today and this is the source document problem. it is easy to understand this. . . @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somebody had gone into the department of motor vehicles, and presented the social security cards, and this is something that somebody had just made up in the virgin islands in his name. kevin tried to cure that

problem from a long distance, and he finally moved to florida, and he has for a driver's license, and they said that he could not have a driver's license. there had to be more paperwork and a year later, he was wanted by the police for committing speeding tickets, unregistered vehicle violations, and he was at risk of being pulled over and taken to jail because of a bad birth certificate that was accepted by the department of motor vehicles. this is aggravating and dangerous, but this was the only beginning -- this was only the beginning of the nightmare. the man who they knew as kevin

was pulled over and came out with a semi-automatic weapon and shot down four police officers, and fled. there was an all points bulletin for him, they went to the department of motor vehicles and ask for a photograph. they said they just got a photograph from a guy who said he was this person. they put the photograph all over the state, and so now, he does not risk just going to jail if he is stumped as he is driving. you remember the react -- you can imagine the reaction of the police, if he looks like this man -- i ask him who he is, -- who he is, i did not think his

chance of surviving that encounter are very high. the police were looking for the person that they really wanted -- he was killed in a gunbattle with the police that evening. the risk to this man is astonishing. what is difficult to credit is that florida is still accepting birth certificates without doing anything to check any of the birth certificates. this is something that this would have fixed. and this deserves some credit, they have worked very hard to make certain that the documents are not easy to forge, and we should talk about the value of this.

the between having a license that is hard to forge, and the other documents, we should make birth certificates more easy to check, because if you are stopped by the police -- they will check to see if your driver's license was issued to you in that name with that identity. this would not give you passed a traffic stop, and if you bring in a birth certificate, they do not check anything. what we should be working to his having the same capabilities with respect to birds of the kids that we do to driver's license today. we should be able to say, did you issue this birth certificate. that is one thing that should be fixed. the other three items i spoke about in my testimony -- nine

months to get this out, i do not think this is possible. this would take 10 months even if the department of homeland security could do this -- i did nothing that she can do this but i appreciate her confidence. this committee should try to see that there is some form of insurance if they miss the deadline, provisions of the real idea that are equivalent that are in effect. the other issues -- i believe that they were creating a litigation magna with a statutory right to fly without identification. there is no need for that in the current situation, and expanding the security funding -- this is something that -- making this a

priority, especially for the driver's license, is particularly important. >> state funding comes from all taxpayers and they should benefit all of the taxpayers. drivers security should be the focus of homeland security. i ask you to use this as a priority for the funding. >> that was a compelling story. what you say is that -- we should be investing federal money in the national data base system? this system is just beginning to come together, and they will contribute. >> we should spend money on that, i knew nothing this is the

central database. i think it should be possible to inquire -- it should be possible to understand this -- when exposed to the kit was issued -- and the cost of that for this activity is a few million dollars, and this is a couple million dollars per state, to clean up the database. the guess is that this can be done for $75 million over two or three years. >> that is very helpful. thank you for being here. he is the sheriff of los angeles county, testifying on behalf of the national sheriffs association, which has given us the endorsement. he leads the largest shares

department in the nation, with over 18,000 officers and staff. i thank you for going to the trouble of coming across the country and we thank you for your testimony. >> thank you, i am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you to express the association's identified by mr. lieberman, in support of this. as the witnesses have addressed the problems and challenges associated with the implementation my testimony will focus on the need for a national standard for identification and security, from a local law enforcement perspective, so that we can integrate what we are

doing to make certain that this is secure. hopefully my testimony will strengthen the arguments of the secretary and gov. douglas. we recognize that the proposal for a national standard for identification and security has been contentious, but we believe that this adequately addresses the cost and the privacy decisions to protect the citizens that it will serve. nothing will ever be perfect, but from the law enforcement perspective as this -- prospective this gives us confidence that what we are looking at -- that this is the reality of the commission request and the recommendation. if someone says, this is who i am. i will provide a driver's license -- and this is who they

are. this is one more tool for public safety. this is designed to make it much more difficult for the terrorists and the criminals and the illegal aliens to use this identification. i would like to close with a few points. as you have stated well, the commission is concerned that the different standards for the states can be exploited in receiving identification documents. we recommend national standards, and this provides a cost-effective and common-sense solution, that will balance the critical security requirements with the input and the practical needs of the individual states.

this provides flexibility to the states for implementing the security requirements. there are also the source identification documents and the federal data base. this requires the states to develop a procedure to prevent the unauthorized sharing of personal identifiable information and mandates public notice of privacy policies, or individuals who believe that their personal information should be amended. this restricts the use of personal information in a bar code. to purposes in support of state and local law, to prevent social security numbers in the bar

code. and this removes the blanket requirements, for the applicant documents and attacks against the national identity data base containing all of the information, -- attacks the identity data base containing all of the information. only citizens of the united states can receive this id. what we are talking about, in conclusion, is that millions of attacks are made on people who are here to do the right thing as citizens. this system, such as a driver's license or identification, will come into the hands of millions of times a day -- come into

their hands millions of times a day. the authenticity of these documents -- thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next we have the director of federal relations at the national veterans association, and we thank you for working with our staff, to put together this and we welcome your testimony. >> thank you, happy birthday to you. since my boss, governor douglas is the chairman and he has spoken to my former boss, and the secretary spoke so eloquently about this i will be brief. i will talk about the instructions that were given by the governors. they are talking through this

issue. it is remarkable how this came together without staff, how do you have to make the state run as governors? what is unique about this position and making everything worked? we have 13 states, that say they will not participate. governors are concerned about increasing security and integrity, but also the unjust -- the investments that make sense. some of the baggage that was created by real id -- they are trying to create this. they say, let's try to find a fix. fill the 9/11 recommendation. this is where we start for everyone in this issue.

facilitate and encourage this and allow the 13 states that said they would not do this to participate. security standards are only working when people are able to do these things. it is hard to put a verification system together when the entire northwest is protesting. how do you verify the information if they are from seattle and they want to know if they should get a driver's license. and the integrity of all of these cards as they maintain the flexibility -- the states want to do more. they're happy to have the federal government setting a standard, they are going beyond this.

we see the commitments of the states and the governors to take the security standards and move beyond that because they share your interest in integrity. this will reduce the unnecessary costs. let me focus on pirate -- privacy for a moment. it is important to talk about the systems that they do not include in this context. this is a driver in the states that have said no to this. privacy is a concern that there is a data base that will threaten personal identity, and will encourage identity theft by making a database that can be hacked. this was followed by questions about whether this could be done, this mandate is not funded. and as alexander loves to say,

sending a bill to the states. there are 13 states and 11 others passed resolutions that said this is a bad idea and we will not comply. what this is designed to do is to stop this. let's solve the problem and do what we can right now. the verification increases because all the states will conduct the verification. 49 states to the solving, the other safe. what does not exist now would exist after this. there is a question that would not be required right away. these records are very difficult to implement.

but this does not simply get rid of them. it says, we will spend the time and money, to see if we can make this work, and then we will get them funded and if they are cost-effective, the governors will be using them. but can you tell me today how many of those systems, who is owning them and how they are paid for, and how they will help to protect identity. he said -- no, and he has, how do i put my people on the line and until those questions are answered i cannot do this. this is a solution to that problem, and many of the people who have participated -- no one is completely satisfied. >> thank you.

we welcome the final witness to the committee. he is the vice president and chief operating officer of the center for democracy and technology. >> thank you very much for having the hearing and asking me to testify. i would like to thank them for their leadership, and also the colleagues at the national governors' association for bringing this to a non-partisan place. i was actually on the intelligence reform committee and i think that centered collins laid out what the charge of the committee was in trying to come up with a flexible role that would protect privacy but still meeting the goals of the 9/11 commission of -- standards

for issuing best, and for getting the information on this and that is what the people at the commission were doing, making certain that we have the ability to improve the driver's license system, to be able to rely on this for the purposes of national security, but also the privacy and the flexibility. it is very clear that the civil liberties issues are very intense. we had a discussion and we now have one side that is committed to this discussion, representing one of privacy has been removed from the discussion, and have set the

discussion that we need to have privacy standards, and they did this in the rulemaking originally. they would not have the standards that they would have that under the intelligence reform bill. on the other side you have the group's and the public policy officials who would prefer to do nothing and the problems that could come with dealing with the current situation may be worse than down the road. we do not think these are the right solution. the trick is probably somewhere in the middle. this addresses the issues by protecting information as they keep the minimum standards for obtaining a license.

