rankings. this accomplishment is not the work of any one person but is shared commitment to excellence from the school's leadership, faculty staff and students. i applaud everyone involved at

southern for their focus on improving educational quality through strength in student engagement and student success. in addition, i am so pleased that southern is thriving under the steadfast leadership of president joann joann tomlynn sg as first lady. for more than 12 years joann has been the visionary and driving force behind many of these accomplishments. her unwavering enthusiasm and tireless dedication transcend geographical barriers to bring extraordinary educational to west virginia. i tell people they cannot sit on the sidelines and watch life happen. they have to get in the game and start making the calls. the same goes for those students who are returning to school for training or who are taking the initiative to take their careers to the next level. southern helps all students, those who are just starting out

and those who are in the middle of their careers build critical skills and get an education to become a workforce that will meet our needs in the 21st century and beyond. every day these students and their teachers are doing the hard work that will make our great state and country competitive by finding new ways to create good jobs and rebuild our economy. again, i am so proud of this accomplishment at southern, and it is just one example of what we can achieve when we all work together. mr. president, i also rise today to recognize the accomplishments and life of a mental health pioneer and a most beautiful and true west virginia hero who we were so sad to lose last month. and it is only fitting to honor her today on the last day of black history month. dr. mildred mitchell bateman leaves behind a remarkable

legacy. she transformed care for mentally ill patients by working tirelessly to provide hope for people who were once believed to be untreatable. her work emif a sides the importance of family and community, two values we hold so dear in west virginia, and she put a high priority on making sure people receive care near their homes. mildred mitchell made west virginia her home in 1946 when she was hired as a staff physician at west virginia's lake and state hospital which at the time was a hospital for mentally ill patients who were african-american. there she met and married her husband, william l.bateman, a therapist at lincoln and native west virginian. throughout her 89 years, mildred mitchell bateman remained committed to serving those without a voice in our community. after leaving to practice medicine privately, mildred returned to the hospital as the clinical director and three

years later was promoted as superintendent. in 1962, mildred was named as the director of the state's department of mental health, becoming the first african-american woman to lead a west virginia state agency. mildred's vision for psychiatric care extended beyond west virginia, earning her national recognition and requests for service. in 1973, she became the first black woman to serve as vice president of the american psychiatric association, a short time later she was appointed to the president's commission on mental health, where she played an important role in the creation of the 1980 mental health systems act. dr. mitchell bateman was a doctor, a teacher and a pioneer. her accomplishments are made even more remarkable by the adversity she faced. her life serves as a powerful example to us all of what one can accomplish with conviction, dedication and true west

virginia grit. mildred mitchell bateman will forever be remembered for her many years of dedicated service to the mountain state. her passion and dedication to the mental health community and for touching the lives of so many patients. on top of that, she was also a loving mother to seven children and a proud, very proud grandmother to wonderful ten grandchildren. gail and i are keeping the bateman in our hearts and prayers. while we know that mildred mitchell bateman is gone, her legacy and service to the people of west virginia will keep in our lives and hearts forever. thank you, mr. president. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

shiewm mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. officer sph officer without objection. mr. schumer: we have had a long discussion today on the amendment to the surface transportation bill offered by my colleague and friend from missouri, senator blunt. now, i think the discussion has shown pretty clearly that the amendment by the gentleman from missouri is both way beyond the scope of what most people envisioned and is extreme. it's way beyond the scope

because it would cause deprival of health care, certain types of health care, to perhaps millions of americans in areas that go way beyond contraception. hbecause all an employer would have to do is say they have a moral objection to, perhaps, vaccinations. maybe they could sue and go to court for years and figure this out. so it would be a giant step backward. it is also a giant step backward in terms in depriving millions of american women of contraception. in a sense, this is a ban on contraception, at least for the millions of american women whose employer would say, i don't want to provide contraception.

some of those might be motivated by religious beliefs, some might be motivated by simply saving money, and we'd never know except after long and costly litigation; again, that would deprive the employee of contraception for a very long time. i think if people listened in on this debate, they'd say that this was a debate occurring not in 2010 but maybe in 1912 or even 1812, because issues like a woman's right to contraception without the employer making a determination have long been decided by this country, and you have seen the statistics, the overwhelming majority of americans of every faith believe that contraception should be available. so the debate has been pretty clear, and the other side i think is making a huge mistake,

certainly substancively and in my judgment politically. so much so that today the leading presidential candidate on the republican side when asked whether he supported the blunt amendment said "no." he didn't think that congress should be getting involved in contraception. mr. romney said, we should not be doing this amendment. he didn't support it. unequivocally and clearly. now, a few hours later, of course, his folks walked that back, probably because of pressure -- political pressure. es he's facing political primary where this debate is issued seriously, even if the rest of america doesn't believe that it should be debated . but what it shows is when even a leading candidate of the other

side is seeking votes from the hard right has doubts about whether this is a good idea, that those doubts are real; the other side should mick make a retreat. our republican colleagues should not make the same mistake they made on the payroll tax deduction by appealing to an extreme group. they should back off this amendment. they should vote with us, and we should move on and debate the highway bill and put millions of americans to work and update our infrastructure. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask permission by unanimous consent to move to a period of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 382. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 382, designating march 2, 2012, as read across america day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table there, be no intervening ar debate and any -- intervening action or debate and my statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to s. res. 383. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 383,

