mandate using their police power, ones where in the rump of interstate commerce and nobody says that the health insurance market industry, the health care industry is not interstate commerce ivies one of the base composed of interstate commerce, ones where in that range of seems very difficult to me to say that congress doesn't have the same kind of plenary power. >> i'd like to start by returning to the point with which i began this discussion, which is that all of the arguments you just heard and the other argument than that other people defending the mandate, how the implication of congress is virtually unlimited power to impose mandates. for instance, under the commerce clause andrew just said if you're making a decision that hasn't economic effect, it now falls in the commerce clause. of course, the decision to do or not do anything has that sort of

effect by choose not to buy broccoli that has an effect on commerce, i choose not to buy a car, same thing. even if i choose not to wake up at a different time in the morning, later rather than earlier, if enough other people make a similar decision, that hasn't impact so it cannot be the case that the commerce clause extends to all economic activities and economic activities defined in decision of any kind that have some sort of economic effect because the clearly does lead us to the unlimited power that the commerce clause is not supposed to give congress and which the court has said repeatedly even in modern times has significant limits. and i think it's important to recognize that although it's true i disagree with a good number of the more recent commerce clause precedents, this case goes well beyond them. those cases have all defined, congress' power in terms of economic activity and even under

a very broad definition of economic activity adopted in gonzales versus raich, the individual mandate still falls outside of it. andrew brought up the case of wickard v. filburn, the famous 1942 case, however i'm not sure he characterized it entirely correctly. we could was not the case where anybody was forced to purchase wheat or use we can do anything else. moreover, it was a case that upheld the regulation that was specifically limited to commercial of a particular size and said if you're that kind of commercial farmer, you cannot grow more than a certain amount of wheat. now, i think wickard is a problematic decision in many ways. it didn't force anybody to purchase anything. moreover, it was limited to actual commercial enterprises which are engaged in economic activity. the more analogous case would be to say that if you're not a farmer, even you're required to

grow wheat or perhaps be required to go and purchase wheat from people who are farmers. the statute upheld. i'd like to talk also about attacks argument to which andrew devoted the bulk of his remarks. i guess i would like to start a blessing is not the case that this is the neglected in the lower courts as andrew suggested. rather, almost every single court has considered this issue has been so in great detail but the government has made this argument in detail, yet 15 out of 16 judges who have considered it have rejected it because they have all ruled it's a penalty and not a tactic and there's a good reason for the. if you accept andrew's argument that anything that raises revenue and that promotes the general welfare an extremely broad definition of general welfare is, if that's a tax in any kind of any kind is going to be a tax, a fine for jaywalking, a fine for not buying broccoli, a fine for pretty much anything else. and the court has, in fact, in

this jurisprudence consistently distinguished with getting taxes and penalties, and this measure pretty cori falls on the penalty side of the line. he says we'll, the court doesn't matter if congress specifically says it is a tax or not. that may be true in cases where congress simply has not been clear on whether it is a tax or not. in this instance, however, both congress and the president is also part of the legislative process, the veto power, they repeatedly went out of the way to say that this is not a tax and they can't have their cake and eat it. there's political accountability, not political accountability is undermined if people are left to pretend it is not a tax. andrew said if the court rules it is taxes than you could have

accountability. unfortunately, often that is not really the with the legislative process works. there's a tremendous inertia to it. it's very hard to repeal or even alter a major statute after the fact. so for going to political accountability, a lot of it has to come beforehand, not afterwards. now, i think it's also important to recognize as i said that by this logic under a tax cause and also by their logic under the commerce clause nnsa proper clause you would get virtually unlimited congressional power and that certainly does make a hash out of the constitution. it makes most of congress' other authorities or lease many of them completely redundant. and none of this is actually required by even the broadest president of the court has adopted so far, whether gonzales v. raich or anything else. now, lastly i want to say a little point about the activity versus inactivity distinction. that distinction was not

invented by us come the people who want the statute struck in but rather, that distinction isn't a numerous supreme court decisions would have defined the scope of congress' power in terms of activity. andrew has said well, that congress is created activity with fannie mae and other regulatory agencies, but that's not congress using the commerce power to tax power to regulate or compel people in the private sector. rather that is congress creating government agencies wishing? any particular task. the extent of that is authorized by the constitutional but it would be a wholly different set of arguments and in some cases a different set of clauses from the ones we're talking about here. so ultimately the point is this. attacks and the original meeting for business and nothing the supreme court is in so far at least allows it. and, therefore, the court should not extend its president and give congress richard unlimited power to impose mandates at any time. thank you.

>> i'll try to be shorts wouldn't have as many questions as possible. clear the mandate is sort of the bogeyman you. but i didn't get any response to the idea that the states do have the power to do this. so it's a little odd that we are so afraid of something that every state can do, and why again when we're within the federal government's ear of there which i think this is interstate commerce health care, why it can't be done. so i think that fighting is all a bit of a red herring, and it's especially a red herring and if tax context because the parameters that are going through about taxing power, they are not my argument. they are the supreme court stands. attacks about is incredibly broad, and the 15 out of 16 lower court judges, you get to see many cases where the supreme

court looks at an age as his even if 11 of the 12 circuits are on one side of it, we think they're all wrong and we're going to go with the one court that we think i write this i'm not sure that the bulk of the lower court makes sense but and i think it's especially important to point out, it's not a question of power. that those decisions are money idea that congress couldn't do this under taxing power. they all turn as judge kavanagh wrote in his dissent of his opinion based on the injunction act in the d.c. circuit that the statute wasn't quite right. he said he came close, would have been upheld but it was this distinction, the fact that the mandate wasn't conditioned, and that the people were not given an option of either buying health insurance or paying tax to interpreting have been written explicitly that way, he would've had no trouble upholding it as a tax. and so in terms of power, putting aside what this

particular statute is, i think there's no really serious argument that this can be done under the taxing power. the only argument is maybe because of some details in this case it wasn't done quite right. i think that's one for the reasons i explained about the new york decision. i think it's wrong to characterize this as a penalty because that's sort of, what makes him the ability of what the court has said if something is a penalty when it has the condition of a criminal sanction, criminal enforcement, disproportionate monetary sanctions related to the underlying activity. none of those things are pressing us i think it's quite clear that if this had been written conditionally, it almost certainly would've been upheld as a tax so we are dealing with a technical drafting question but that really a question of our on attacks inside. on the commerce clause side, i really don't think this case is that different from wickard, and judge silberman didn't either.