they could create privacy and security safeguards and we have seen that the greatest weakness of the driver's license system has for the fiscal security, from california to washington -- we have seen the cases of the workers selling a license for 2000 or $3,000, we have seen people who sent -- will sell the driver's license database to identity thieves. we should make certain that these questions are answered by the states. we're making certain that these are not weaker as we go

forward, in particular, congressman repealed the machine readable zone, and giving access to only what is necessary for legitimate law-enforcement purposes. congress should reject the technologies that can be used for identity purposes, and we will minimize the storage of copies to predict -- to protect against the fraud and theft and we look forward to working with the committee as we move forward. >> thank you as always. you have been helpful. i will ask one question, i have to leave for a meeting at an end. but the witnesses -- that will go on in my absence.

as you heard in the first panel, there were concerns about the importance of the states, the validating source documents. they have applied for a license. they basically gave two reasons why they were against this or skeptical, one of them was for privacy concerns, the other was the cost for the input of the birth certificate information. i wanted to ask you if your privacy concerns about that kind of system, or mandating that the states cooperate and provide information to one another, you

have great concerns about this, whether this could be taken care of. >> we support the idea of moving forward with the pilot, and the main reason is that the quality of the information this is a very poor quality. the date of birth was wrong on my son's birth certificate and when i went to change this, they do not change the field. every locality has a different way that they do these changes and they have for hundreds of years. if you say we will connect all of this together, i say this is fine but the cost of correcting all the information, and

standardizing the forms -- and you put security protections on top of this -- we know that there are problems -- but we have people correcting this, the identity thieves will pretend to be these people and there have been problems where people said i have to correct my record. they pretend to be somebody else as they are correcting the information. i do not think we will be able to do this in six months. >> can you give me a quick response to his comments? >> he is correct that there will be problems with respect to the problems in the database. but for 90% of the records, he will get a quick response and

you will eliminate a massive amount of fraud. we should solve the big problems first. the secondary problem can be addressed by picking up the telephone, or you see to the state, can you tell us if this person has a good birth certificate. this will allow you to take care of the press certificate and other things. this means that you have to find a way to make those adjustments. we should be so lucky to have that problem. >> thank you. >> we have talked about the issue of terrorists using driver's license.

but there are also applications for making it more difficult for counterfeiting to take place, and you talk about this in the written statement. can you talk about the benefits of more often ticket drivers licenses, to u.s. someone who is involved in this? >> yes. the authenticity of these tools in this case -- the identity theft is a major problem and right now, many people are vulnerable in the data base out there, in the internet world, that are connected to people with the skills to access the information. there has to be some time when

there is a reliable information of sorts, the volume of what people are afraid of, is that the id would be stolen as was given by the example of mr. baker. so we and the federal partners are very wrapped up on identity theft, without enough resources to chase down everyone who is involved. this is an end to it -- this is an international problem as well as a national problem. along with the shares committee members -- we want to see the value of this, not just for the

prevention of terrorism, but for the purpose of preventing all forms of crime where this is easily acquired, even if they loose the it -- the driver's license. my driver's license and my credit-card was taken and within one hour, they were trying to purchase products from a store. the person had my driver's license but would not produce it because they did not look like me. this is a far more reaching solution to a problem before 9/11. >> this is the important thing

that he said as well -- mr. baker said as well. i appreciate the very constructive approach that you have taken to these negotiations. there is a part of the bill that i like to get your thoughts on. this criminalizes the act of scanning the information on the driver's license machine, it says that this would be a crime to send the information to store the information, to a third party. i do not understand what this provision is trying to get that, they are trying to curb the unauthorized use of this private information. some business organizations,

including the national retail association have expressed a concern that -- they point to an earlier version of the bill, that would allow the use of the language to prevent the original -- activity or fraud. they have given us an example of a business that uses the information to identify it -- identify someone who is returning merchandise at different locations in order to commit fraud. what is the concern about adding an exception if the information is used to prevent fraud or other illegal activities? this was in an earlier version.

>> this is very important for us, when many people give the license to someone they want, they are also doing this behind the scenes. we're looking at how broad the exemption as. there is a lot of concern over the issue. we had concerns over this provision as well. this tells you about how this may be used down the road. they say that they are swapping information, to get the age of individuals, but use the same information to give this to tobacco companies to find

students at local colleges. this happened in oklahoma last year. we know that people think this is used for another purpose but this is used for many purposes. we are ok with this and we say -- this is the same card that we saw over here. all you have to do is put in the information about the individual, they may be able to populate that at this time. we're not talking about the swiping of the car. the question is about using this to populate the information for multiple purposes. >> thank you -- i am not certain who is the chair, maybe

i should tell you, thank you instead of recognizing you for your questions. >> thank you very much. as you may have heard in the first panel, i asked about the use of grant funding, you expressed concerns about the priority of id security and requested that this include language to say the grants to improve the driver's license -- these are higher priority than other state projects. would you recommend that the federal government require the states to comply with this before they can use the funding for priorities like first responders or preparing for

disasters? >> we all recognize that one of the biggest concerns is that they are asked to spend money they do not have. there has never been a good cost estimate, this is not clear with the security for the driver's license. the federal government is sending a billion dollars to the states, to improve homeland security. this is a federal responsibility, since we want to improve the security, and a statement to use the taxpayer money from all over the country to use this for things that will benefit the country. a birth certificate issued in the virgin islands is good in florida. we should ask them to improved

the security of all americans with the homeland security funding. it is not right to say that you cannot spend money on any bank into the fix everything about the driver's license security but this should be a top priority and the states should have to spend some of their money on this until they can say, we are there and the homeland security department is in agreement. >> i have a question relating to the electronic data base that is required. and this is slowly being implemented by a handful of states. i am interested in the electronics verification of the vital records -- as i understand

this, some states use the system to help verify a birth certificate, and disinformation. but only a few states have brought in the birth records, included in the system. can you speak to the status of the use of this, and whether this is feasible for them to use this on a widespread basis, to verify a birth certificate in the near term? >> thank you for your question and your leadership on this issue and your staff has been tremendous in putting groups together to find a solution. i know that the organization that is running that system has released a statement, about 15

states participate in this and only three of them are currently using the system. only three currently use this system. one organization believes that 85% of the birth records are in an electronic form. i want to see verification of this. i know that many states have great difficulty in transporting the old records into an electronic form to make this consistent and usable, this is not what we want to do at the end of the day. there was once date moving the license to another standard and we had to improve this at the united states. we had to see this for the birth

certificate issue. those people who are in the united states legally, they have no problem showing that they are present. the people who are showing -- having trouble showing that she is a resident of the united states had a birth record in the family bible in the house that burned down. the states spend their time with these citizens -- than those who serve the records. creating the data base -- this is not an easy task. this will have to be done in a meaningful way. this is not about whether we should do this, i would say that this is there and we will use this, but i want to know about the privacy protection and the

accuracy, we believe that they may have 95% accuracy. one out of every 10 people is going to get a false reading, that means that there will be a delay, another trip to the department of motor vehicles. people who live in the same city for their entire life, but this system may not be 100% reliable. let's get this up and running and try to solve the questions. if you build this right, we will come, and if you build this right, the states will come along. we do not have to rush this to meet the standards. >> thank you. >> he testified that all of

these are in paper form, this could probably be digitize, and they could search for this, for $100 million. or $2 million per state. for the money to get this activated in all states, what is the basis of this estimate? >> this is coming from the estimates that we have received when i was in government, based on the experience of the states that had digital records, and the project that is administering the data base.