designating february 29, 2012, as rare disease day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed, to the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there no be intervening action or debate and nay statements related to this matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, before i start the -- what we refer to as the closing script here, i want the record to be spread, we have tried all day to come up with an agreement to move forward on this legislation. and we've been unsuccessful. this is a piece of legislation that is as bipartisan as is humanly possible. we have one of the most progressive members of the senate, senator boxer, and one of the most conservative members of the senate, jim inhofe, who are cosponsoring this legislation. it's a piece of legislation to continue our highway program,

our surface transportation program. it's so needed. i had yesterday the director of the department of transportation from the state of nevada, susan martinovic. i'm confident most senators here have had someone from their state because there's a conference back here for these people. it will -- it will bring construction in nevada to a standstill on our highways, our bridges, some of our mass transit programs. but we can't even get on the bill. i've agreed to do these unrelated amendments. my caucus has agreed we'll do these. we don't want to, they're not productive. they're message amendments. they're not germane. they're not relevant but we'll do those. we'll have a limited number of these bad amendments. there's been over a hundred of them filed.

i mean, i am with a loss of words of what the republicans expect me to do. stand around for another week and look at each other? the amendment we're going to vote on tomorrow, mr. president, we started moving this bill on february 7. this piece of legislation out of nowhere on a transportation bill dealing with contraception. we've -- we've agreed to have votes on it. they won't let us have votes on it. so yesterday i had to bring up a republican amendment that they didn't even bother to file, they just wanted to talk about it and hold press conferences on this issue. so unless something changes, i'm going to have to file cloture on this bill and we're going to have to find out if the republicans really want to destroy all across 50 states,

the presiding officer's state of oregon. the state of oregon is just like nevada. unemployment's not been good. to have another hit to our economy by not doing the highway construction, especially as the weather's getting better, there's a lot can go on. so i -- i have other alternative but to file cloture to stop the filibuster, that's one of these roving filibusters that there's just all these phantom people that won't let us move forward on this legislation. this has been going on for a long time. and i'm almost embarrassed to be saying this in front of the presiding officer. i say that because the presiding officer, along with the junior senator from new mexico, thought that maybe we should change how this place operates at the beginning of the year. but a number of us in good conscience felt that the few changes we've made would be sufficient to establish a better working order here. it hasn't been better. it hasn't been better. in fact, i'm sorry to say, it's

worse. so we're going to, unless something happens, we'll have a vote tomorrow. can you imagine, i created a vote because they wouldn't allow us to have a vote? so i'm going to -- i don't see what choice i have. so i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until thursday, march, 1, at 9:30 a.m. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day following my leader remarks, the senate resume s. 1318, the surface transportation bill, with the time until 11:00 a.m. with the time equally divided and controlled wean the two leaders or their designees. that at 11:00 a.m., the senate proceed to vote on the blunt amendment and that all provisions of the previous order remain under effect.

i'm going to say now -- i'll ask consent in the morning, mr. president -- that i want -- i want to have the full hour and a half to have this matter dehe baited. we're going to come in tomorrow at 9:30 so it will be an hour and a half. i want to make sure we have that full-time. and so i'm going to ask consent that the statements of senator mcconnell and me not count against the hour and a half but i'll do that tomorrow we don't have to worry about that tonight. so i'd ask the chair to approve my consent request. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: so, mr. president, at 11:00 a.m., the senate will proceed to vote in relation to the blunt amendment number 1520 on contraception and health ca care. tomorrow we'll continue to work on a path forward on the transportation bill as i outlined previously. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> even a person who is a senator, even a person now who is president of the united states faces a predicament when

they talk about race. they face all sorts of predicaments. the face the fact that there are some, an appreciable number of americans who are racially prejudiced. they face the fact that a much larger portion of the american populace wants to deny the realities of race, even now. >> sunday harvard law professor and former law clerk to justice thurgood marshall randall kennedy on racism, politics, and the obama administration. the road scholar is the author of five books and will take your calls, e-mails, and treats for three hours live on in dallas on book tv on c-span2. >> during today's question time british prime minister david cameron answer questions on corruption between the british press and police. allegations of corruption and bribery surfaced this week during a british commission set up to examine the cultural of practices and ethics of the media. the prime minister answer other questions and changes to the

national health service, the upcoming london olympics, an airline's decision to hold a referendum on european union fiscal treaty. >> question is for the prime minister. >> the speaker. when.r. >> thank you, mr. speaker.ou, ea this money and have meetingsetin with mr. a : and others.addi t i shall have further says be exhibited today.ordio >> according to revenue customss some families are a 30,000 yeara would lose over a thousanda yea credds a year in tax credits. before the election the secretary said outlawing low-income pellets to have it was a lie and irresponsible scam did he mislead the public?isad >> what we have done is increass tax credits lowest paid people p in our country and actually lifted over a million low-paidly people out of these, a raising.o

i think if he is worried aboutor taxation acc should have a word which is can they get for the mayor of london and livingstonan and as the reason to pay theira. taxes. >> many, many errors people are moved by with the provinces said of a bloody sunday.asingl coming -- become increasingly clear the eurozone supports yes, and the referendum.n the will the prime minister confirm that this country, wherever decides. >> certainly very good friendsg of the republican mayor live ind the people of the republic ofopf ireland.the it is their choice to decide ite receipt of this duty it is thei choice to have a referendum onro that treaty, and it is, in all police got people's views should be respected. [background noises]