he quoted -- the question in wickard was whether the farmer could growth some extra week just for his own use but it wasn't going to leave the farm. and the court said no, that federal law can prohibit that. and so that was wheat that wasn't going to enter commerce and so one of the arguments advanced by the other side is congress can't regulate free commerce activity. i think wickard is totally absurd to that. the question that wickard doesn't squarely address, it's true, is could congress prohibited mr. wickard, required him to grow some wheat in the first place, or critique this be the statute on the ground that it did not. and i think as i said before that is was just a wee characterization of the same argument. but i think this quote from justice jackson is useful. he said even if we assume that the wheat was never marketed, the man who grew it which would

otherwise be reflected by purchase any open market, home-grown wheat in the sense -- the stimulation of congress, prohibition and restriction there on. and i think that ties perfectly into what the issue is here, which is insurance is different from other kinds of requirements whether they be broccoli, cars, et cetera. because insurance and how one is going to pay or an activity in which one is certainly going to engage in a witch the class of people certainly engage is the conduct that is being regulated your. as judge sutton said in a passage i read earlier, that participation in the how am i going to pay for it market, is happening right now. some people are making a self-insurance choice and some people are making an insurance choice. the question is, can congress regular the time at which people make the choice one way or another or at least provide

financial incentive to get insurance earlier and that's exactly what happened here. so i do think that the distinction that any activity, does hold up in the court case but the court doesn't have to go pepfar because the unique characteristic of both insurance and health care in terms of the fact that everyone is going to pay for it and because of the laws requiring health care be provided to those who can't afford there definitely going to be a burden on other taxpayers pick up something that congress can deal with now. >> tremendous, thank you so much. i think now we're going to take the opportunity to take questions either from folks here or from those who have submitted questions on the internet. and so we will start here, and if anybody has a question, please raise your hand and you will be provided and microphone. if you're then tell us who you

are and who your question is directed at what the question is, and we'll also be questions from the internet. [inaudible] >> i had two questions. the first is, do you think in deciding this case, the justices will have to get into the level of policy questions, questioning government about why congress felt it necessary to do certain things? for example, you know, when congress -- some number of the costs on care, et cetera, et cetera, people not paying their bills. do you think in the oral

argument, and the deliberations of the court that they'll have to get into well, and if possible to try little harder we could collect some of this uncompensated money, is this really, is this necessary to create this mandate? i guess my question is, there's a legal question here, but policy that meets that. and it seems -- [inaudible] my other question is in gonzales v. raich, doesn't matter, how much does it matter that there was a pre-existing regulatory, federal regulatory scheme that was trying, that congress was trying to enforce, in this case, you know, there was not regulars of health care before. this new law creates huge

expensive regulatory scheme for the first time. >> well, i'm happy to take a shot. i think, turning to your first question, the questions of the underlying policy and justification for it may well come. they have certain been extensively laid out in the breeze. the question is how much is the court going to look at that. knew, in the spending clause context but in the tax context as i said when issue is, does this enactment promote the general welfare. with accordance to his were not going to require too terribly much into that. that's an issue that is really almost entirely committed to congress and we're not going to drill down into the specifics of that in the way that the court does, for example, when there are statutes that burden individuals rights like free speech. and i would anticipate that you will see that kind of interest, but in the end deference to whether or not there's a real problem, for example, in terms

of free riders of uninsured. i think it's unlikely the courts decision will turn on some -- to conclude that's not really an issue. i do think that the fact that this is part of larger regulatory scheme is relevant. i think one of the problems in some of the cases where the court has struck down enactments, often because of the infringement on state authority or on states think about the violence against women act ordered the guns near schools act, a lot of those were sort of went off regulations that didn't really have much of a relationship to commerce, although as justice breyer detail in one of his dissents, you could make the link to a lot of steps in building. your i think where congress is taking hold the huge national problem and regulating any comprehensive way, seems to me it's helpful to say this particular regulatory item is

part of that very large scheme, which indisputably relate to interstate commerce. >> so, first on your first question regarding the policy issues, it's possible the court will get into some of that but i think they could rule are we without saying anything whatsoever about whether this is a good policy, whether it really necessary or not and so forth. as i point out in my presentation, our argument is this is unconstitutional even if businesses are in defensive useful or convenient that the court has used to define necessity because even if it is necessary in that sense it is not proper. there are lots of things which may be good or useful policy measures which are still outside of the congress powers under the constitution and that the argument. our argument is not though that this is a post about although i think their action or. as a clinical matter some defenders of mandate have said well, this is the only way to

have effective health reform, or cover pre-existing conditions. i think that's not true. there are many other ways of doing it. some of which i think are likely to be much better than this particular way. i'm not sure it actually matters to us court can strike us down and it can do so without making any policy judgments at all. regarding gonzales v. raich and the pre-existing scheme, i think yes, it's true in gonzales v. raich there was a pre-existing one in here. it's all part for the most part at least of a new one, but in the defenders of mandate have said in part of this broader scheme and makes it different from a stand-alone statute of some kind. but i think that argument doesn't really hold water because given the existing scope of federal regulation, or the much any mandate can be defended on the grounds that is related to some current or previous legislation as an act got even act got even something like the broccoli mandate you can say well, there's lots of