>> there are some states that have protested this, passing legislation for compliance -- and others that have invested money and effort, taking steps to compliance, vermont is one such state. if this past, and we have new regulations, with their big concern that the investments from the states who want to comply with the law would be for nothing or do you consider that this bill is sufficiently similar to the current law and those investments would still be put to good use? >> this is an excellent

question. because this builds on the strength of real id, and so many states have to me -- so many of the things that the states will have to meet by the end of the year -- they are part of this. this will happen when the investments have been made. these investments are actually under used. it is interesting that in some states, some of those governors have said, i want to invest in a secure license. these are fairly close to the benchmarks. this gives everyone who protested what they do not like to see if this makes more sense, and if the investments

can help them down the road. >> i have noticed this when i look at the individual states, some of the states that protest this -- they are close to the compliance and have reached material compliance, but they did not want washington to tell them how. they may have been resentful of the financial burden. does every state currently have a requirement for the legal presence? >> i believe that we are almost there. there were about 10 states without this and most of them have moved but there may be one

less that does not have this requirement. >> do any panelists have the answer to this question? >> i believe -- i believe that new mexico and hawaii have not gone to this. >> this is something that we will check with the department for, for the record. the state of maine -- the governor repealed the requirement for the showing of legal presence. i am sympathetic to the situation that he described, because we have had situations because of the close association with canada, and great love -- great-grandmother came from

canada, married an american, she thought this made her a citizen. but does not have proof of her being born just across the border in new brunswick. this may be a difficult issue. a requirement is extremely important and we should not be giving a driver's license to people who are here illegally, but it does get more complex. let me ask one final question. i want to go back to this issue because i am troubled by creating the loophole on how this will work, in the real-life application. in addition to creating a possibility for endless litigation, my concern is that

the security officials are increasingly being trained in behavioral recognition techniques, that the israeli government has been using for airport security for decades and very successfully. the individual may present himself at the airport without the compliance identification and go through a secondary screening, and there are no red flags, he is not on the terrorist watch list, he does not carry any thing that is contraband, but through the training of the security guards, in behavior of recognition, they may believe that this individual is posing a flight risk, under the provisions of this legislation.

with the prohibition against denying the individual access to the airplane because he does not have the id. the believe that the guard would not have grounds to deny access to the airplane? >> we know that there is a good choice -- a good chance that the capitol building a standing because the 20 a hijacker was turned away, because the official said he was giving me a creepy feeling. people should be allowed to use their judgment and this is critical. we look for terrorists, not just for weapons. and i predict that once we write this into law, people will say,

i miss my flight. i was answering your questions. i did not have an id. by the same token, the courts will say, we have to make certain that they are not just making up a feeling to deny him because he did not have the id. we will have to look into the reasoning, some reasons are good enough and some are not. you cannot overestimate the impact on the relatively low paid employee, to have a federal judge telling him he did his job wrong. all those things are going to affect the kind of surge that we want. >> i want to make it clear, i am not talking about irrational

prejudice -- i am talking about a trained security guard, using the specific technique that has been used in israel for many years, which is being used today, in some airports, logan in boston is one of them that is using this technique. this is a trained assessment and my concern is that they think the burden of proof is shifting from the individual who is at the airport who has to prove that he is who he says he has, to the security guard to show that he is not the person that he says that he has. this is very concerning to me. and i hope that all the members of this panel, they will work

further with us to sort out this issue. this is the reason i did not join as a co-sponsor of the bill. i felt this strongly, that this was undermining the security and the purpose of having the secure identification. i do look forward to working with the panel, to working with the sponsor of the bill, and i thank you for your leadership and i want to thank the panel, i know that if joe lieberman were here, he would say the hearing record will remain open for another 15 days, for the submission of questions, i will turn it over to you, and thank you for your leadership, and i want to thank the witnesses to

date. >> i want to thank the ranking member, she has provided -- great leadership in this area, thinking into some of the issues that we have been facing. she has been so helpful in doing this. i have a few questions here -- his testimony suggests that this act will increase privacy protections. and that the bp of this -- this will lead to more cases of identity theft. over the years, we have seen the oversight, there has been an advocate for the additional

privacy protections. in real id and other government issues. can you address the contention that real idea -- real idea actually protect privacy -- real in the -- in the -- in the i --d -- id improves privacy. >> you can see this in the record, with the nose for the proposals. you can look at the foot note that says that they cannot have privacy controls into the law, into the regulation because the law removed the security protections, particularly in

the security act. they say they will protect security and tried to use this for personal protection. they have these privacy protections built in and it was clear, that we were moving in the direction of coming to the balance, but when this came this overturned that committee, from their work, and it took as many steps away from privacy protection. i think that the licensed reform would protect privacy, this is true. there are some groups that are more skeptical of this reform than others, we feel the need for a license reform is important, we would like to use

this for the negotiated rulemaking, so that is why we support these provisions. but the idea that this would be better than the other solutions -- i think that this is false based on what has been written about by the department of homeland security. >> i would like to ask you about this important issue, that was magnified by the enactment of this. this is about how to protect the information on the machine readable zone of the driver's license and the id cards. we have been an advocate for

additional protections for this information. this is put into a common machine that is readable, and i understand that there was a limit on the ability to store the electronic data. they may be affected by fraud or in the theft prevention. >> i spoke about this earlier, in response to the question about the exemption. to take this a step further, we should talk about what is allowed. you are allowed to take the license and swipe this, and do a comparison to make certain that this is a real driver's license issued by the state, they can see that the information is in the data base, to see that this

is the same person. but they cannot take this information and put this in the data base. this represents the concern, especially if we know that we have the ability to put more information into the machine. we can say that most of the state's only have the information that is on the front of the card, in the future this will not be the case. we may not have the opportunity to discuss the security, we are looking into the future and we say that as we look for more information we will make certain that this information is secure. this information is of more concern because you cannot see what is in the zone. you know that they are only

using this information as a protection to say, if the person is wiping the car they can only read the information on the front of the card. and there is also the security threat of turning over more information. he used to be the cio. he put up a number of measures to make certain that these workers are checking against the data base. this was the security and the privacy protection that was put in place, this should go into effect for other people who may want to use the driver's license. >> thank you for that.

your testimony says that this would return us to the standards of before 9/11. .

and everybody who has a stake in the future of industry and i certainly believe that to be useful. >> mr. speaker, this morning, i am meeting with ministerial colleagues and others in addition to my duties, i'll have other meetings today. >> mr. john maples? >> can i ask the prime minister this. in 2006 we sent 3,000 troops in afghanistan as part of a reconstruction mission. now our objectives are to defeat terrorism and to make afghanistan a stable and effective state. and i find many of my constituents are not convinced we have a credible strategy for achieving those objectives. and i wonder if i could ask him to look again of those objectives so i can explain to people in my constituency how to judge success.

>> i have to say to them that since 2001, our objective has been to restrain and contain and defeat terrorism by acting in afghanistan and, of course, working with the pakistan government. it was true in 2001 has been given in afghanistan and they are now mainly in north pakistan now. we need to make sure terrorism cannot hit the streets of britain and that's why we can't allow taliban or al-qaeda-related activities to flourish in afghanistan and we cannot allow the pakistan government to be overrun by people who are operating through al-qaeda and the pakistan taliban. and why he can tell his constituents that things are moving forward, for the prime time we see the pakistan government taking direct action in a systemic way with the support of the population of pakistan against the taliban and against al-qaeda and pakistan

and that means that we have complementary actions in afghanistan and pakistan. >> my right honorable friend asked your predecessor, mr. speaker, to set up a speaker conference to report on how we can women and disabled people elected to this house. this morning, mr. speaker, the conference has published an interim report which makes proposals to increase diversity candidates standing for all the parties at the next general election as a step to restoring people's faith in the democratic process and in this house in particular. will my right honorable friend commit the equipment to put his whole heart and support behind the important rommendations in this support? and encourage the leaders of all parties in this house to do the same? >> mr. speaker i think we should support my right honorable

friend. it's to increase women disabled and black, asian minority ethic in our parliament and i will have a greater diversity in public and political life. and i think the conservative party should think because they have opposed the second reading of the equality bill in parliament. >> mr. david cameron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday, the whole country shared in the sorrow of our armed forces families as they saw their loved ones come home. we support both our troops and the reasons for being in afghanistan. but isn't there a need for an even tighter definition of our mission. we're not trying to build the perfect democracy. but we must be focused solely on building securing stability so the terrorists don't return. we've been in afghanistan for eight years now. does the prime minister agree with me if we are to maintain public support both here and vitally in afghanistan we've together show greater urgency and we've got to make more