>> mr. speaker, before turning to other matters, the prime minister agree with me that the allegations by deputy assistant commissioner of the levinson inquiry about widespread corrupt behavior on the heart of the press and police said devastating in such behavior can have no place in a national institution and desi further agree with me that this underlying the importance that the police inquiry must get to the bottom of these allegations without fear and favre and the levenson inquiry itself? >> until the agree with the right and our role determined, and that think there is all party support of the levinson inquiry which speaks to studies to get on with the work that is conducting in a very reasonable and thorough way, but also proper support for the police inquiry, and that think it is important to make this point. of course there's always debate about what is right were -- right from these figures to do to get stories in the public interest to but it is hard to think of any circumstances in

which it is rare for police officers to take money. >> i think you for that answer. under levinson inquiry, can i ask you in the weeks and months ahead to use our none of the ministers do anything to undermine the work? and we will be excepted the education secretary was built just for the inquiry of having a chilling effect on freedom of expression? will the prime minister not disassociate herself from these comments and urge his colleague, whenever the particular is bigger proprietor's long for undermining the inquiry? >> i answered this question last week. >> i do take the brunt minister. convert -- id think the prime

minister. rita of expression.veson. the further down the bench.d th now, let me move on to one area where hope there can be cross party agreement from an area where they're is. the man who ran the n.h. s said, and i quote, it is a mess, unnecessary, it misses theis point, it is confused andd a confusing, and it is a setting them back her.imem what is the prime ministere ye m believe that there is more damning to back. >> let me make one for the boarr because i think is important. i th but my right and honorableh friend, the records @booktv education secretary was saying,p i think what is important braless in this house to cite is while these inquiries are going on head the ticket isd

important for politicians to,ki' c'mon, let's be frank, but but n sometimes with the press are a little bit less are hearingthane it is important for us to say we support a free vibrant, robustro press. i do think that is the important point when that is what he wasiw saying. now, turning to the healthw, tu reform, turning to the health reform, the right honorablerefoh sentiment did actualley sayntlea something lastly that they agret with. thi the and ages will have to change because of low rise of the aget of the population, because of the rise in number of long-termn conditions and the rising expectations.e sounds a bit familiar, mr. speaker. he is right. the problem labor party is, ther are against the money it needse to go into the hs the lowestsa this is irresponsible, and although they support the competition and choice in theort past, they don't anymore. >> mr. speaker, the question

nasa's but nigel christie ran the health service for six yeari .heays this chief executive. but he obviously wants to listen to him.en let me ask you about somebodyeb else to appear in the conservative party platform ats the spring conference of 2010.e he goes to the house to of health secretary.'strue, he is the gpa to have a clinic and tobacco group.n a said this.sid we care deeply about thebout the patience to see every day. believe the improvements we all want to see at the inmates as can be achieved without the bureaucracy and generated by this bill. well, this is a man who is in charge of a commission in group is society recognizes as was the competence?

8,200 practices covering 95 percent of the country.fo. he has made. he asked me.ased he asked me if i will listen too those people who ran the n.h. a over the last decade. well, let me give him aa selection of people who ran thew in excess of the last decade anl what they think of competition. this, the right competition fori the right reasons contrivance to achieve more.t he was a health minister under the last government.st goven they don't want to listen to liberal minister.s anyway, this is what he said. competition can make vhs wholehs equitable.e. that is the view of the laborser secretary of state.t. what about an advisor to the last liberal government, julient the grant be specifically listed competition, and this is what h said, the measured the effects

of competition have not been trivial. competition have not been trivial. evidence shows the introduction of competition in nhs could be credited with saving hundreds of lives. [shouting] the truth is he doesn't want to listen to pass labour ministers because they are taking a total opportunist daschle opportunistic to this bill. >> the reason 95% gp's -- is because he has imposed upon them, and the doctor addresses this in the last line of this letter because he said your government has interpreted our commitment to help haitians have support for the bill. it is not. [shouting] and 98% of the royal gp's opposed the bill. i have to say, mr. speaker, it's hard to keep track of opposition

to this bill because in the last seven days alone the royal college of physicians have called the first emergency general meeting in their history about the bill. he has lost the support of the british geriatrics society and the royal college of pediatrics and child health. so every week that goes by, more and more health care organizations come out against this bill. i've got a simple question for the prime minister. can he not give the house a list of significant health organizations who are still wholehearted supporters of the bill? >> he specifically said that -- [laughter] >> order. the primers has been asked the question. let's hear the answer. >> he said 98% of gp's opposed the report. that was the figure, 98%. let me give him the actual figures. there are 44,000 members of the royal college of gp's. a total out of a total of 44,000, just 7% responded

opposing the bill. 7%. what about the royal college of physiotherapists? 80,000, 50,000 royal college of physiotherapists, 2%. 2%. i know that's enough for the union to elect a leader the labour party. [shouting] but that's about as far as it will go. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, -- [shouting] now obviously well-trained today, mr. speaker, but let me tell them, let me tell them, their support for the health bill is digging their own burial for the next election. [shouting] now, i did ask him a specific question. i know by now he does a lot to answer the questions, but i just

asked him a simple voice which is to support his bill, and answer came there none from the prime minister. let me refresh his memory who opposes -- the deputy primers or is smirking or i don't know whether he opposes it or support it. [shouting] oh, he supports it, mr. speaker. there's firm leadership for you, right. now, mr. speaker, let me refresh his memory as to those who want the bill with the drone. the royal college of gp's, the royal college of nursing, the royal college of midwives, the royal college of radiologists, the faculty of public health, the chancellor society of physiotherapists on the community practitioners and health visitors association, and the patients association here mr. speaker, doesn't it ever occur to him, mr. speaker, mr.