pre-existing regulation of the agriculture market or food markets or food and drug administration, there's all sorts of agriculture subsidies you can easily fit a broccoli mandate or more realistically say a health food purchased mandate within that same sort of framework. indeed a lot of the evidence suggests that your diet has a bigger impact on your help and how much health care you consume, even then was an idea of health insurance. so the health of mandate could be justified and many of the same types of grounds as the government this mandate on. >> terrific. >> i'm curious, the first day of arguments -- [inaudible] i'm curious as have you think

the court is going to approach that question and what kind of argument we will hear and what you think on both sides of that. >> i think, well, first of all i think it is possible for the court to say that this is not a tax such that the anti-injunction act eliminates its jurisdiction but can go on to uphold the measure under the taxing power. i think it's pretty clear from the cases that the statutory test is a much more technical one. where the use of the word tax may be much more determinative. also there are some other questions about the statute which, to the extent states have stand, they're subject to the act. there's an older case called south carolina in which the courtyard to reach a constitutional challenge by the states come in that case

involved municipal bonds, tax exemption of permissible bonds to the court basically found a way to say that the tax injunction act wasn't applicable. so my own intuition is that the court is not going to conclude that he can address the merits here because of statute. and i'll give credit to walter dellinger for this thought by think it's correct, if it were to do so, i think the next day they would be unanimously passed in both houses and signed by the president statute of exempting the statute from the injunction act in the case would be back in the court before you can finish reading the many lines of opinions that have been issued by the court the day before. so i think in terms of reality, that's not going to be much of a narrator, even if the court were to decide for some technical reason, which i just don't think it's going to. >> i largely agree with that but i would note it's a little unusual to claim that the definition of a tax under the

anti-injection act is actually narrower than the definition under constitution the traditional view adopted by the lower courts, including the only one which has said that the anti-injunction act applies, is that the anti-injunction act is at least as broad as the constitutional definition, and possibly broader. i think the whole point, the whole purpose was not to make it hard for taxpayers to come ahead of time, challenge taxes congress imposed under the constitution to be somewhat strange if they were a category of taxes which congress is authorized to under the constitution but yet which the ada doesn't cover. that said, the ada if it applies at all probably applies of the going to the private plaintiff. you have 26 states plaintiffs here as well. within is a different issue is whether it's 10 or not, one of lower court has ruled that a state does not have standing but

i think actually there do is not that we could prevail and that you agree with andrew that most likely the court will reach the merits in this case, partly because i think that is actually the better legal argument, but partly because the court recognizes that both sides in litigation, the country as a whole, do you want a decision on this issue, and i think that will at least i think the item, that will probably weigh on their minds as well. >> thank you. >> all right, shall we turn to questions the web? >> the question is, if the mandate is upheld on its face challenge, with that conclude, as -- for instance, if someone pays for the health insurance, doesn't have to worry about buying health insurance, summon -- like in great britain, they are harmed individually, will

roll in on its face preclude -- [inaudible] >> i mean, i guess it depends. first of all coming it depends on how the court reasons the decision striking down the challenge. or rejecting it. is the reason it in some extreme in their way, which still allows to have a polite challenge, you could bring as and a pledge of living for to all of be argued that have been offered on behalf of the causation of mandate would oblige as applied challenges as was facial challenges. so i think it's unlikely that such a challenge could succeed in the mandate is upheld even if technically speaking the courts said it only apply to facial challenges. >> i think that's an area where putting aside the overall dispute vanessa and proper clause, if the congress could

reach the vast majority of the overwhelming majority of people in this class, i think you could make a pretty strong argument that covering everyone is necessary and proper, just in terms of providing a clear rule in this very important area, of interstate commerce. >> next question from online is do you suspect there'll be an opinion for each of these three cases? do you suspect there'll be two opinions, one that would deal with the methods of medicare issue, and one that dealt with the other two cases that were brought, or do you expect to see just one? >> my guess is that there will be one opinion in all of the cases. one opinion for all of the cases that will be written, could well be procurement as the court has done in some of the very large challenges to sec laws come i'm

thinking buckley versus deleo. i'm thinking, i can never have that was written. but i would think that there will probably be one opinion that will deal with everything, you know, one set of opinions but i don't think it would just be one opinion for nine justices. i will go out on a limb and predict a. >> so, it could well be one big thing divided into three or four or more sections, or could be separate opinions that it's possible there will be some sort of different majorities in different cases. you know, but we think will be true regardless is the opinion will be long and detailed and will be not really like the kind of thing which at this is sort of an easy question, based on precedent, even though we started down this road year and a half ago many defenders said this is an easy case and sort of weird extremists or people ignorant of constitutional law can think that this is unconstitutional. i think the other reason why we're likely to get along and

detailed opinion is they will recognize that this is actually a very important power and does go beyond at least existing precedent because i don't think that they will be swayed into putting its unimportant because the states can do the same thing because the court has said repeatedly that when you have states doing things, there's competition between the if the state enacts an onerous mandate as massachusetts has, in people and businesses have the option of acting as some people have from massachusetts, where's he getting mandate or any policy that affects the entire country, the danger is greater because it's true you can expatriate yourself but exiting from the country entirely is a much tougher proposition for many reasons and leaving a state. i could go into i should the history of somewhat onerous state mandates, such as many decades of state mandates where states actually force people to engage in forced labor but i

think despite my desire to go into the history of federalism, abi will leave leave it there, although i love of federalism. i could go on for a long time if i didn't resist temptation here. >> thanks so much. on the question of whether it's a serious challenge, we know the answer to that. the court has given him six hours of oral argument over the course of three days. it does not do that. that is essentially in the modern era unprecedented. and so those who were dismissive of this question in the early days were wrong. what will happen? we will have to see. but the justices arguing an unbelievable attention, and if they didn't think it was a serious question to be resolved here, they would have had an hour of oral argument and then been done with it. into so much to the people who are here, to the washington legal foundation for hosting this event, and andy and ilya