visible progress? >> mr. speaker, first of all, i think the whole country joined with the people in a dignified way that they wanted to recognize the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. and i think we owe a huge debt of people who have to endure great tragedies, seeing them happen and welcoming back people who have died on behalf of our country. and i hope that everybody in this house, i know so, will thank them for what they did yesterday. can i say on afghanistan, that the purpose of our mission is very clear. it is to prevent terrorism coming to the streets of britain. we are complementing the military action we are taking to build up the afghan forces that is the pice and the military forces of afghanistan and we are complementing that with the economic and social development programs we're pursuing in afghanistan to give people in

afghanistan a stake in the future. and as i have said, we must work on two fronts. we must ensure that we attack terrorism in pakistan as well as defeat what is happening in afghanistan. and i hope he will understand that we increased the number of forces from 8,100 to 9,000 so that we could clear ground and make it safe for the population of many areas of afghanistan to vote in the coming general election in afghanistan and at the same time to enjoy the schools, the hospitals that are denied to them by the activities of the taliban. and i want to thank our forces who are in operation panthers claw. they have the support of the whole country. they have the resources and equipment they need. of course, we keep under review the numbers and the equipment that is needed for the future. i've said we will look again at this after we have seen the afghan election passed hopefully peacefully and democratically

and i've been talking about afghanistan's own afghanistan's own resps%b%@ @ @ @ @ @ @ h that is something that we will consider as we make our decisions about what we do after october. >> of course, the most recent focus on building up the afghan army on the coordination between afghanistan and pakistan is right. but i think it would actually help to acknowledge that some of the early objectives were slightly loftily and vague and the coordination wasn't there. i think we will take people with us for the future if actually we admit to some of the things that we got wrong in the past. let me ask some very specific questions about helicopters and afghanistan.

isn't the basic problem this? the number of helicopters we have in afghanistan is simply insufficient. will the prime minister confirm that the american marines who have approximately the same number of troops as us in helmand are supported by 100 helicopters whereas our troops are supported by fewer than 30. that is the case, isn't it? >> mr. speaker, he is right to raise issues of equipment so that i can assure him that we're doing everything that we can. i have to say that the lieutenant colonel nick richardson who is on the ground in afghanistan and said there's much speculation about helicopters and have we got enough. it's a sad fact that helicopters would not have saved the lives of the individuals last week. the commander on the ground, he said, is sufficient to get on the terrific with which he's been given. why. because we increased the number of helicopters by 60% over the

last two years. we've increased the capability of helicopters by 84%. i visited raf benson on monday to see the helicopters that will be deployed in the field by the end of the year with training of the crew being done immediately in america. look, as they move from iraq to afghanistan, i've got to explain. they're dealing with different terrain. they have got to be reequipped for the functions in afghanistan. they are dealing with heights and a different problem of temperatures and weather and the helicopters are being refitted for that purpose and the crew are having to be trained in different environments to be ready for afghanistan. we have also a helicopter budget that is going to be 6 billion over the next 10 years to improve our helicopters in the future. we are working with nato, who are providing through contracts, helicopters for the transit of equipment. and at the same time, we've created a helicopter fund that was our initiative and others of our allies are now contributing -- i think over the next period 11 helicopters to the allied effort in

afghanistan. so we have done everything that we can to increase the number of helicopters and there will be more helicopters on the ground and i do ask the conservative party to look at the statements that have been made by those people who speak for our armed forces on the ground. they have made it absolutely clear that in this particular instance while the loss of life is tragic and sad, it is not to do with helicopters. >> mr. david cameron. >> thank you. we have to be frank about the difficulties and dangers in afghanistan and one of the difficulties is a shortage of helicopters. let me take each of the prime minister's arguments in turn. he talks about the 60% increase in the number of helicopters. that is compared with three years ago when we had half as many troops. so there hasn't been a proportional increase in helicopters. even if you look at the 84% incapability, thats helicopter hours. clearly, one helicopter can only be at one place at one time. if you want to move more troops around the battlefield more quickly, you need more helicopters.

let's take the argument about nick richardson. of course, i listened with respect to the official spokesman of the army but i think the prime minister should also listen to someone like stewart tuttle who said in afghanistan in 2006 repeated demand for more helicopters fell on deaf ears. i don't know why labour mps don't want to listen to the form chief of staff. he said this. of course, they need more helicopters. if there had been more, it is likely fewer soldiers would have been killed by roadside bombs. these are important points and we should listen to them. now, let me ask the prime minister this. isn't the reason we don't have enough helicopters is we didn't plan to have enough? and when he looks back to 2004 and his decision to reduce the helicopter budget by 1.4 billion. doesn't he remember the national

audit said last year there was a considerable deficit in the availability of helicopter lift? does he now recognize that decision was a bad mistake? >> first of all, the number of troops in afghanistan has gone up from just over 7,000 to 9,000 over the last two years, the number of helicopters has gone up 60%. that is a higher percentage rise. secondly, i talked to tim radford -- well, 7,000 to 9,000 and 60% increase in helicopters, the second thing, i do hope we can conduct this debate because our troops will be looking at this debate we will. i've talked to tim radford the brigadier on the ground and he assures me his troops have what they need. what we want on the ground is additional afghanistan national forces and that is what i've been talking to president karzai about. as far as the spending program on defense is concerned, we have the longest sustainable increase on defense spending for any

period of over 20 years. and the reason is, in addition to the defense budget, 14 billion pounds has been spent on iraq and afghanistan and 4 billion of that has been spent on urgent operational for troops. and some on that helicopters and we have committed 6 billion over the next 10 years for helicopters. the helicopter fund is producing helicopters from allies as well. we have an order for more helicopters for the future. so the helicopter equipment program continues. and we worked with our allies to deliver the best services on the ground. i think we should look at this particular operation, operation panthers claw, and be absolutely clear it is not an absence of helicopters that has caused the loss of lives. we are dealing with ieds. we're dealing with devices on the ground, boé that are against -- and we have brought

in -- we have brought in since april more engineers to be able to deal with that problem. and at the same time, i want to say little the operation panthers claw is making progress despite the implication of some of these comments and is making progress and gaining ground and that is also an important aspect of this operation. and i hope we can have a cross-party consensus on what we're doing to help our armed forces. >> order, order. just before the leader of the opposition comes in can i say i'mery conscious today from the front benches we are having long questions and long answers. i want back-bench members to get in on this session. and i appeal to the front benches to take account of that fact. mr. david cameron. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is right the armed forces and their families are watching this debate. they expect responsible questions to hold the government to account and proper answers from the government. the prime minister mentions the international helicopter fund.

will he accept that so far this is 16 months ago he has not added one single helicopter. let me take one specific group of helicopters. what the public will find hard to understand is that we have 500 helicopters as a country and yet less than 30 of them in are in afghanistan. take one group specifically. why are the eight chinooks that were delivered at a great cost, why is it only one of them is ready. why hasn't there been a greater urgency. it's a legitimate question and requests a proper answer. >> the chinooks are being adapted to afghanistan. three helicopters have either arrived or are about to arrive. 11 in total have been -- 11 in total have been promised. 30 million has been put into the helicopter fund by us and others. can i just explain to him that helicopters have got to be adapted for the terrain in afghanistan. they are dealing with excess heat and with heights. our helicopter crews have got to

be trained for that particular operation in afghanistan. and the reason that we have greater capability now is we have not only more helicopters in the field, but we've also more capability as a result of more flying hours being done by helicopter pilots and more staff available and because we've readapted some of the helicopters to be able to do that. now, i think it's important to recognize that, yes, our military commanders will always want more equipment and rightly so, but yes, the chief of the defense forces has said that our armed forces are better equipped than ever before. i am not complacent. we will always be vigilant but i don't believe that this should be a subject of cross-party disagreement. i believe -- i believe -- i believe -- i believe that we are making the provision that is necessary, both for helicopters and for equipment on the ground. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one way to help settle this debate which is an important debate is the ministry of defense asked vernon gray to ask

a review of our helicopter procurement. that report is meant to be out in july. there is rumors it is being delayed and rewritten. could he make clear that this report will be published in full and unredacted before the summer? >> mr. speaker, we said last week that we are doing work related to a new defense review. we're looking, first of all, at the strategic aspects of that review and then in the next parliament there will be a full defense review. i think that is the right way to proceed, and i believe -- i believe the report will be a significant part of the review but we will start the review with a publication of what we believe are the strategic tasks ahead. >> mr. david cameron. >> there's absolutely no answer to the question about this important review. what the public wants to know is that the government has got a relentless commitment to getting this right and i have to say they look at the fact we're on our fourth defense secretary in four years. we've got defense procurement shared by two unpaid and basically part-time ministers and the secretary of state ranks

21st out of 23 in the cabinet. are the public right to ask, is the relentless activity really there? >> mr. speaker, i hoped this debate could have escaped party politics. i do believe -- i do believe this particular time we have a duty to our armed forces. now, i think it is right that i explain -- it is right that i explain to the house what equipment is available, what we're doing on helicopters, what we're doing on other equipment and what we're doing on the numbers of our armed forces. they are legitimate questions and should be answered by the government. i hope the all-party agreement on what we do in afghanistan and what we have to do to defeat afghanistan will remain in being. i hope that we will recognize in this particular exercise operation panthers claw, we are doing everything we can and will continue to do that to support our brave and courageous armed forces who are both professional and determined and will have all our support.