speaker, does it ever occur to him that just maybe they are right and he's wrong? >> he didn't mention the national association of primary care supporting the bill, in nhs alliance supporting the bill, the association of chief executives supporting the bill, the foundation network supporting the bill of labour minister. who was he? the surgeon you hired. but here we are four weeks in a row of nhs questions, but not a single question of substance. not one. all of our process, all of our politics, never about the substance. now mr. speaker, we all know it's leap year so maybe just this once i get to ask the question. we all know what he is against, but is it time on earth what he

is told as he is for? >> thank you, mr. speaker in my area, transfer between the villages which are less than one mile apart. does the prime minister agreed that such giant turbine should not be built so close to residential areas without local people having a say? >> look, we do want is a balanced energy policy and there is a place for renewable technologies in a balanced energy policy. there are two changes we're making i think will be welcome. one is where cutting the subsidy to onshore wind because i think it's been over subsidized and wasteful of public money, and the second thing we're doing is when the act of folly comes into place that will give local communities a greater say over issues like winter turbines. of course, we tried to do that earlier by abolishing their regional strategy that glass, put in place but we lost that in

the courts so we need a localism acted coming force in full. >> the prime minister -- [inaudible] does he recognize there are 200 in his own constituency with 400 children and 600 children in my constituency who will lose the tax credit, possibly 3800 pounds or more, 25% of the income? can he say how will he answer those children? >> the point the right honorable gentleman makes is we have had to make difficult decisions because of the enormous debt and deficit that we inherited. in taking those decisions we protected the poorest family by increasing the child tax credit. that is what we have done. we also help the poor store in work by lifting when many people out of income taxes. the question has to come back to

labour, you left us with this mess. what would you do about it? >> mr. speaker, this summer in my constituency and everywhere around the country people will be looking forward with huge excitement to the start of the olympic games -- [shouting] the great opportunity to celebrate how well the uk manages these great global event. but not everybody sees it as an opportunity. the general secretary of unite sees it instead as an opportunity for general strike or does the prime minister agree with me that nothing could be further from the spirit of the a levels, nothing can be more damaging to the reputation of our country? >> the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker but i think my honorable friend speaks to for the whole country when he says what the general secretary of united said it and let me quote directly. he said, calling on the general public to engage in civil disobedience. but that is what he said. let us remember, unite is the biggest single donor to party

opposite providing around a third of their money and had more will let anyone else in print right on with gentlemen in his place. it is not good enough for them just to point out a tweet. they need to condemn this ugliness and start turning back the money. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, no top gun we organization of nhs, no reduction in front line police officers and no got to tax credits for low-income families. why does the prime minister find it so hard to keep his promises to the british public? >> we promise to increase penny on the nhs. we are boosting spending on nhs. we promised a cancer drug fund and 10,000 people have extra drugs to that fund. we promise we would have doctors growing faster than the number of bureaucrats, and since the election the number of doctors is up by 4000, the number of bureaucrats is down by 5000. that's what coalition policy is doing for our health service. >> stewart jacks in.

>> the prime minister close the loophole for multinational companies allow -- [inaudible] >> i think on this when my honorable friend is being unfair. we do have a tough migrant cap for migrant workers. business said on important it was to have company transfers, but only a relatively high salary level. that is will we put in place and i think that demonstrate overtime will be able to control immigration but do so in way that doesn't damage business. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we now know the government was made aware of fraud allegations before the prime minister appointed that company's chairman and his families are. as the prime is or is in danger

of acquiring a reputation to al judge personal appointments, will he tell the house what indy pendant checks he believes should be carried out before those appointments are made and whether any such checks are good at and respect of emma harrison? >> let me be clear. i was not aware of any allegations of irregularities when emma harrison became an adviser to the government on troubled family. at the time she was appointed there were no formal investigations into that. it was just the companies own probe into a regular does. i do think this issue needs to be properly dealt with. i'm concerned that subsequent to emma harrison's appointment, information needed to be passed at the line were rapidly to ministers. i have asked the cabinet secretary to review the guidelines for this across government and into this particular case, but i have to say we talked about the horse having bolted he might perhaps want to put it to his question that emma harrison was given a cbe by the last government, and,

of course, all of the allegations that are being made are all entered contracts that his government handed out. a little more transfers or where that might be a good thing. >> will the prime minister join me paying tribute to the courage of institutional -- who was injured showing the world the horse of the syrian regime? >> i certainly join the honorable lady. it is very important, the role that the media to him being an incredibly difficult places like in syria to bring the truth and to bring the news to the world. that's what paul conroy was doing and that's what mary bethune when she tragically lost her life. ip triggered to him and also she says above all pretreated to the very brave people who help to get him out of syria, many of them who paid and other high price. i can tell the house that paul

conroy is now safe. he has been in embassy in the route, and lebanon. he has been properly looked after and i am sure soon he will come. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last october the chance to announce the policy called credit easing. and the prime minister tell us how many businesses have been helped? >> the chancellor said at the time of the statement the policy would be in place at the time for the budget and that's exactly what's going to happen. [laughter] >> order. order. >> thank you, mr. speaker high streets across the country including those in my constituency are facing tough trading conditions, including the prospect of a 5.6% increase. can the prime minister outlined what the government are doing to support traders to enable them to grow their businesses and to