for participating, and for c-span for covering it, and we all look forward to further reporting on the oral arguments and the decision. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> congratulations to all this year's winners of c-span student can video competition. a record number end of the video on within the constitution and you. watch all the winning videos at our website, studentcam.org. and joyous mornings in a lavish of the top 27 videos on c-span. we will talk with the western "washington journal." >> and up next, live from london

prime minister's question time. here on c-span2 every wednesday parliament is in session, british prime minister david cameron answers questions from members of the house of commons. this week the prime minister is on an official visit to washington, d.c. so standing in for him is his deputy prime minister, nick clegg. this week and next week he he was a question time beginning at 8 a.m. eastern duty u.s. daylight savings time. prior to question time now they will discuss other business. we join house of commons life. ..

may i ask him with regard to textbooks for palestinian children and children in gaza it would be valuable in there were schools in view of the large number of schools destroyed by the israelis and their refusal to allow building material to rebuild them. >> he right hon. gentleman has a long and distinguished experience in championing this area. we will be meeting on monday. i have seen the way they're working to alleviate suffering and promote education in gaza and elsewhere. >> question for the prime minister.

with kendall. >> i have been asked to reply. my right hon. friend of prime minister is visiting the united states for meetings with president obama. i am sure the house will wish to join me in sending a deepest condolences to the family and friends of the service men who died in afghanistan last tuesday. the duke of lancaster's regiment, private anton from 10, private chris curdle legal private daniel wade and private daniel wilson all from third battalion, yorkshire regiment. these men of outstanding courage and selflessness. this tragic incident will long be remembered because it reminds us all of the stage our armed forces regularly in door to guarantee the safety, security of our country. we also briefly shot the appalling news that the number of afghan civilians were wounded

and killed in afghanistan and sunday morning. imac with ministerial colleagues and i will have such meetings later today. >> i would like to make a comment about the premise there's comment about the tragedy in afghanistan. members on both sides of the house express our deep sympathy for the families who lost loved ones in this distressing time. the economy is growing. in britain for the last 17 years the economy is flat lining. can the prime minister explain what has gone wrong?

>> what went wrong was the labour government. the most unholy mess in 2008, the only way to get -- the only way to get the economy moving is to fix the deficit and lending money again and make sure we have a cut and benefit system that pays people to work. >> introduce a freedom bill when we get rid of a lot of unloved regulations. as my hon. friend knows, introduce matters which moved a lot of unnecessary -- any opportunity we would grant with open arms. >> mr. speaker, can i join the deputy prime minister in paying tribute to sergeant nigel coo of

the lancaster regiment and third battalion the yorkshire regiment corporal j. carney, private christopher harrisshot, private daniel wade, private daniel wilson. they died in tragic circumstances serving with bravery and determination. their deaths remind us of the great sacrifice our armed services make on our behalf and our thoughts are with their families. i joined the deputy prime minister in expressing our horror at the appalling murder in afghanistan on sunday. 16 civilians including nine children. we deplore this crime and express our deepest condolences. mr. speaker, today's figures show unemployment from the hardest hit, young people looking for work and women being thrown out of work. the deputy prime minister says the liberal democrats are making a difference in this government.

with more than a million women looking for work what difference does he believe he has made to those women. >> any increase unemployment is a personal tragedy for anyone who loses their job and you should be careful not to pretend that somehow this is a problem which was invented by this government. let's remember the unemployment of women went up 24% under a waiver. youth unemployment went up by 40% under labor, since 2004. so we should work together to bring unemployment down. >> unemployment was coming down. their economic policy not only driving up unemployment. they have to borrow more.

it is not working. five liberal democrats. it made no difference whatsoever. and economic policy, no competitive vision. no one agrees with me but does not agree with this? >> it has worked as well on the details. behind the headline figures, long, unemployment came down. the number of new jobs in the private sector outstrip the number of jobs in the public sector. on the hard government, the labor party sucks up to the city

of london relying on jobs in the public sector. >> he is complacent about -- no difference for unemployment just as they are making no difference on the n h s. when it comes to the na chess he thinks he is doing a stunning job. can he explain why he failed the nurses and midwives and pediatricians and physicians and physical therapists? >> the labor party -- now they believed in solving the and h s -- her own manifesto in 2010.

>> we must hear the response from the deputy prime minister. her own manifesto said to safeguard in fiscal times we need reform. the labor party was right then and is wrong now. >> we are proud of what labour did. more doctors, lower wages, and mr. speaker, no one believes it. no one can convince those -- only can't even convince his country. doesn't he realize that people are still against this bill because it hasn't changed one bit? if it is still a top down reorganization. >> i said a moment ago the deputy prime minister's response was to be heard.

the question from the deputy leader of the labor party will be heard. that is the be all end up of it. >> it is the top down reorganization. it costs a fortune and is going to need fragmentation and privatization. it is clear the deputy prime minister won't stand up to the n h s. the only thing he stands up for is one of prime minister walks in the room. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker. mr. speaker. some of our colleagues must think the liberal democrats make a difference because they were handing out leaflets while leader was going to watch whole cities -- [shouting] -- as she brought affect that they spent two fifty million pounds of

taxpayers' money on sweet red deals for the private sector which didn't help a single patient? is she brought of the fact that in the 2006 act it was a privatized job in which her government offered 11% premium on the private-sector to undercut the any chess? is she proud of that? >> we will compare what our government did. >> some members not initiated in the proceedings the prime minister's questions yelling and sir. i remind the house that in these matters the prime minister or deputy prime minister does the answering. that is the situation. >> we compare what our government did with what his government is doing any day. he says the problem with this bill is doctors and nurses just don't understand it. but the problem is that they do. even at this late stage, it is

within his power to stop this bill. next monday the bill >>reporter: its final stage in the house of lords. there are 90 that will decide whether or not this bill becomes law. will he instruct shiny williams and his peers to vote to stop the bill. >> mr. speaker, the right hon. lady has invited me to make a comparison. let me make three comparisons. >> the response must be heard and that is all there is to it. the deputy prime minister. >> let me make three comparisons. the health secretary has said it is irresponsible to increase and h s spending. so they don't believe in more money, we do. they indulge the private sector with sweetheart deals which we are making illegal in this bill.