>> mark todd. >> will my right honorable friend reflect on the decision of the ministry of defense to appeal against the judgment which would allow hearings of cases of nuclear test veterans seeking compensation against the ministry for injury that they or their relatives may have suffered as a consequence of their exposure to nuclear explosion? >> i will, of course, look at this. but as he knows, these are legal matters. they are matters that have ended up in the courts and we've got to look very carefully at what we do. >> mr. nick klegg? >> mr. speaker, after everything that's happened over the last few months people are crying out for change. yet, we have a spectacle of a prime time busy doing nothing. he pretends to control bankers' bonuses. they rise. he pretends to want to have a serious discussion on the economic mess we're in. yet, he fiddles the figures and

yet nothing has happened. people want action. >> what's the country wants us to do is take you through this difficult world recession and that is what we're doing. the opposition parties have no policies for jobs, no policies to tackle the recession, no policies for a recovery, no policies to help homeowners or small businesses. we have the policies and we are taking people through this difficult time. >> who does the prime minister think he's kidding? huge, huge, huge executive pay packages in the banks we own. city bonuses back in action. still no action to spit out the big action. no action on electoral reform, no action on party funding and he has just recently blocked -- he just recently blocked giving people the right to sack disgraced mps. isn't this just business as usual? isn't this just business as usual?

a betrayal, a deliberate betrayal of people's demand for change? >> mr. speaker, we are bringing in the political parties bill and the constitutional reform bill, we are bringing in the bill to reform the house of commons. i do think he and the leader of the opposition should go away from the summer and think why it is that the opposition parties have no policies to deal with the recession, no policies for recovery, no policy to help us create jobs, no policies for the future of this country. and perhaps having gone back to the drawing board, they'll think again. >> ian davidson. >> in these difficult and troubled times, would the prime minister agree with me that what the country needs more than anything else is an aircraft carrier and would he agree it's necessary for the royal navy,

it's necessary for the shipyards, it's necessary for the big chunk of british industry that we do have those aircraft carriers? and can you tell me why it is that only the government and is firmly committed to building the two aircraft carriers that neither the opposition parties are so committed? >> well, we are committed to building aircraft carriers. that gives work to people in all parts of the country, including, in his constituency. we believe that they're an important part of our naval equipment for the future and the program will proceed, whatever the views of opposition parties are. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think the prime minister will be aware of the case of the young girl in my constituency who has taken into care two years ago at the age of 5 and is now being proposed for permanent adoption even though there's no suggestion of her well-being threat at home. but does the prime minister share my concern that too often these cases go through the

courts in a way that can do lasting damage to the child and the parents can't ever hope to match the resources being allocated by the local authorities? will he have a meeting with me and others so he can discuss this to ensure that the children will be paramount and parents can be assured of a fair hearings. >> it's very difficult for me to enter a discussion of an individual case. if it's essential, than i or a minister will meet him to discuss that. local authorities are unable to place a child for adoption with respective adopters without their parents consent unless they have a placement order issued by the court. now, that is the issue around which the debate that he is having about what's happening in his constituency happening in place. we tried to streamline the courts to make them far more responsive for the needs of all those concerned and those concerned. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my right honorable friend will remember the strong support we had from church organizations in this country concerning the make poverty history campaign, which

he was very much involved with. there is a campaign now by church leaders in my constituency about get fair complain concerning child poverty in this country. can i ask him to give the same commitment as he did the paycheck poverty history campaign so i can respond to my constituents? >> yes, my honorable friend was a leader in the make poverty campaign in wales. the campaign to abolish child poverty is to important that we are going to bring forward a bill that commits a government to abolish child poverty. it is very -- it is very important to recognize that 1.5 million children have been taken out of absolute poverty under this government. 800,000 children have been taken out of relative poverty. we are raising child benefit, raising child tax credits. we are creating centers in this country that the conservative party refuse to support. >> thank you, mr. speaker. across the east of england, the government's policy of moving

the assessment of the need for more gypsy and traveller sites away from local councils to a regional body is causing intense concern and threatening to disrupt community relations making them worse rather than better. would he order an urgent review of a planning policy which i'm afraid is increasingly seen as no longer even-handed? >> i believe that local authorities have passed it. i accept what he's saying that there's got to be a solution found in each region for what is happening. i shall look at -- i shall look at what he says but we've together make sure that we balance off the needs of local residents with the other responsibilities that we have as a country. >> at 2:00 a hanging plant basket will be handed into from number 10 by my right honorable friend by perfect pots, a social enterprise run by pupils at the holbrooke center for autism with

the charity hope and which shows with people with severe autism and learning disabilities can make a positive contribution and be assisted to do so to the work force in their local community not just be cared for. will he ensure it will be taken on board on support for adults with autism and the proposed national care service? >> i'm grateful to my honorable friend. the autism bill sets out our commitment on publishing a national strategy on autism but to strategy authorities and national health service and i've met members with the different charities to deal with autism. this is a problem that has gone unrecognized. the autism bill is a way to do that. and more widely we want people to receive the level of care that is necessary and that is why yesterday we published or green paper on social care. that too will make a difference to those who have autism.

>> mr. speaker, i'm sure the prime minister is right. that it takes time to equip helicopters and to trainhe crews for afghanistan but why does he go on pretending that the need has arisen. troops numbers have been rising through 8 years. troop numbers have been rising through all of that time. the demand for increased number of helicopters has gone on rising so why are they still being equipped and why are they still training the crews when the demand is there? and will he -- will he explain to the house of commons and to our -- and to our troops -- >> order, order. i'm sorry. the honorable gentleman's question is simply too long. prime minister. >> i think his question would have some validity if there hadn't been a 60% increase in the last two years. if we hadn't increased the operation capability of helicopters and are putting more helicopters in the field as soon as we can. and i have to insist with him that the terrain in afghanistan is different from iraq and that is why we've got to reequip the

helicopters with new blades as well as re-equipping, obviously, our staff to be able to deal with the servicemen to teal with the problems there. i hope that the conservative party will come to accept we are doing everything we can to equip our armed forces and that what the chief of the defense staff has said is absolutely right. despite all the difficulties, our armed forces are better equipped than ever before. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last year, i was pleased to put forward a private members bill to lower the voting age. now that the youth citizenship commission has reported, what plans does he have to show a vote of confidence in young people and lower the voting age to 16? >> well, one of the things that's happening over the summer is that the youth parliament is going to be sitting in this chamber while we're away and i believe, mr. speaker, you've made it possible for that to happen. the youth citizenship commission has reported in the last few weeks. it has looked at this issue of voting at 16. i think people want to combine

any change with the voting age with citizenship education working even more effectively in our schools and that debate which has been started by the citizenship commission be remain ready to push forward and get the opinions of young people as well as adults in the country. >> in recent days we have paid tribute to our servicemen and women in afghanistan and right honorable friend indicated earlier -- previously we did that in iraq and for 30 years before that in northern ireland. surely, now would be an appropriate time to consider some form of permanent recognition for these courageous service personnel who deserve the enduring gratitude of the entire nation. >> i think he knows there was an announcement in one respect by her majesty the queen only two weeks ago. i shall look specifically at his recommendation. >> thank you, mr. speaker. right honorable friend will be aware that this morning it was

announced they were phasing out the x type model and many will be lost. obviously, right honorable friend will agree that this is a severe low to the liverpool city region. will he give me an assurance the government will do everything that it can to secure the long-term future of it? >> mr. speaker, any redundancies and loss of jobs will be regretted. and those losing jobs will be back to work. i want to secure a future and we have offered jlr of 2 million of what our carbon land rovers at this plant. they would be produced there. so we are trying to do what we can to replace lost jobs, and i will work with him, 'cause i know he does a great deal in this area, and others in the region to make sure that jobs come to hillwood. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