create jobs? >> i think the honorable gentleman is right to raise this issue. there are real concerns about the hobbling out of some of our high streets and a number of empty properties. what we've done is double small business rate release scheme that is helping us made 330,000 small firms. we are removing legal red tape to claim that relief which something labour refused to do. but also working with -- with the whole plan for how we can try to help reinvigorate our high streets which is absolutely vital for towns and cities across the country. >> the prime minister may have seen headlines in the newspapers today that the happiest people live in northern ireland. [shouting] [laughter] given as the labour party of government the last five years in northern ireland we, of course, are not surprised by that. one thing that overshadows that

happiness of course is the high-end escalating price of petrol and diesel which is the highest not only in the united kingdom by the highest in the european union. can the prime minister bring happiness to all parts of the united kingdom by agreeing to do away with the august fuel tax rise increase and reduce fuel alliances? >> i'm delighted to hear the people of northern ireland are the happiest in the united kingdom. i have to say to the audible junk that there represented in this house don't always give that impression. [laughter] maybe i have been missing something. because we recognize that families and businesses are continuing to feel the pressure from very high prices, we cannot fuel duty and grabbed the stabilize. that is the average pump prices are six been slower than the women under the previous government's plans, but clearly we are being impacted here as well by higher oil prices. >> this week the government took

action on unacceptable tax avoidance. does the prime minister agree with me that the principles are paying a fair share for tax to banks and former mayors of one? >> i think he makes an important point, whether it is barclays bank or 10 livingston people should pay the proper amount of tax and i hope hmrc will look carefully at all these sorts of cases. frankly, for londoners many of them live in labour control areas with high labour taxes will be pretty ankle about what they have seen. they will properly conclude that red ken has been caught red-handed. >> the iss has reported the government's tax and benefits changes with the families with children five times higher than those without children. is this what the prime is a means by the most family-friendly government ever? is it fair or is it just another broken promise of? >> what this government has done

is increased tax credits for the least well-paid, to lift people out of tax, to introduce free nursery care for two, three and four year olds and expanded all those family. all those things have made a difference. incidentally, she didn't mention of course she herself is sponsored by the unite union. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> order, order. order. let's hear him. >> mr. speaker, they are broke over with work experience. has my right honorable friend had any businesses and/or organizations come for to support this violate important and publicly popular initiative that will help young people get the skills they need to get into work of? >> i think my honorable friend is entirely right. the whole country wants to see

more young people given the opportunity that work experience provides. the good news is since this has been going on in the pages of our newspapers we've had expressions of interest from 200 small and medium-sized employers who want to get involved in this program. and i think it is time for businesses in britain, and for everyone in britain to want to see people have work experience stand up against those who are against the right to work campaign. >> happily, mr. speaker -- [laughter] eyed and able to welcome the prime minister's commitment to the reform of the european convention on human rights and the european court on human rights. will the prime minister -- [inaudible] whenever the declaration is

published and will he ensure that once again the principle of subsidy is respected and the british courts have a proper say in what goes on in this country? >> i do want to see the principles get a fair hearing at strassburg. that was contained in the speech i made at the council of europe about the reform of the court so that it doesn't become a court of the fourth instance where someone has or been in front of a local court, court of appeal, supreme court in own country and then here. so we do have repose -- proposals for reform. 30 what is debated in his house without the backbench mini that has an enormous number of days in his house and press they will give overtime not enough i hear, they got more than enough in my view, and they can make a day for that debate. >> to robert smith. >> thank you, does the prime is to agree that one of the best ways to deliver on our commitment to the fairness agenda is to go ahead as quickly as possible in implementing the coalition agreement to raise the

tax threshold of 10,000 pounds of? >> whether coalition agreement committed to is pieces in that threshold. we have achieved that in budgets over the last two years. in spite of the difficult conditions we faced in the economy. i do think it's a good idea to lift people out of tax, it particularly helps low-paid people and particularly helps low-paid women. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the ministry of defense -- said and i quote, they will not consider employment, and social and economic in procurement. [inaudible] >> i do stand up for world-class british industry, and as i said when i travel the globe i'm very happy to have british aerospace, royals royce, on an airplane with me promoting great british

comedy. it's a pity wedges i get attacked by the labour party. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is the prime minister aware of the tragic death of my constituent? her husband believes his wife's death is just one example of systemic management fail listen in hospitals. will the prime minister a sure the doctor of all my constituents that recent work to improve the management will continue and that this trust will be turned around? >> i can certainly get my honorable friend that assurance come but first of all untrue the whole house will want to send their deepest condolences to the husband and family of the audibles dash the audible members and stitcher. i know we met local mps to keep it updated. clearly patients have the right to expect far better standards of care. i know the cqc have raised concerns about standards at the trust. as he said it is being turned around but that work needs to be undertaken with all speed.