swede ordeals for the private sector will be worse than we do not. we are making a free obligation to deliver a more equal outcome which they fail to deliver in 13 years. >> absolute rubbish. [shouting] >> in undermining the n h s he trashed not one but two national treasuries. he didn't need to sign the bill but he did. he couldn't stop the bill but he won't. he said they make a difference but they don't. what has happened to that fine liberal tradition? they must be turning in their graves.

the party of david nigel, now the party of nick clegg. >> she sticks to a pre prepared script religiously. this whole thing is actually -- what we are doing on this side of the house, two parties come together and sort out the system she left in a mess. closed public finances which she left in a mess. and the economy which she left in a mess. and privatisation of the n h s she left in a mess. in government the labor party ran out of ideas. in opposition they're running out of ideas. >> my hon. friend this week shows there is some progress

towards the target of 15% of women on board by 2016. what can the coalition government do to ensure we meet this target with the diversity of talent to change what we as a country need? >> excellent news that has been real progress in the few short months we have been in progress delivered in 13 years under labor. everybody agrees there is a consensus that having more women on board is good for all of the companies involved who are a mix on the board and i hope we will continue to apply the right kind of policy questions that increase further in the future. >> i have hoped the deputy prime minister will join the hospitality -- at the spring

conference. could he now tell the house when the 3,000 extra police he promised that the general election will be included? >> as her own party acknowledges, the police need to make savings. the key thing is not exactly what the total number is but where are the -- >> order! i don't know what members are having for breakfast. the deputy prime minister's answers must be heard. >> where are police officers properly deployed? over the last decade far too many police officers were tied up in knots filling out paperwork and the back-office with communities and streets where they belong. >> my right hon. friend share the priorities of my constituents who believe this parliament should focus its

attention on cutting the deficit, promoting growth and get people off of welfare into work and would be amused if they learned we would soon bend much of our time on discussing the reform of the house of lords. how can i explain that? >> in the same way he will explain the constituents that there are other priorities like changing the boundaries. changing the boundaries to constituents -- i think governments in parliament can do more than one thing. i also believe it is a simple democratic principle that people who make the laws of the land should be elected by people who have to obey the laws of the land. >> mr. speaker -- [laughter]

>> my apologies. the after study shows the service is working closely, working closely with social care is crucial to older people and what we have been doing alongside the council's social-services. can i ask the deputy prime minister why he is still cheerleading for a bill that scraps cooperation and puts the future health of older people, including my constituents -- >> a bill for the first time includes new statutory obligations to integrate social and health care and it is one of the abiding failings to service, social care and health care. there have not been integrated of the past ten years.

>> andrew griffith. >> can i begin by congratulating the government on its efforts to tackle the irresponsible pricing about the hall by supermarkets. chairman of the parliamentary group, that governments -- does the prime minister agree that it is in the community, and escalation would create 5,000 jobs. will he take treasury colleagues out for a beer and tell them not to put up duty? >> all those questions announced at a time of the budget but i am sure everyone agrees with the sentiment that we should support community homes which are part of the fabric of our community. >> dennis skinner.

[shouting] >> deputy prime minister -- now that the gang of four are getting back around -- what does he really think about this? will latest development, the prime minister writing foreign police officers and in the heart of government. what does he really think? and decorated from those -- come un! be a man. >> mr. speaker -- [shouting] >> order!

order! let's hear the answer. >> we had to wait a while for him to get going but it was great. we are soon going to celebrate if that is the right word, 42 years of the hon. member in this house. in all that time he hasn't mellowed one bit. >> will the deputy prime minister join me in congratulating the citizens on their newly acquired announcements. it is entirely appropriate that the first city should be chosen when looking forward to hosting a mounting competition during the olympics. >> not sure my hon. friend shares that sentiment.

we are aware of a rivalry but i can confirm the results of the competition in honor of the queen's diamond jubilee. has been awarded the right to call themselves a city and from now on a board made. and in other communities who entered into this. it is indeed another announcement which lifts the spirits of the nation in the year of the queen's diamond jubilee. >> before the general election, the deputy prime minister said he wants hostile to the pleasure of factories. and 700 disabled people and losing their jobs. what difference has he made?