>> our armed forces are fundamental to counter state-led threats. this was made clear in an update that we published last month. >> i'm relieved to hear that. before iraq and afghanistan, we were spending 2.5% of g.d.p. ensuring against potential threats in other industrial countries. as we are still spending 2.5% despite the additional cost of the counterinsurgency campaigns and including the contribution of the treasury reserve, which of these two major military roles is currently underfunded 'cause one of them must be? >> mr. speaker, i have to say to them that defense spending has continued to rise in real terms in contrast to what happened in the last years of the conservative government. i have to say also that in addition to the defense budget, we put aside 14 billion for the

campaigns in iraq and afghanistan. and i want to tell him that our budget in c

c-span[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> they did not report what people wanted them to report. there are things that have been going on that -- that did not sit well with me. this is a tight little commission that is working on many important issues. this shows us the importance of neutrality of the internet, this must be resolved. look at what happened to iran, the people in the streets of iran, and the methods by which they could communicate. if you ever wonder about the

importance of having open access, and those kinds of things, just look at what was happening in that country. the issue of internet neutrality is very important and the nondiscrimination -- this is not in place but they can fix this on their own volition. the architecture of the internet was created with rules against discrimination so anyone could visit and experience anyone anywhere else. and those rules should be reestablished. in legislation or with a new determination in the commission we would see this established. those are the areas and i came to say to the nominees that both of them will be successful on

the floor of the senate, i will be voting for both of them and i have high hopes for the performance of not only these nominees but the new chairman of the commission, and the holdover members of the commission, so thank you for allowing me to interrupt us, the end of this hearing and i wish to nominees well, and i will be voting for them on the floor of the senate. >> we want to thank you for your willingness to serve and remind members that if they have questions they should be submitting these by friday at 6:00 p.m.. thank you very much, this is adjourned. >> before anyone else walks in the door.

>> next, the u.s. house begins debate on health care legislation. the health committee finishes work on their health care bill, and then the remarks of the president about health care policy, followed by washington journal. you are watching c-span.

>> encore washington journal, we will talk with john cor -- this morning on "washington journal

leave 17 million americans uninsured. how is this possible? this keeps in place a for-profit insurance system that siphons off $400 billion that could be used to make certain that all americans receive quality health care. this will not solve the problem of under insurance. 60% of all the bankruptcy's in america are from people who cannot pay for their hospital bills, but 80% of them have insurance. they simply cannot afford the premiums. the only way to break the hold of the insurance companies is to promise this to all americans through a nonprofit health care system. >> the gentleman's time has expired, for what purpose does

the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> democrats should stop trying to spend the the results of their program. the 2 million americans who have lost their jobs since january is a sign that the recovery act has not done their job. democrats should work with republicans to put in place common-sense proposals -- common-sense proposals, and the economy will grow stronger again thanks to the individuals that create the majority of jobs, and this will not be due to the billions perpetrated by this administration. we should focus our time on small businesses and provide relief to the people who are suffering. republicans have offered a plan to do this, and we will do this

without trillions in spending, in actions like the health care tax that would destroy jobs. we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terror. >> to what purpose does the gentleman rise? without objection. >> we have a critical role in the specific details of health care reform. access to health care is what we should give to every american family across the nation. everyone should have coverage and access. everyone should have access. there is no question that we there is no question that we must have comprehensive reform critics to health care reform fail to understand the message, and doing nothing for a broken system is not the answer.

they do not understand the devastation that families will face from a trip to the emergency room. they do not understand what is faced by the family when they have a hospital bill. families must have access to health care. never again will you have coverage of the night, or lie for a job decision based on coverage. >> to what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> thank you. as it stands right now, the democratic health plan = taxpayer funded abortions. the democratic health care plan = taxpayer funded abortions. the obama health plan may be the

most massive abortion expansion since grover says wade, and every taxpayer will be forced to pay for every abortion. the taking of innocent life is not health care, and i know because i am a physician. this will be the platform for thrusting abortion into every aspect of health care in this country. the benefits advisory committee will determine the services -- an abortion will be included in the benefits unless this is excluded, and the democrats refuse to do this. this is a run on currently unfunded expenditures -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. from what purpose does the gentleman rise?

without objection. -- gentlewoman from california rise? without objection. >> we have the opportunity to bring quality of care to all americans, i am brown to support the bill by the eight committees in jurisdiction and to see them pass the legislation in the house and the senate before the recess. there is something for everyone, access to coverage for people who have never had insurance, and there are consumer protections against longstanding practices by insurance companies. there is an amazing investment into the health care work force. and there is finally an incentive to practice wellness' based health care, instead of disease treatment. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this and

enacting the health care reform that the constituents so desperately need and americans deserve. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection. >> as we debate the best way to reform the health-care system, and make certain that all americans have access to quality health care, some say that the government run option must be included. for those who are convinced that government run health care will not lead to rationing, they will vote to support the public auction and they must be

enrolled in this. they will bolt -- if they believe this will deliver the same quality of care, they should be the first in line. members of congress should stop asking the american people to make the sacrifices they will not make themselves. >> to what purpose does the gentleman rise? without objective. -- without objection. >> i would like to talk about the pressing need to fix the health care system. americans care about getting well or whether they can afford to do this as they stay healthy. all too often, small businesses are forced to choose between the coverage -- and we have the most expensive health care, spending more on a person for health care, but we are not healthier

for this. i am happy that congress and the president are working together. this plan will reduce costs and it will guarantee affordable health care for everyone. we must act now because it is evident that the status quo is simply not working. >> yesterday we have the historic introduction of the health reform act. this will fundamentally improve health care. there is a public health care option. >> the public health care insurance option is going to be the most effective way to bring this down. take a study for the commonwealth. >> this is with the pressure

that is put on the private insurance companies. 70%-80% americans want to have a public insurance option, this will lower their costs as individuals and employees of the businesses that they too much for health care. i encourage us to take a serious look at a very important health care bill that has been introduced before us. >> to what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? without objective. >> the house democratic leadership introduced a health care reform legislation. as a physician who has practiced medicine for 30 years, i have concerns that this will put a government bureaucrat in between the patients and their doctors, and lead to a one-size-fits-all health care system. this will lead to the rationing of care, and a long waiting list

for patients. asked the governors of tennessee what tenncare has done. i would like to read from a canadian doctor. we have access to a waiting list and the patients are suffering on the waiting list. the supreme court said that people are dying as they wait for care in canada. this is not the sort of health care reform that the people want or need. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? >> thank you. has anyone heard the expression that the proof is in the pudding? when the private health-care companies found out there may not be a government auction.

these stocks went through the roof. profits were skyrocketing because, the health insurance companies make money off of the consumer when they do not have competition. when they are able to cut your health care, and make a profit out of the nine new health insurance. that is how the private market space makes money, by denying new health care. we have the government auction, the public auction to guarantee the american people that they will get the health care that they pay for. republicans do not want to hear that because they are bought and paid for by the health care companies. we want to protect the people so they can get this without a pre- existing condition. i am proud that this covers all

pre-existing conditions, including mental health has covered by the act that was signed by president bush during the last cycle. >> i know that we have disagreements on some issues, and i know the intentions of the democratic health care bill, and the intention is not to hurt the lower wage earner, but the bill is going to hammer employers -- with an 8% penalty for not providing health care. they will return -- they will provide health care because the people i know say that they do not want to lose their workers. i will have to provide health care but i will have to reduce the wages by the amount of the health care costs. this may be five or $6,000. i am asking my friends on the other side, do not take five or