>> mr. speaker, the director stated the taxes grossly unfair. listen to the voice of reason. does the prime minister, the widows and widows left in their home, can lose up to 25% of housing benefit support if he continues with this. is he unveiling are determined to get his way? >> the issue is this. we desperately need to reform housing benefits. if we hadn't done anything about housing benefit it was expected to cost over 24 billion pounds a year. as his own welfare spokesman, the member for birmingham, beverage would scarcely believe housing benefit alone is costing the uk over 20 billion a year.

that is simply too high. i have to say, mr. speaker, i'm getting frustrated with these statements in principle of reform. they sit there in -- they said they're in favor of a cab when they go for. they recognize housing benefits out of control but every attempt to deal with it, they are frustrated. >> mr. speaker, on this leap day, throughout the country will be nervously hoping that their girlfriends might make a commitment. can ask the prime minister to remind us and confirm with us the reforms will always, always support hard-working families of? >> i was wondered where the audible lady was going with that for a minute. [laughter] but she is absolutely right. it is a very special day where all sorts of things can happen, all sorts of possibilities. the absolute key thing is both our tax system and welfare system we should be encouraging families to come together and

stay together and celebrating commitments. >> is the prime minister aware that the entry clearance in abu dhabi has rejected an application by someone to come from pakistan to attend her granddaughters wedding in manchester? with the right honorable gentleman specify what kind of employment a 72 year-old woman who does not speak english and has never left pakistan is liable to be obtained in my constituency where unemployment is 1026%? will be overruled this decision and allow her, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to attend her granddaughters wedding? and if -- [shouting]

>> the right honorable gentleman, i'm sure he is bring it to an end. >> i am. i am bringing it to an end. [laughter] and if the home secretary -- the wedding is april the second -- [laughter] >> the prime minister barak to answer the right honorable gentleman struggled i wasn't aware of the individual cases. there are hundreds of thousands of people who travel between pakistan and britain every year. we do have to have tough controls to prevent the abuse of our immigration system, but i would suggest he takes up the case individually with the immigration minister, the honorable member tom who has a superb grip on these issues and usher will be able to give him some satisfaction be make mr. peter bone.

[laughter] >> under tony blair's regime, we can sleep sleep safely at night. if tony blair is incapacitated. what would happen if the premise is incapacitated. >> i've been waiting for some time because i know that my honorable friend has asked this question to almost every single cabinet member, including the deputy prime minister who i think replied he seemed to have a morbid fascination with the end of the leader of the conservative party. all i can say is i've no plans to be incapacitated. >> we are very relieved to hear it. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. further to the question to the answer that the prime minister gave to my right honorable friend on elevenths inquiry, he is of course absolutely right that we need a free press. the nation will not thank him however if he goes along with the suggestion from the chairman of the pcc.

in his proposal to use the defamation bill to legislate new system. the defamation bill is coming forward in september. this would preempt -- this would preempt the inquiry. >> i'm glad the audible lady asked that question because i've no intention of preempting the leveson inquiry in any way at all but i think we look back to the debate we had in this house, both the right honorable gentleman the labour party, to get on with the job, to give every signal we want to be able to adopt what is proposed without there being sort of regulatory arbitrage between the parties but i think there is an understanding on that basis. given there is the understanding i will just repeat again. i think it's important that honorable members on all side stretch the importance of a free press in the health of our democracy. >> hard-working families in my constituency are astonished that

a benefit cap for some 26,000 pounds is being opposed by the party opposite. will my honorable friend agree with me that would always make a and provide benefits for those that are unable to work? >> i'm delighted, mr. speaker, my honorable friend caught your eye because today's the day that the welfare bill becomes an act. and for the first time we will have a proper cap on welfare, supported by this site, opposed by that site, but backed by the overwh

skynyrd advise me of the countries can be corrected, as of rigidity that we have given to the prime minister to correct the record. >> the prime minister, of course. >> a parliamentary point of order cobble hill was reading something from the register, which is that the constituency received 1,250 pounds from united in 2010 and the hon. member registered a denizen of two dozen to under 50 pounds in 2010 in the register amendment. within any way i have the debt run up will come back at the earliest opporunity. >> order. >> i am most grateful to the hon. lady for her -- i'm most grateful to the hon. lady for the point of order and the prime

minister frays response to a deficit virginity to step out of the position. let me just say that for the benefit of the hon. lady and the house, whether or not the hon. lady is sponsored by united, and i emphasize was she is, and habited said she's not if that is the special position. i don't know. otherness he is a dougie any help. he would know where to start. there is absolutely -- he says he is senior government. [laughter] that bill did the speaker ever really cared a little of los security of weight as far as that goes. the hon. member who spoke.

nothing wrong constitutionally with being sponsored. it is not order. order. the hon. gentleman, the members, men a magnificent qualities in no position to advise the chair what is or is not allowed. is not, repeat not underlined appoint a lawyer for the chair. >> the hon. lady has put her concerns on the record. >> schedule to reveal his proposal for balancing the state budget for the next fiscal year today, budget $900 million in the red. in shreveport boson now, mostly cloudy, 37 degrees at the airport, 38 at barstow, and 38 in midland. your listing g's report news and weather station,.

>> this weekend and book tv and american history a spa in the history of literary culture of shreveport, louisiana saturday starting at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. the union armies phil year from one damn blunder to beginning to end, the red river campaign in 1854, and then elected the over 200,000 bucks of the nobel collection adults at the ellis sees report archives, and a walking tour of both your city with neil johnson and in american history tv sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern from barksdale air force base, looked at the base's role on september 11th all plus the history of the b-52 bomber. also, as the founding fathers autograph collection at the louisiana cities of a museum and from the pioneer heritage center, medical treatment and medicine during the civil war. shreveport louisiana, this weekend on c-span two and three.