>> as the hon. lady will notice the consequence of review conducted by this state and the head of the u.k. disability forum has not supported organizations like mine and others and likely disagree because they say and this is their conclusion, they believe segregating employment which started in the aftermath of the second world war is not the best way to promote the interests of the people in this country in the 20 first century. >> stephen hammond. >> last week and the deputy prime minister spoke about the need for a deputy tighten tax. does he intend that to include individuals who claim they want tax rates on the rich but sit out companies to pay $0.20. >> it is worth dwelling for a

minute on the explanation provided by can livingston forces exotic tax arrangement. i get loads of money from different sources and give it to an accountant and they manage it. that is modern socialism for you. >> thank you. in september of 2010 i raised with the prime minister a case of a college in my constituency that was four million pounds after the closure of the agency. i asked the prime minister for a hand up, not a handout to the young people in my constituency. at college was open, officially opened. 18 months on those programs with shortfall. as the deputy prime minister has said there should be no barriers to people's aspirations so he helped give young people a

handle. >> of course ministers will be more than willing to look into the case of her college. colleges are unbelievably important in providing skills and support to young people seeking to get the right qualifications to get in to work who have been working to provide a hugely expanded apprenticeship program. the largest expansion ever in our country and more than happy to make sure they look at the case. >> after the 2004 disaster the gangbuster's license was created. it is also a burden to business. can my right hon. friend assure me that this will not leave workers unprotected, in particular the shell fishery

industry? >> i hear what he said. is a very important issue and important to get the balance right. working to ensure the licensing authority works in a manner which is effective and bears down on subsidy abuse and does so in a business friendly a manner as possible to minimize the amount of unnecessary red tape. >> the deputy prime minister would like to -- these diamond jubilees, and cross to the next position. can i thank the palace for organizing a tremendous award. >> these the kind of questions i like. i think it is a good thing and on behalf of everybody and like to convey my congratulations to

all people who worked in such a fabulous land across party basis to get this support today. >> one treasured piece of green space sporting attention this week but other local people will be at risk if the national planning policy framework doesn't follow germany's example of combining economic success with tough control and the countryside. can my friend reassure us a truly green planning framework is a safe bet? >> the government publishing the national policy framework shortly. it is important we do everything through the planning system to promote growth. we need growth and jobs and hope particularly young families who are unable to have a tacoma they can call their own but of course that should be tempered by

financial considerations. and that is reflected in the planning framework when it is published shortly. >> calling in monday, the handling minister told me the government had no plan to introduce rent-controlled in the private sector. is the deputy prime minister aware that the rising of private sector rent in central london, capt. of housing benefits being in effect that many families being forced out it is a process of social cleansing that is going on. will he -- the government will examine the case of private sector rent-controlled. >> we hope at the same time as and mounting strength on the housing benefit budget which was the commitment in his own party manifesto to bring that part of the benefit system under control. a major fund to deal with hard cases and we also of course unveiled a number of measures that lead to an increase in the

building of affordable homes. lack of supply of affordable homes that is the underlying problem. >> changes to child benefits will mean a family earning $43,000 together when a family care for children will subsidize a couple earning over 80,000 pounds. because the prime minister thinks this is a fact? >> it is fair that someone who is earning far beyond the average should not be subsidized receiving child benefit from people of lower income. it does raise a perfectly valid point which is it can create these anomalies where one earner, 53,000 having child benefit removed while two earners earning 80,000 will not. we have all said we will look at the pragmatic way of

implementing this. >> naomi long. >> serious incident in my constituency involving three explosive devices planted since friday and the most recent being a gift. will he join with me in condemning those records to the community on things like risk and in the absence of international monitoring commission that government will continue to monitor any link between such activity and organization. >> by utterly condemn the pipe bomb attacks which endangered the lives of all those in surrounding areas including young children attending school. totally represent the boat. i understand these attacks are being investigated and there's no indication as yet that there terrorist attacks and fall to

the justice minister. >> but who e.u. council on changes to the rules governing state aid in these areas. the government has shown commitment by establishing an enterprise in order to attract a large business. the changes will restrict -- the prime minister assure me the government is fighting proposals. >> deputy prime minister. i am delighted that this is now taking shape and will be a huge boost from major investors in the renewable energy sector in that part of the world. i hear what he says about the european commission reviewing how those rules will be applied for regional aid in 2014 onwards. we are extremely mindful to undermine the excellent work

taking place. >> ministry of justice announced today it has given two in new contracts with thirty million pounds of public money. this company has been under investigation by the police, department of pensions and public accounts committee and since i have been raising concerns, 14 f-15 e-mails to the public alleging fraud and practice. is the government going to continue? >> she raises a very serious issue. the police investigation into allegations of fraud, all contracts entered into by the previous government. we have launched our own audit of the existing contracts we receive from -- if there is any evidence of systematic abuse then of course we would end all contracts.

>> jasonmac carney. >> the british servicemen killed last week will be repatriated next tuesday and include three of my constituents. private danny wilson and private anthony fromton. will the the the prime minister assure me that everything is being done by the government to support the families? >> i know how strongly he must feel given three of his constituents lost their lives. i know the ministry of defense will assure the secretary of state would wish to confirm that. we're doing everything we can in quite difficult circumstances to make sure the bodies are returned to the families as soon as possible. >> has the deputy prime minister considered the implications of the treasury's plan changes and control foreign companies which will incentivize multinationals.

opening this new tax loophole is estimated to cost developing countries from four billion pounds in fair and much needed revenue and the exchequer 1 billion points on much-needed revenue? as many change the correct and forthcoming budget measures. >> you raise an important issue. i know that action aid has been speaking to treasury ministers as well like all international tax matters it is incredibly complicated once you get into the details but it is something which is not dealt with in the last 13 years. >> will my right hon. friend join me in welcoming the launch of the government's about action plan depending on how we can achieve more adoptions more quickly? making adoption work well everywhere should be the priority of all of us who have interests in people in

parliament. >> it is so frustrating for couples and parents who want to adopt children and not good for the children concerned when there are it ordnance the delays and that is why it is a good thing to get general consensus of announcements made by the secretary of state of education and prime minister to the accelerated option process will indeed happen. >> is it right that constituents of a young daughter later received a letter that that visit was inappropriate and the cost of that visit. is this going to be the future of the any chess? honorable and elderly people are going to give this kind of treatment? >> this was issued on the currency. he does touch -- he does touch

on a serious issue which we face in this country. every single developed society faces. we have health care systems which were designed for an aging population. all the people have long-term chronic conditions and spend much longer in hospitals which is why we need to make sure they are in their homes and community. >> a comprehensive school just as likely to study a level history as their private school counterparts but only half as likely to study math or physics. what is the government going to do about the social mobility issue we have? does he support the proposed sir isaac newton math school to help these issues? >> an incredibly important point