$6,000 from the lowest wage earner, do not force small businesses -- i know that there is an exemption, but the small businesses will have to lay people off, pay a penalty, or take away the wages. do not hurt the lower wage earners. >> i would like to extend my remarks. i would like to say to the american people watching the debate about health care, we know there is the republican party, opposing medicare and medicaid, the republican party ignores the problems of the american people. the democratic party has said that we will stand up to the challenges facing the country. if you believe that we are spending -- we are not spending

enough money on health care, you are alone. we're spending trillions more than we need to. if you think the hundreds of billions of dollars is just right, you probably want the republican party plan. the democratic party of obama say that we are going to try to solve this problem, this is what we do. the republican party does not do this. we have a true week -- we have a problem. if you want health care for your family, you'll get this with the democratic party, not the republican party. >> to what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? without objection. >> we just spoke about what the republicans are wanting to do, the democrats are wanting to spend.

i would like to revisit this today. we talk about billions of dollars, when you hear the words you just -- they become words. 1 million seconds = a little bit over 11 days. 1 billion seconds is 31 years in eight months. one trillion seconds is 31,710 years. if i gave you $1,000 a second, it would take me 31. seven years to give you one trillion dollars. this is $1,000 the second. -- 37 years to give you one trillion dollars. the democrats throw money with

no regard to what this is costing the american taxpayer. >> on wednesday, the senate health committee finished their work on comprehensive health care legislation. this is one hour and it will end with a vote on the bill. let me welcome everyone here today, it seems about five weeks ago, that there were many important things happening in this room.

this is like what happened to the titanic, this is not the best example considering the effort that we are undertaking. this was where the army mccarthy hearings were held, in this room -- there were happy moments, this is where jfk as a junior senator from massachusetts -- announced his candidacy for the presidency. over the years there have been numerous hearings, of one kind or another. including meetings with members of the senate. we come together to enjoy everyone's company. this is a source of some of the most dramatic moments come off -- some of the most dramatic moments of those who have served in the senate.

this has been a tremendous undertaking and i would like to turn to sen. enzi for anything he would like to say this morning. i will ask that kennedy be included, i just got off of the phone -- and i spoke to him early this morning. mike enzi. go ahead. >> thank you. i do want to thank all of the members of the committee on both sides of the amal, for all of the work, on this bill, many people did not know about the work that has been done by

members and the staff, the typically by the staff, they have been working out the details after we leave, some states through their lunch hour or through dinner, and i think that this has pretty much been an all week effort, for them. and they should be congratulated for hanging in there, and remaining civil to each other. i would like to thank the members were being civil. as far as the mark up on a difficult bill, there has been a lot of patience. i really appreciate this. i do have to say that we have been working to reform the health-care system since i entered the senate, i thought this year the democratic and

republican members could work together to provide health insurance for every american. i urge the colleagues to develop a bipartisan bill, that 80 members of the senate can support. this is an absolute criteria, this cannot just be put together by one side. there will have to be solid support from both sides. this means that we probably got it right. if one side has the votes, and they can write the bill and they can win, america will not win. i know that the majority had other ambitions, there will probably be a party line vote of 13-10. this has happened for nearly every republican amendment.

we have 45 roll-call votes on the republican amendments, two prevailed. obama has called for a health- care bill that will reduce costs, to help every american gets access to quality health care, that will allow people who like the care that they have to keep this without increasing the deficit, and nepal -- republicans support these goals, this bill does not meet those goals. they do not meet the goals, and there are some old solutions for the problems that are not stated. i wonder what the reaction of the candidate would have been if this had passed out of committee last summer -- last summer, i wonder how he would have voted, given the distance between this bill and his campaign proposal.

the bill before this committee fails, breaking his promises and falling short on achieving the common-sense goals that republicans and democrats share, this adds one trillion dollars to the deficit, despite the promise that health care reform will be deficit neutral. this increases the deficit by one trillion dollars over 10 years, this is after the news from the budget office that the federal budget deficit was over one trillion dollars for the fiscal year 2009 in the first months. we were instructed to bend the curve downward. this will move the curb the wrong way and drive up the cost of health insurance for most americans and increase the total

spending on health care. the first part of the bill is affordable, but costing one trillion dollars is anything but affordable. most of the people will pay more for their insurance. this breaks the promise of, if you like the care now, you can keep it. this may force millions of americans to lose the health care plan that they have, this kills jobs and cuts wages. this will result in higher unemployment, and these cuts will hit the low income workers, the women and minorities hardest. it is hard to believe that with unemployment so high, that the democrats would consider putting more jobs on the chopping block. but you can read the title referring to the house health proposal. small business faces a big

bite, this penalizes all but the smallest of employers. americans are facing the highest unemployment rate in 26 years as the democrats' attempt to increase the payments for the low-income minority workers. this raises taxes at the worst possible time, despite the offers from republicans, breaking a promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. there will be a new tax on people without health insurance. the bill lays the groundwork for a government takeover of health care, to prevent the patients forcing the doctors that they choose.

this bill traps the low income americans in a second tier health care program despite several amendments and they refused to give the medicaid payments a chance for higher quality health care, the choice is a new government run health plan. they refuse to give the low income americans a chance to get out of the worst health care plans in the country. the majority forced them to stay in a program where 40% of the surface -- the physicians refuse to see them. this is spending billions on new spending, with new sidewalks, farmers markets, and create and

$80 billion fund for pork in the first 10 years. this will preserve the costly and dangerous medical malpractice system. despite the attempts by the republican members, this fails to reduce the medical lawsuits that forced doctors to order tests and treatments to cover liability. this makes the shortage of doctors worse, and the bill will make the primary care physician shortage worse by providing fewer medical students with financial assistance, who are working in underserved areas. we do not need to consult the committee to know that this does break the record for the longest marked up. this is because republicans were shut out of the drafting process.

we had to make the corrections that we thought needed to be in there. i understand the flexibility of the majority -- and the flexibility where we were able to do the second half of the bill without this being a second-degree amendment, getting a half of the bill and the other half of the bill. i appreciate the acknowledgement of christopher dodd, but those amendments were largely filled with technical corrections. we got to work around the edges. all of the substantial parts of the amendment or on a party-line vote. i hope that between now and the merging of the finance and going to the floor we can correct some

of these things. i was hoping for that. i know that there were ideas suggested here, that have been suggested to the finance committee. i think there is a bright future for health care reform in america, it can have parts of the bill but i do want to reform the health-care system to reduce the costs, and i also liked the goal that if you like the insurance you have right now, you can keep it. i think that this meaningfully fails to address these concerns and the american people are paying for a bill that they cannot afford. we added programs and increased the cost, to make it very difficult for the finance committee. we have a chance at the end of that process to come up with a

bill that will meet the goal of the president, and so on -- for the reasons i have mentioned, they are calling us to oppose the bill. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your participation and cooperation, let me begin -- i will submit for the record because this is a long list, i asked for a -- there was at -- they ask for a round of applause for the staff, literally every weekend that we have been involved, they have been working through the weekend, long nights, sending an e-mail back and forth to resolve many of the issues that we have been dealing with in the last 15 or 13 days. 23 sessions. i will submit the name -- the

names from the staff of kennedy, we are grateful to all of you for the time that you put in, to get us to the place where we have the first bill coming out of either body of the congress, to grapple with the issue that has defied resolution since the 1940's. this is not the perfect piece of legislation but on the table there is a basis for us to address the issue of health care reform in the country. i want to recognize our colleague from rhode island, who was thrown into the committee and he will be leaving us, but he made a significant contribution to the process.