>> in the next hour and a 20 we will be taking you live to the white house and a dinner honoring the armed forces to serve and rock. president at first city will be hosting 200 veterans and their families from all 50 states of the district of columbia.. now from washington general, a discussion of ceo salaries, this one is 40 minutes. >> as part of our stylite on magazine series every wednesday in our last hour we turn artisan to recent magazine article, and here is that light. a recent edition of the bloomberg business week, is any ceo with 188,000 per hour? roger lowenstein joins us from boston. let's begin with your question. the arguments for and against your question? >> well, the argument of my guess, for, and i did not give that a lot of black kaj that the

ceo of apple the lesser, and so this was his first -- this is his first year of ceo. i guess the argument for that he has been under study for a while in the company is obviously very successful. i just got my first iphone and apple is doing, you know, very good job for its shareholders. >> of me stop you right there because there is a headline in today's financial times that echoes that sentiment. apple joins the 500 billion club with the new ipad, luminous ipad three coming out tomorrow we are told is my seventh. so profits way up for apple. >> right. so let's agree that taluca deserves a very good living, he deserves rewards for the success that he has already contributed, perhaps some sort of incentive so that if his services success

continues down the road he will get even richer, the capitalist way. i'm all for capitalism, but $189,000 an hour, you know, a hundred and 89,000 a minute or hundred 88,000 a second are hundred and $89 million a second, at some point presumably some person would say, well, the reasons for a limited version this number be tied to something? kitchen that is becoming zeros tim cook or the board of applicants right, you know, after the,. there should be some system, and there should be some system that is some way is parallel so that it tim cook has a good year he is taking the risk and calibrating the possible return and also a possible downside for himself. >> right. >> and then when we think about the fact that his contract was given to him at the beginning of his first year as ceo, the

argument is that the proportion seems all wrong. before he has even had one good year, one bad year, one a year is ceo 180 that thousand dollars an hour, which came out, divide @booktv drive number frontier added 70 billion the year, what possible risk dizzy pace that he will get all the money of the stock falls, but he will get a lot of a deepening of various formula. but tustin could really go to sleep at night saying, gee, i'm afraid of taking too much risk here is something might go wrong? i only get part of that 370 billion? what motivates people is a desire to make the first million, and that the 378 million. you begin at that level, to speak of to incorrect facing any realistic possibility of personal loss, forget hardship,

you know, when el in wonderland territory. >> breakdown of ceo on average, if you'd said afl cio web said they have executive pay was a breakdown like this, on average for 2010 ceo pay, it s&p 500 companies, about a million, maybe 250,000 bonuses, stock awards almost 4 million, option awards to almost 3 million common non equity incentive plan compensation, discovered 2 million. bentsen -- pynchon, 1 million. we are taking the example of tim cook, but that is not all the cash. is it? >> no. it is not all in cash. that is the present value. in other words, he got various awards in incentives, but if he would to some baker and said this is what of offer this year, the cash value of about, the

answer will be 370 million. the fact that it is not, you know, f. even new card that is a mercedes is something, the fact that it is having cast as a mean it will get to where you want to go, let's get back to your basic question. as i added your numbers to which it sells like we get to button are 11 million. the number i have for this under the ceo and s&p 500 is is median pay, the averages a little higher. the ten cuts of the world's cute, but the median pay is a lover 8 million, and that number to and years ago was about 5 million. most of that number, as in the figures you gave our in options or stock incentives. by the way, in that decade from 2000-2010, the average investor losses in his s&p, the investor who brought the s&p 500 lost

40 percent. so the median ceo who lost about a seventh of his investors' money or presided over a stock that lost about 1/7 of the money , for that performance with anybody would say was not even mediocre, it was subpar in substandard, that an increase of what is five to 8 million, that is a us 60% from a level which is, you know, the average american family errands something like 45, 50,000 alums per year, and that is from like 100 times the average family to london six your hundred 70 times the average family for doing a bad job. so is that -- is that pay for performance? does not sound like to me. to get to the basic area where there is a discrepancy between pay for performance and a consistency or the and fairness, and i don't mean that we live in a capitalist system.

athletes make more than journalists and journalists make more than some people. that is the way the system is, but when i talk about unfairness in this sense of talking about within the capitalist system qualities executives deserve to know what was the value they created for the cheryl is the companies? if they lose 40 percent for the shareholders over to the ears which is a tremendous loss of opportunity and capital, as 66 percent raise, how does that come about? the biggest area is stock and the so-called incentive pay. oateses to those somehow that happens. a ceo comes in and says, would give you options. if the stock rises the stock will be worth more. you can buy it at the old price, that is one option is to make you can make a profit. the stock doesn't rise you don't make any money, so the ceo has an attentive, and that sounds

like a good thing or healthy thing to give this dos it to keep the stock of from the shareholders' benefit. okay. what happens is after two or three years, and this happens time and time again, company in the company again, if the stock goes down they give them more stock incentives for more options in now to lower price. so now the ceo is the stock up. he's profiting just for doing the stock up to where was before or to put it differently committees make images from recouping the losses that his shareholders have already suffered under his tenure, and that is what happens in company after company. the party skidding lower every time the company had to stumble, and so ceos of rewarded just for recouping losses over which they have already presided. >> all right. the phone lines and twitter are letting appear for you. let me add this. taxpayers pay for corporations products come with subsidized

their million-dollar parties, losses, and have the cheapest texas. you're the first. go ahead. >> thank you. it's a privilege. my experience as the cme to cover the company and work for for many years, and also the large restaurant chain. everything for everybody. vacation pay, he took everything everybody worked really hard for and the resistance of massively, and that is the heart and soul of our economic problems. shareholders and workers are just treated like replaceable trash. what we see is workers working harder, producing more and saving less, and you cannot have a healthy economy is everybody is producing more and receiving

less and ceos are discussing it. >> roger lowenstein. >> says. i mean, this is a really tough problem, and i want to separate the problem into to. some of the corporations and the boards of directors, is see as a top executives are getting paid more than they deserve it and open marketplace and to by the way, you don't see ceos going from one scene to the next. we know what a ballplayer is worth because different teams will pay more to those seen centerfielder, we don't see that the ceos. they give a job and stay put. so if they're getting more than they are producing for the corporation, where they get all part of the first year? are they getting it repeatedly because the stock goes down. that touches as board.