and one of the reasons the new english baccalaureate does place a great deal of emphasis on those scientific disciplines and why we protected -- to send a clear signal that we value science and why we emphasize stem subjects. we need this science background taking math and science courses for collective future and the country as a whole. >> he says the health bill would go through not amended. when he listens to people up and down the country who knows the real truth, they would not be getting this bill at all without him propping them up. >> as i said before would have thought he would welcome legislation which out forced -- industrial scale by his party of giving deals to the private

sector. >> order. we come now to ten minute rule motion. >> british prime minister david cameron was absent from the house of commons because he is on a visit to washington. several of his activities starting with his white house arrival ceremony at 9:00 eastern on c-span3. later his news conference with president obama start at 12:20 eastern on c-span. tonight c-span's live coverage of the state dinner begins at 6:15 p.m.. and tv coverage, you can watch any of these events on c-span.org. c-span's 2012 local content vehicles cities for take our

booktv and american history tv programming on the road the first weekend of every month. march featured shreveport, louisiana. >> a local man who was born here and make the most of it and he started accumulating books when he was a teenager and continued until he was in his 80s. over his lifetime he accumulated 200,000 volumes. if we have a jam in the collection it is probably this one. one of the books we are most proud of. it is in the 0 original binding from 1699 and it was once owned by a very famous scientists. you can see he has written his name, i newton. we are not without some much anymore because it is starting to flake away. >> american history tv lookit civil war medical practices that the pioneer heritage museum. >> a long stretch from what it

is today. you consider that, the things we take for granted when we go to the doctor, things like the instruments being as term free as possible. for the doctor has washed his hands before he decides to work on it. we use the term loosely for doctors when talking early medicine. a lot of doctors in our region were self-taught or worked under somebody else who was self-taught and getting ready to retire. they would learn as they went. >> our tour continues the weekend of march 31st and april 1st from little rock, arkansas on c-span2 and 3. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights what key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules that our web

site and join the conversation on social media sites. >> as you might expect -- >> vladimir putin won election to the presidency earlier this month with 63% of the vote according to the official results. the u.s. state department has called for an investigation in the irregularities in that election. on monday the u.s. ambassador to russia, and the u.s. relationship with russia, including disagreements how to respond to violence in syria. the ambassador's remark that the peterson institute for international economics runs about an hour. >> distinguished academic career. it is fair to say you may not agree. it is fair to say he is the key architect of the reset policy. he served for three years as special assistant to the president and senior director

for russia and eurasian affairs at the national security council prior to becoming ambassador. he was sworn in as u.s. ambassador to russia on january 10th just about two months ago. he has attracted considerable attention since he arrived in moscow and we are delighted that ambassador mcfaul joins us today. two or three questions foremost on our minds and we want to discuss with him. number one is but the election of vladimir putin means for the future of russia and the u.s. relation. how will the administration managed the upcoming issue between the u.s. and russia, t tn tntr. we have studied that topic and we will be releasing formally in the near future and discussing what the end might also ask ambassador mcfaul how he and the administration view the act that

is being proposed in congress and how it relates to all of the above. with no further ado it is great to see you back. thank you for joining us. we look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> i wasn't sure if i would get introductory remarks to take those questions. i will take those three questions and it sounds like we will do q&a. i know we don't have much time so i want to get your questions as fast as we can. quite a tremendous turnout on a lovely day. i almost didn't come because i haven't seen so much sun recently. i am going to take that as a sign there is still interest in this town about u.s./russian relations. to be quite blunt the main reason i am here today is to talk about tntr.

i with your while ago when you had a very in my opinion important meeting to discuss these things. that was before russia had agreed to join the wto. remember vividly standing up here say we are going to get it done this year and i heard lots of people in lunch time saying you people come and go but we have been doing this for 20 years and it won't get done. we got it done. it is a great deal for the american economy. american business and farmers and american workers. we think it is a great deal and maybe we will spend time talking about it because there is a misperception that somehow russia joining the wto is a gift to russia. there is an incredible

misperception that the thing jackson that nick, terminating the application to russia is a gift to russia. it is nothing of the kind. that is why we are -- fought so hard to get the deal we did and it is only a gift to our farmers, industry and workers. it is no gift to russia at this point. may have been before in a different scenario, some people argue we should lift jackson vannik first. and we are in a different world now. i hope we can have some discussion. i jump to your second question before your first. let me see two word about the first and then the next two and let's get to questions. >> in terms of what the election in russia means to the reset, i want to start very cryptically.

140 characters as opposed to my usual 50 minutes at stanford. and remind you of the theory behind the policy was about. and remind you where we are when we started this policy. when the president first match in 2009 there was a phrase in u.s.-russian relations and time to end that threat and the reason he wanted to end the draft was not to have better relations with russia, not to have happy relations, not the kind of. stuff. but as he looked out at the from lines we were addressing as we came into office, i think

afghanistan and iran and the start treaty ending and north korea and the wto, we looked at those issues and why was this not in our mutual interests? we gave a bunch of explanations why we hadn't reached agreement on a whole set of issues and his idea was with more engagement of the government. at the highest level, moving him personally and second, across the government which is why bilateral presidential commission, we would have a better chance of realizing win/win out comes as the president use that phrase that every now and again we were communicating with him. that was the first idea. engagement as a means to an end, not the other way around. very important ones as we engage with the russian government we were going to try to increasing agents with russian society in

parallel to that. we meant engagement of russian government, american government officials in a civil society as we practiced from the beginning including president obama was in moscow as well as trying to create more connectivity between our civil society and russian civil society. we call does dual track engagement. we do both these things at the same time. third, we rejected approachs from the russian government from our side too. we rejected the concept that in order to get a s.t.a.r.t. 3d we are going to not cooperate with our partners in jordan. we rejected the idea that in order to get the sanctions on iran, 1929, most comprehensive sanctions ever passed in the u. n. security council. we rejected the notion that to do that we will check our values

at the door and we are not going to talk about human rights abuses or problems we see in russia. our view of the reset is it achieves results that good for the economy and we are proud of the achievements. no. distribution network -- no. --northern distribution network is up over the supply to the troops. that number goes up, not down. that is good for american national interests. the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is a good thing. to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and from our point of view to continue to have inspections and transparency that goes with that helps to keep us in a stable relationship with russia when it comes alarm in nuclear arsenals.

