million which was the president's request. we have got to have enough money in here to be able to enforce the money that came out of dodd-frank. we have seen a rise of international oil prices of $17 a barrel and u.s. gas prices have risen by $50 a gallon. profits exceeded $1 trillion over the last decade. this bill would need about 1% of their overall profits for the next decade. and so we're getting the money from the people who are making the money and it's going to go to enforce the cftc to make sure that we can enforce it. just real quickly, before i yield to the ranking member, this funding level of 308 million will curb excessive speculation. this is what the cftc commissioner said recently, you current turn on the televisionor

or radio without hearing about record high gas prices and yet the cftc has not been able to put limits on excessive speculation and oil and other commodities. to wall street trade groups and the securities industry and markets association, the federal souths seek an injunction against the rule. i know a lot of my friends on the other side don't like any regulation at all. but if we don't keep an eye on these fellas, we're going to continue to get the speculation and high gas prices and this is coming from the 1% who have made a million dollars over the last decade. >> thank you for offering this amendment because i think we're all focussed on trying to bring down oil and gas prices, gas prices at the pump, and the reality is, the cftc as the

gentleman says, has been trying to put in place, rules that prevent market manipulation, trying to use the authority under the wall street reform bill to say that you can't try and corner the market and simply belt on the price going up when you're not a bona fide hedger. has not got a stake in hedgings your risks. let's empower the cftc, let's give it the i want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. there are not a lot of things you can do in the short-term, in the short-term to try and reduce the price of gas. this is one of those things you can do by sending the signal that we're going to put an end

to the excessive speculation that's driving up the price through the activities in the futures market. so i urge adoption of this amendment. >> i thank the gentleman and -- yeah, yield back. >> the balance of this initial allocation of time. >> you'll get a whole minute. >> all right. >> now yield five minutes to mr. langford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's one of those areas where we can really see the philosophical differences on the high gas prices is increasing the taxes on the oil and the gas. and by increasing the regulations, so if we only have more regulations and more taxes, the price will come down. then i would like to yield a minute and a half to ms. coal. >> it always amazing me when my friends from the other decry

high gasoline prices and then propose policies that will achieve precisely those objectives. you raise taxes on any oil company or gas company, guess what, it gets added to the price, you're going to see it at the pump almost immediately. and the idea that we should frankly by raising taxes discourage people from drilling here is an enormous mistake. the oil industry is a great employer this this country. not just in the traditional energy stakes, but in a lot of places that in the past we didn't think of as energy states. it simply weren't there. so this is an easy recipe that will frankly increase the cost of gasoline that will cost american jobs and that will slow down the economic recovery. i would just ask my friends to rethink their position on that. and also, to stop vilifying an

industry where the capital investment rates are extraordinarily high. if you actually look at the profit rates for the oil companies they're in line for the rest of american industry and quite modest compared to high-tech companies like apple or microsoft. so, again, well intentioned, but i think counter productive proposal. yield back. >> with that i recognize mr. flores. >> we have vilified the oil companies on the other side of the aisle for decades. and it seems like we have decided to turn the heat up to a very interesting level. i mean i have already pointed out that apple makes four times as much money on this as major oil companies make on equivalent dollar amount of oil. and i'm the last one to propose that apple is making too much money. but let's assume for a minute that they r we use your logic that you don't like people to make too much money, so therefore you ought to tax them.

why don't we tax them at 100% of all their profits, and then entertainmenat the same time, convince them to produce more of these products at a lower cost. in texas, that dog doesn't hunt. you can't produce more with less at a cheaper price. exxon's tax rate is about 42%. apple's is about 24%. last year exxon paid about 42 billion zlin taxes. and that was more than apple had of rev revenues, why do we say that these folks aren't paying their fair share. i'm not trying to defend them, but their profits are what are used to reinvest into their business and to create jobs. now why do we want to kill the

businesses that create jobs? look, if you want to reduce the deficit, why don't we quit wasting money on abound and fis ker and interone. so far the green energy projects that we are spending money on have wasted $1.6 billion of taxpayer money. and these are just some of the early stage investments. as we continue to go, we're going to continue to see greater and greater losses in this area. why don't we focus on things that government shouldn't be doing. why don't we -- if you want to have lower gas prices, instead of attacking the speculators, approve the keystone pipeline, why don't you approve more offshore leases, why don't you approve more offshore -- why don't you quilt having 11 federal agencies investigate fracking. instead of changing the goal

post every time you get a chance. with that i better yield back. >> the manufacturing tax credit was a wide bipartisan support, including some of the democrat members of this committee voted for that. it's 9% for every other manufacturer, except for oil which is at 6%. they're already hit in some of these same areas. we want to keep jobs here, the states with the lower unemployment rates, they're going to be energy produging states, with that i yield back. >> gentleman's recognizing four minutes to close. >> you guys are acting like what we want to take every dollar that they make so that we can have cops on the beat to chase down the speculators. not one of -- and the businesses are willing to pay a little bit to the local community to have cops on the beat.