raising another issue, the issue of the 1%, but in this sense that many bad%. the corporation's interest for perceived interest to pay the workers less. what a competition, so acute that the corporation can make more money by paying less. that is a problem. it is a terribly serious problems with the united states. that is of all is a problem that the corporation can deal with. upon the educational system, texas to, but that is necessarily a problem that every corporation can deal with because they're out there in a competitive world. the shareholders as saying to their directors to you can't pay these workers more than the next guy. it and that say the problem is not serious. dissing is a necessarily a problem ticket but on the shoulders of the board. >> rich independent ross is a

list. good morning. >> my understanding is that the board of directors serves as the police and approval mechanism for the ceo compensation packages and also that these boards are comprises ceos of other corporations so they all tend to scratch each other's backs. some kind of requirement that these board members be truly independent and appreciative of their fiduciary duties, maybe from nonprofit companies that specialize in providing independent board members to back. >> yes. i mean, that is a very big problem and has been a problem -- it has been the problem of public corporations ever since we have had public corporations because shareholders of the companies, but they have hired management, and shareholders have busy lives. they can be running the corporation every day, somehow be made -- who watches the watchers. we have boards of directors.

the issue with the solution that -- by the way, we passed -- we have laws this is directors have to be independent, certain qualifications that qualified directors, the majority have to be independent of the nominating committee in the competition committee and so on. both laws were strengthened after the scandals of and run. a problem with the solution they propose if you get people from nonprofit, if you think about a company like citibank and investment bank, a pretty complicated operation, you want people he knows something about the business and understand the business. pretty complicated business. underwriting mortgages, well, what we paid for those? you want people who understand and really have expertise in the businesses that the boards of

directors for because you have them overseen the capital of the company. >> are there any rules about this ceos way of a corporate board? in the steve jobs biorhythm but how he was able to push up board members that he had liked and put in people, some of the ceos of other companies on to the board that he felt would be more favorable toward him. >> if elected how laws are written is a it's a democracy. the nominating -- the number a committee has to be independent. the ceo can't control the. they are elected by shareholders and so on. but it is sort of a democracy the with the former soviet union was a democracy. ceos control enough votes to get what they what. shareholders, particularly institutional shareholders are

guilty because they just cross of a proxy which way minister wants to go without thinking about it. shareholders really should look in the mirror because they're not responsible voters are electress. the apollo. they don't hang around long enough to vote for changes, so it is a democracy, but it does not function as a democracy. the solution, we hinted that the solution after the reasons bud is a crisis where we passalong the said that shareholders sell in a non-binding vote on ceo compensation, call say on page, shareholder's demand you will see this report. there will say they will vote on the cbs contract, but it's non-binding and it does not have much effect. it's as i have any effect. >> love me add this. oversight, this person treats income how does dodd-frank

effect ceo pay? >> well, it doesn't the judge for this provision that no non-binding votes. and so it's hard when banks have received money. this is related. bailout money from the government. all sorts of restrictions, but as the money was paid back the bank presidents were no longer under the control of the regulations issues, so that has gone away. so really boys to do with their what then they are. >> all right. >> the kindle a ceos want. >> democratic color in burlington, vermont. go ahead. >> another aspect of all of these whopping salaries that all these ceos get. that is that it stuck at the top

. benefit comes down. for instance, it used to be fun going to baseball games and hockey games. who can afford to go do -- to those every time they're in town, for instance. he used to be fun going to plays and movies. who can afford the ready more? i am a 75-year-old woman. a fixed income. when i was watch jagger i was a very young person on the fixed-income. >> there is a tweet here who echoes what you're saying. but it took question. is ceo pay contributing to the increased position of of america? >> yes. especially fixed-income. and would be making in the fixed-income? the savings account is up into much. ceo pay is contributing to the disparity, but not the only

thing. someone did a study. if you added up all the ceos in the s&p 500 that total take is less than 1%. so movie stars to leslie's to my press lawyers tell end i share sylvia's frustration about the cost the baseball games. these to be hot dog, cracker jacks of the ticket was in bucks now it's, you know, well in the triple digits to take your family to a game. you can't lay all that on ceos. some of that are, you know, the fact we live in a global economy wages are down because we're competing with china and india. people on the other end of the scale. they can sell their goods all run the world. they're making more.

various cute. i don't want to confuse that ec totally with the issue of ceo pay. they are both important, but i don't think that we can blame tin cup for the price of a ticket to a red sox game. >> it falls with short of fixing the problem. glass stiegel these to be put back so that banks don't have a conflict of interest referring to dodd-frank. let's go to chicago. >> hi. >> if the spread between ceo pay and the average worker continues , eventually i believe the workers will revolt in this country, but how can we incentivize the corporations to correct the problem themselves without the government's interference, which i think will only make the problem worse. >> so here is my thought, and i kind of agree with the suggestion.