iran. we started in a creative way and a cooperative way to make offers to iran about a way out of this impact and together with the russians and the french did some creative things to change that dynamic. tehran rejected us. we put together creative -- they rejected us and after that rejection they rejected russia as well as the united states and we cooperated with russia. as i mentioned to pass you and security council resolution 1929. after that canceled the s 300 contract and sent tens of millions of dollars back to iran which was paid as a down payment for that military system. the 123 agreement. north korea wto. less tension between russia and its neighbors. that is controversial but if you look at where we were in the

beginning of the administration and where we are now there is less tension across the board. the idea that we had anything to do with that is more complicated the we have been involved in that whether it is with georgia or the baltic states or other countries in europe. we have been engaged with the russians on that. if i had more time i will point to the web site. everyday we are doing things that we think are good for the national security whether it is a new visa agreement, nuclear security summit pittsburgh coming up in seoul or business deals traded at the highest level, last year should be a lot more. we're going to get to that when we get to the second question. the fort rocks deal we were talking about. fantastical operation between private-sector russian private sector and the california government to restored an

important part in california. in other words there's a lot more going on as a result of this strategy that we have done. now the challenges are real. syria. we have a fundamental disagreement. we have been working for a long time. and we are not closer. and missile defense is another one and disagreements about the pace of political change in russia but the three big issues today that are front and center in terms of challenges in u.s./russia relations. what we would argue is the way to deal with all three of them is not disengagement or return to containment or somehow have that away from our general strategy. we would say that even on tough issues like syria, better to find common space even if it

means we have to would just. that is what secretary clinton was doing in new york. i should remind you, not let our policy for syria and other places be defined in terms of what we're doing cooperative lee with russia. that is a big misconception i hear sometimes. we don't get a security council resolution on syria then we are not doing anything else and that is not true. we have a very comprehensive policy of which one of the areas we are working with is to have cooperation of the international community at the u.n. security council and elsewhere. second, i already made it clear i don't want to go into the ncr but at this stage this is a no-brainer. the economic interests are obvious. you all should read the draft

report. senator baucus has read it. i won't go into the argument in the interests of time. my colleagues in usdr brought a bunch of fact sheet that show why this is good for the american economy. pick them up there or go to their web site. the argument is simply on the economic side. don't forget the negative consequences of holding on to jackson vanik. if we do that we will be a non application. we will be the ones on the outside with everybody else. adhering to the wto rules and the russian government made it very clear that they are not going to give a special privilege just because we haven't worked out our jackson vanik legislation. there is hope for that but we will still get the trt report.

they like the so much because of what we did to get them into the wto. we pulled them in to do a lot of those things. it was a very difficult set of negotiations so there are some forces in russia that would be really delighted to see those markets go to other countries. to me this is on the economics, straight up no-brainer. others argue we need is for democracy and human rights. our answer is of following. an argument about the diagnostics. russia is not more democratic than you think. we will just agree. where we disagree is with the prescription. we don't believe holding on to

jackson vanik in any way advances the cause -- what is the cause for relationship? there is no causal relationship. on the contrary we believe we should work with congress to do other things, in parallel. not this kind of linkage but in parallel to do things to help advance rule of law and advance accountable government and strengthen civil society in russia. we proposed to the u.s. congress to create a new civil society fund for russia. we proposed $50 million in a neutral way in terms of new money. that is what i hear in moscow. when you talk to real human rights organizations and what they really need they need that kind of support which does not exist from russian forces to concrete ideas being held up by congress right now. if you want to do something constructive, that is an area

where we should be focusing our attention. not this weird linkage like holding jackson vanik is going to make russia a more democratic or is going to help us with syria. there's no relationship. if you don't believe me, after -- asked neval. made the argument as emphatic as you could want. you will be seeing more and more organizations in russia trying to explain to us that you are not helping them by holding on to jackson vanik. even in a more sophisticated discussion if we had time there was a work on rule of law and transparency international, the great people in moscow that work at that place. they argue forcefully that wto constrains bad behavior from their government and if you are interested in fighting corruption that is a good thing,

not a bad thing. don't get me wrong. it is not a silver bullet. it won't solve everything overnight but our argument is we need to use everything we can to fight corruption, to help open up society and constrain bad nonmarket behavior. we think joining the wto and being inside as the wto member that has most-favored-nation status gives us more leverage to be at the table than on the outside. finally you mentioned magnificent. let me just remind everybody we took very seriously what happened. i personally met with his mother. we met with people who worked with him. met many times with bill browder who he was working for at the time and senator cardin.

we met on wednesday. we agree that the gross human rights offenders should not have the opportunity to travel to the united states. we agree. and we agree so much we have already taken action. we have taken those actions with the obama administration. it was in parallel -- not exactly a sequence. we did last august, the president signed a new executive order to give the executive branch more authority to make those decisions about gross human-rights violations. universally by the way. we believe it should not be just a russia specific thing that universal principle. that is the executive order the president signed and we have taken that action. we have taken action -- we agree and have taken action. we like what we are doi