now it's not their oil either, it's our oil that they are taking out. 1%, this is not a big -- all of these issues that we talk about are being affected. 1%, i mean we can't get you to put tax in there. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i don't got ten seconds. >> now you got seven. >> and counting. >> you have six more seconds. >> i may ask for my five minutes back if they keep it up. let me just make one more point, mr. chairman, the bottom line is this, the small percent that they would be asked to pay, and you guys say would be pushed off on the gas prices, would have a negligible effect of gas prices

that would come down because there would be cops on the beat and wouldn't be speculation. but certainly for your constitue constituents, yield back. >> the question is agreeing to the amendment offered by the amendment by the gentleman from ohio. those opposed say aye, those opposed say no. being the chair, the nos have it. >> mr. garr rhett. mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert, no. mr. akin. mr. cole, no. mr. price, no. mr. mcclintock no. mr. stutzman, no. mr. langford, no. ms. black. ms. black, no. mr. ribl.

mr. flores no. mr. mulvany, mr. huls camp no, mr. young, mr. young, no. mr. amash. mr. amash. no. mr. akita. mr. ginta, no. mr. van hole land. mr. van holland. ms. schwartz, no. mr. doggett, aye. mr. yarmith aye. mr. honda aye, mr. wright a.

mr. ryan aye. ms. waszman schultz. mr. schuler aye. ms. bass aye. mr. chairman. mr. chairman no. >> any others looking to vote or to change their vote. if no, the clerk shall report. on. >> on that vote the ryes -- >> the amendment is not agreed to. i now yield to ms. bonamiche. >> an amendment offered by ms. bonamiche relating to wall street. >> thank you. i'm proud to offer this -- >> do you want to do the 15 or the 10? >> can i have 12 and a half?

>> we have been watching this health budget committee mark up of the republican budget plan for much of the day here on cspan 3. our coverage is now moving to cspan 2. and you can also see out online on cspan.org. >> we do this in part by put -- coming up on cspan 3, british prime minister david cameron faces questions from parliament during prime minister's question. that's followed business the british prime minister with the presentation of the annual government budget. and later, libya's prime minister talks about his country's transition to democracy. >> the genetic scientist that finally nailed down a rough date describes tinderboxes and wet moss. most of the world is wet moss. in most parts of the world, there's not that much hiv, and

in some places it's a ton and it's incredibly destructive. it's understanding that these two sort of categories exist and allows you to think, okay, what are those factors that keep this virus moving and what can we do as a world to end it. >> and afterwards, part of a book tv weekend on cspan 2. >> back from his recent visit to the u.s., british prime minister david cameron, returns to the house of commons for the prime minister's questions. the top picks, including the 2014 timetable for withdrawing from afghanistan. compensation for small business owners who lost their properties in last year's riots and the economy. after the half-hour question period the chancellor george osborne will present the british

government's annual budget. >> mr. mark menses. question number one, mr. speaker. thank you mr. speaker. this morning, i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house i shall have further such meetings later today. >> thank you mr. speaker, small business concerns, does the prime minister agree with me that example should be set from the very top and that those who throw the pitfall match and sets a very bad example indeed. my old friend duds make an important point, we do have a problem of a culture. the problem can sometimes go to the very top. the leader of the opposition was present to be addressing a health rally, call the sicky and three hours later it was a helpful match.

and i think the question is, as well as knowing the miracle cure, i think there is an important question which was what was it that first attracted him to the multimillionaire owner of the football club. >> mr. speaker. following the prime minister's recent trip to washington, we now know that the timetable for the withdrawal of british and the withdrawal of british come pat forces in afghanistan, the prime minister previously set out a timetable to withdraw british troops by 2014. an accelerated timetable for their troops, can the prime minister confirm the british governor's commission going into that summit. >> let me take this opportunity on behalf of the whole house to

once again pay tribute to the magnificent job that our troops do in afghanistan. in terms of the program of withdrawal, what i have said absolutely stands which is that we will not be in a combat role in afghanistan after 2014, for will we have anything like the number of troops that we have now. we will be performing a training task, particularly helping with the officer training academy. between now and 2014, it's important that we have a sensible profile for the reduction in troop numbers that should be largely based on the conditions in terms of the three parts of helmand province that we're still responsible for and the transition that takes place. what i discussed with president depalma in america, is that making sure in 2030, that if there are opportunities to change the nature of the mission and be more in support rather than a direct combat role. we can make further issues about that.