i know the republican friends will love to hear this on the public auction, there was a very creative proposal in this area, along with a number of the suggestions in the process. i look forward to working with you in the years ahead. as all of you know, i put these blue bracelets on the table, to say thank you. there was a wonderful program, which was called in his own words. he was talking about his life in the united states senate. despite the characterization of the efforts here, he is ecstatic about the process that we have in place, and thrilled with the

effort that we are going to hopefully in doors, to begin to work with the finance committee to put together a piece of legislation, this is a goal that all of us hopefully have. we began the process with a blank sheet of paper, and mandate from the fellow citizens across the country. the american people demanded legislation for insurance plans, discuss the costs for the families, to make certain that the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth -- that everyone will have access to high-quality health care. the fellow citizens have told us to produce a more efficient health-care system to eliminate waste and fraud and abuse, to focus on keeping people well, instead of taking care of them when they are sick and would use

the expertise of health care professionals to have better outcomes for all citizens. they would like us to recognize the impact that this is having across the nation and to fix what is broken without ruining what is not broken. mostly the people want for us to set aside the politics and find the health care reform solutions. when we began this process, i spoke about the history, and said that i hope this time will be different. this time we have produced a piece of legislation and i think americans want us to deliver on the promise of real change. the committee is ready to take the first step, to an america where the health care system is living up to the standard set by the health professionals, to an america where health care is about the patient and not

profits, where no apparent lies awake at night, hoping the fever goes down because there is no money to take that child to see a physician. to an american where no grandmother -- has to cut the prescriptions and half to stay healthy. to an america where no one falls into bankruptcy just because they get sick and the insurance will not cover the bills. to an america where health care decisions are made by doctors and patients and not government bureaucrats. an america where your ability to get quality care when you are sick is not determined by your job or your income. an america where people not have to live in fear that if they lose their jobs, they may lose their insurance or this may be taken away from them by an insurance company when they need

this the most. if you do not have health insurance, this is for you. this stops insurance companies from denying coverage for pre- existing conditions, and it says that you will not be stopped from finding a health care plan that is good for you. if you have health insurance but you worry about how you get before the care that you need, this will eliminate a cap on coverage, and will stop insurance companies from increasing premiums -- and this will make certain that this does not affect your payment. this will make certain that he will not lose your coverage. but coverage is not good coverage unless this is stable and cannot be taken away, coverage that guarantees that he will be able to get that

treatment that you need from the doctor that you choose. this is the bill that we have been fighting for. we are proud that this has come from this committee. it is only right that the bill that americans have been waiting on for 60 years will come from the committee led by ted kennedy. i spoke with him this morning and he is excited about this prospect moving forward. he asked me to be the chair of the hearing, on the side of two things. that we would listen to each other, and we would be civil with each other, engaging to have the contributions that everyone could make to the effort. every member of this committee has contributed, and i could talk about the provisions in the improvements to this legislation because of the contribution of the 22 people around this table.

the work of judd gregg, mike enzi, the solvency issues of long-term care, to reduce the cost of the legislation by taking responsibility for the hit -- their own behavior, lamar alexander, trying to achieve the same result, the education efforts, issa on the parts of the bill that affect my decisions down the road, john mccain, in his efforts on prescription drugs, or hatch with the small business concerns and interests, and this had an impact on the decisions that we made regarding the small employers. tom was endless in his

discussions, i knew that tom coburn will have something in his pockets. and my democratic colleagues, obviously, with tom harkin working on the issues in the bill, holding a hearing to develop the ideas, murkowski about improving quality, bingaman serving in the kit -- both committees, pat roberts on coverage, with an idea on the pay or play for the employers, making certain that everyone will be covered, murray made a contribution on the workforce, we will get people the health care that they need, the primary health care of the nation. jack reed made a number of

contributions that have been worthwhile, and you are working on the biological issue and he was able to achieve what he wanted despite the differences, bernie sanders in increasing the penalties for the people guilty of fraud and abuse, sherrod brown on biologics and other areas. we did not prevail with your idea but this will go forward. casey made great contributions, kay, you hvave helped with these issues and the part-time workers and making certain that they not discriminate, jeff merkley, for the council

yesterday to provide the support so intelligent people are making decisions, and sheldon in dealing with the public auction, this has been a significant contribution. every member of the committee has made a great commission. 160 of the ideas were adopted, many of them added value and 23 of us, one-quarter of the senate, has been engaged for 60 hours in a discussion of this critical issue. even if you do not vote for this bill, you made a contribution and the process is not completed yet. we will begin to work with other people to fashion this. there is a reason that every other administration has failed. this is one sixth of the economy. this is not acceptable, this is

unsustainable. despite the differences we bear a common responsibility for a common answer. i believe on the determination that i have seen in the last five weeks that we can achieve this result. the president is deeply committed to this, he has said that he will expand every bit of political capital that he has. he is willing to expend every bit of political capital to achieve a reform of the health care system. this is an incredible commitment by an american president. i am grateful to all of you, for the contributions that you have made at this late hour and you have made my job easier because of the decency and the determination to be at this table, in other committees when they come to this -- to adopt a

bipartisan vote -- i know that we are not finished. the goal is to write a good bill. if this is bipartisan, this is even better. but this will have to be a good bill. we have made significant progress, and this deals with the quality in the work force issues, to take down the costs with increasing accessibility in a way that the american people can deal with. this is less expensive than the earlier predictions. i want to thank all of you for allowing us to come to this moment. 14,000 people every day lose their health care coverage. we bear a responsibility to relieve the burden that too many people have in the country because they worry about their families.

i am happy to stay after the vote for the people who would like to add their comments. >> there is one member who was not mentioned for an expression of thanks. we would like to thank you. you stepped in under significant stress. you are the chairman of the banking committee, which is a 36 hour day. with your usual loyalty to the institution, you greeted the task that we had assigned to us, and you have come in with enormous skill and self sacrifice. on behalf of all of us on both sides of the aisle, we would

like to thank you for the leadership that you have provided, with almost unlimited debate and the opportunity to offer ideas, to function on civility and content, and that we have the duty to our country and we could prevail. leadership is about a state of mind, and the state of mind in this committee, we had to work hard to get this right, we had to act right with each other. >> [applause] >> her ok. -- ok. the clerk will call the roll. >

[reding roll = = reding =ading ] >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no by proxy. sen. mccain is on the floor doing the defense authorization. [reading roll] >> no. >> no. >> sen. coborurn is doing his questions on the supreme court justice, by proxy, no. >> chairman kennedy?

>> he is here in spirit. >> aye by proxy. the vote is 13 ayes, 10 nays. >> i want to thank my colleagues and i want to report this as amended. [applause] thank you, everyone. [applause] i want to thank everyone, i was going to invite the members to come up here, to get a photograph of this committee, -- before you run off, busted everyone to gather here, and we will take one community photograph.

>> where's jeff? >> why don't you get in there and get mark, and sen. enzi's staff? mike's staff, get in there as well. i ask consent to authorize the staff to make technical changes. it is so ordered. how are we doing? ok? thank you, very good. thanks again. one more. >> if this is challenged.

>> come to the center, here. yeah. you are doing that anyway. [laughter] >> very good. the committee stands adjourned. >> great work. [unintelligible]

after the committee finished their work, the democrats spoke to reporters for about 15 minutes. >> let me thank my colleagues,

on the committee for the tremendous effort, of the last 13 or 14 days. we considered 500 amendments, excepting 170 republican amendments, so even though this was not a bipartisan vote, this is a bipartisan effort. the health care committee made a contribution to this, i want to thank the senators who took on the responsibility of crafting the ideas of the workforce issues and did a fantastic job. we miss ted kennedy. he was here this morning in spirit and was excited that this would be the first committee to

send a bill to the floor -- we obviously need to do this with the finance committee effort, as we move forward. most importantly, the of the feelings we have about achieving this, for millions of the fellow citizens without coverage, or with out of pocket expense, people losing their jobs -- this is a response to them. they deserve better in a country of disability, the professional class that we have in the health-care area. we have to do a lot better -- a lot better than we have been doing. because of what we have done, this bill is going to increase access and costs, and this will improve the quality of health care in our country. we will have to make some

investments but we are prepared to do this. we may never get a better chance to do this. this is no longer just unacceptable, this cannot be sustained. we are determined to get this done, and we have a president who is determined to get this done as well, willing to spend whatever capital, his political capital to accomplish this. this gives us the opportunity to do what every other congress and administration has been unable to achieve for almost seven decades. this will not be happening on our watch. i will go to senator tom harkin. >> thank you for your great leadership, we all worked hard, and what we now have is a bill that does four things.

this reduces the costs and protect the choice, making certain of coverage for all americans, and it also begins to change the system to be a health care system, and as obama has said many times, the prevention and wellness for public health is the one way to change the system to keep the costs down. we made great strides forward with this bill, and we're putting more emphasis on prevention, keeping people healthy in the first place and keeping them out of the hospital. this is good for americans, and this is the right prescription for what ails the country. i would like to thank my colleagues for all of the great work that they did in drafting the bill, and i think that this will garner a lot of support in the senate and i believe that we will get t