>> i know he will keep the house informed of any change in the british position and indeed the precise timetable and any evolution of that. i'm sure he also agreed in the wake of the tragic killing of afghanistan civilians last week, that is something we all abhor, we must carry out with our mission in sterms of making sure

that we work with the after gangs, as i said, the key is making sure that we transition in the three parts of helmand that we're responsible for and that we hand over to afghan troops and that they're in the lead as soon as they are capable of fulfilling that task. i don't have any concerns about the moment about the ---british troops are able to carry out the tasks that think are allotted. we're making good afghans about that transition, but transition is a process and we should be, as the chance lore will be explaining in a moment or two. >> mr. speaker, i notice that the dialogue with president

karzai and his interests particularly in the light of the comments that were made. a few days ago the taliban made the decision to suspend -- can the prime minister tell the house what the significance of this is? and does he agree with me me that we owe it to our troops serves in afghanistan that we need to be much more -- >> i thank you for that question. it's vital that we get this right. and to be fair to the last government, the last government took this view as well. the british position as always been that we need to have a political settlement in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the people of afghanistan. britain has been pushing for political -- and a very productive talks with president obama last week because the american view is now the same. they want to support that

political process. of course the taliban has said what they said last week. and i would just make this point. we are committed to handing over to the afghan government, the afghan military, the afghan police and the numbers of afghan military and police are on track. we're submitted to doing that at tend of 2014. we believe that can happen even without a settlement. but clearly it would be better for everyone concerned if it was accompanied by a political settlement. now the work for that including setting a taliban office in qatar. but the taliban but if they don't take those steps, we'll continue to defeat them on the battlefield every time they raise their head. >> mr. simon heart.

>> i know that the prime minister will agree that the air ambulance is a fantastic charity, which enjoys support across a whole house. a particular air ambulance needs to raise 5 million pounds a year. first of all, let me join my on rabble friend in paying tribute to the air ambulance center. they do a terrific job in spongding to emergencies and saving many, many lives. we are increasing the amount that charities are able to trade on. i think that will be a significant help to great charities like the ones he mentioned. >> when the disability minister came to wales last week, it is

for them to -- i think when she said others, she meant you, prime minister. and as you know the welch government has already said it's committed to supporting the railroad workers. for the welch factories for the next three years, in order to s ensure that all those factories that can have a future do have a future. >> i will look careful the proposal that's put forward. what i would say is whether this measure is reserveded or divulged it doesn't mean that you have to take make difficult decisions. the outcome she proposed is supported by men cap, mine, disability wales.

and the center for medical mental health, government funding allows for half a billion pounds over five years for employ, but even that isn't enough to keep those fact fridays open and the reason for that is while access to work awards are around 2,900 pounds per disabled person, the cost of each job is around 25,000 pounds per person, so if the aim of policy is to use the money that we have to support people in to work you can understand why the work did -- >> thank you mr. speaker, the last week has seen the start -- british manufacturing which is in stark contrast of the the investment made of it.

>> i think excel elect news for british manufacturing and for british car making and the good news is that what's happening in the car industry is not confined to jaguar land rover if you look at nissan, if you look at honda, that's very good news for british manufacturing. >> thank you mr. speaker, on the bus to the commons today, i foolishly revealed to a fellow passenger that i was a member of parliament. after some light hearted and customary abuse, our conversation turned to like the universe and commuting. so can the prime minister tell me and the manage on omnibus, that journey cost me 90 pence, and how much did ty cost me tod?

>> the point i would make is that ten, twice promised to freeze fairs and twice didn't deliver. but the difference between boris and ken is that boris pays his taxes and ken doesn't. >> order. jane ellison. >> on that very subject, i look forward in the budget later, but would the prime minister agree with me that people seeking high office in public life should set a better example? >> i think the ordinary makes an important point. he said that if he's elect eed mayor of london, he will pay his taxes. it's not for me to hanged out political advice, but my advice would be to pay them before the campaign gets going. jon cryer. thank you regional pay would set

hospital against hospital and school against does -- the prime minister recognize that this would pit hospital against hospital and school against school. unless he can give it a guarantee here today, a promise, that if he introduces original pay, it will bring down the overall bill. >> is the last government introduced local pay into the court service. so the idea of looking at local pay for some public services is not some alien concept, it's a perfectly sensible thing to look at. and i also have to say, that his front bench suggested that we look at local level benefits in a debate about the benefits. surely he should be in favor rather than against. >> mr. richard drax. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 6 i'm sure the prime minister

shares with me and praises the search and rescue helicopter service around our country. does he share my concern that the loss of the portland search and rescue helicopter in 2017 will threaten the lives of my constituents and damage the se rescue service on the south coast. >> i totally agree with ye manage that a reliable search and rescue service is absolutely vital, we have looked at keeping the seeking hek ining ey wouldne the services as the helicopters, that's why we're planning the changes ander flyi times and a more reliable service. >> mr. speaker, following last year's riots, the speaker came to the house and said we will

help you repair the damage. last week a report by the metropolitan police revealed the uninsured to make claims around the right damages act. only about half have been settled since last august. does the prime minister agree with me that this is just not good enough. >> there have been damages. we introduced a number of extra funds. and i think those funds have paid out damages act is right in a way to have this piece of legislation, although it is quite out of date, but it does take time to make those payments and i'll certain do what i can to chase them up. >> i do say to the prime minister that we're eight months from the riots. the deputy prime minister hosted a reception, i think the gentlemen opposite should listen to this very important issue about the riots.