the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238 -- the speaker pro tempore: on

this vote the yeas are 239, the nays are 176. the motion is adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. pursuant to clause 10 of rule 10, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 239, the nays are 175, one answering present. the bill is passed.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3562 as amended, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h. r. 3562 a bill to designate the federal building under construction at 1220 echelon parkway in jackson, mississippi, as the chaney, goodwin, schwerner federal building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on su spending the rules and passing the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committeen rules for -- a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1212, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendments to the bill 1586, to impose a tax on certain

recipients of tarp funds and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members please take their conversations off the floor. the house will come to order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. conversations will please be taken outside the chamber. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to ask unanimous consent that i be removed as an original co-sponsor of house resolution 648. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you. the chair will entertain requests for one minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. ginny brown-waite of florida for today before 3:00 p.m., mrs. maloney of new york for today after 2:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> mr. speaker, thank you, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-spon or of h.r. 1255. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. does the gentleman have another request? mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any

special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. wolf, today, march 25, and march 26 for five minutes and mr. franks march 26 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house forefive -- for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. sutton of ohio, ms. woolsey of california, mr. defazio of oregon, mr. polis of colorado. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i was unavoidably detained at a state department meeting, i would

like to register my vote for the democratic motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. if i'd been present, i would have voted yes, aye, and for passage of h.r. 4899, the disaster relief and summer jobs act of 2010, i would have enthusiastically voted aye. i ask unanimous consent that that be placed at the appropriate place in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's remarks will appear in the record. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. and the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the house will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker,

thank you very much. as we reflect on the last 24 hours of the passage of this historic health care bill, more and more constituents are calling in recognizing that some aspect of this bill impacts them in a positive light. i said one time before that when we did the medicare bill in 1965, that bill was the start of revising and refinement of that legislation. i'm glad today that we can save 45 million americans have lived because of medicare and my mother, ivalita jackson, lived because of a medicare support system. that's why i'm so disappointed that greg abbott, the attorney general of the state of texas the state with the highest uninsured person, decided to file such a lawsuit that has no bearing in the constitution and cannot make any point that this bill will not help texas and save millions of dollars.

in addition, there are thousands of veterans that are not in tricare who will benefit from this health care system. we will fight that lawsuit because it is against the people of texas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the following members are now recognized for five minutes each. ms. sutton of ohio. mr. powe of texas. -- mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to assume the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: the news on the kansas subcommittee economy is not good. our state's unemployment rate rose to 7% in january. we need $500 million to balance our budget in kansas in 2010 and 2011. these million-dollar numbers don't mean much up here in washington, where this congress

continues to rack up trillions in debt obligations fazz there are no consequences and money magically appears out of thin air. however the effects of this thoughtfulness are indeed terrible. in kansas, the overwhelming majority of our state budget is comprised of health care responsibilities. many of these have been handed down from the federal government. our education system is teetering on the breaking point with schools facing closure or consolidation and with educators and staff being laid off. services for our state's developmentally disabled and support for our sick and elderly have been cut. folks in kansas are hurting. i see their pain when i return to -- when i return from washington, d.c. every weekend home to kansas. in our state, we think differently than they do up here in washington. we don't spend what we can't afford we don't sacrifice long-term prosperity for short-term gratification we don't sidestep our personal responsibilities and we don't tell other people how to live

their lives. it pains me to reflect on the bad ideas of this congress, the stimulus, the bailout, cash for clunkers, because i know these mistakes are digging us deeper and deeper into a hole. i was one of only 17 members out of 435 to opposed all of these measures, not because i want to obstruct legislation but because our personal freedom and economic inwill -- liberty are restricted each time we create obligations we can't pay for. kansas, like many states is constitutionally prohibited from running in the red. when congress irresponsibly shoulders states with mandates and expenses, it's the states and their tax payers that suffer because they can't evade fiscal responsibilities like the federal government often does. last sunday this the -- is the latest and most glaring example of this elitist, washington-knows-best attitude. this congress passed the health care plan on a narrow, partisan line against my staunch opposition this plan, which

became lou lau on monday is the wrong direction for next for a long, long list of reasons. the total cost of this health care plan is more than $1.33 trillion. while this estimate is staggering it doesn't take into account the almost $400 billion needed to fix medicare payments to physicians, payments kansas doctors must receive to avoid a 21% cut and keep their doors open. furthermore the cost estimate doesn't account for the $20 billion the states must extend to implement the medicaid expansion contained in the plan. kansans can't absorb these bhls of new costs but are required. to since we can't afford this mandate we may be forced to take deep cuts out of our education system, dimming the light for many -- of opportunity for many kansans. washington needs to opitz eyes to this gathering storm.

kansasanians understand we can't create a new entitlement program without exploding spending. this bill will not only seriously injure our health care system but its tax increase, mandates and increase bureaucracy will ruin the kansas economy economy and kill jobs. i will continue the bat until washington against this attitude that we know best. it threatens the future prosperity of our state and nation. on monday i introduced h.r. 4901, legislation to repeal the health care plan we just passed. only with a total repeal of this budget-busting mistake can we then institute true reforms that will lower health care costs for families and businesses. my legislation will undo what has been done and replace it with something much more based upon common sense and the will of the american people. only then can we have a health care system that is improved. we and other states wants to

make sure this change is turned back to the -- returned back to the united states. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: i rise today to congratulate the national center for at moss fearic research -- for atmospheric research. it has become the icon and vital part in colorado. in the 1950's, the farmers, the airlines and other sectors of our industrialized economy needed better forecast. cloud seeding experiments suggested that it might someday be possible to modify or impact certain kinds of weather. but the u.s. atmospheric

research community wasn't adequately meeting the needs. in 1956 the president of the national academy of sciences appointed a committee of distinguished scientists from several disciplines and instructed them to consider and recommend means by which to increase our understanding and control of the asimo fear. nf 1958 the -- atmossphere. a solar astronomer at the university of colorado was appointed president of ucar and the decision was made to call the institute the national center for atmospheric research, which shows a spectacular home in boulder to call its home in 1960. this iconic building is not only the home of the most advanced climate research it's part of our boulder community. this building is a focal point

of our community. this hosts an interactive climate and weather museum. the staff offers tours to the public to show how we can predict when you need an umbrella over the weekend. the facility is also community meeting place. as in a demonstration of what can happen when the federal government partners with local communities, schools, governments and academia. on behalf of my constituents, i offer gratitude to have this facility and everything it stands for be part of our family and our district and acknowledge that through the research they produced we create great global benefits. in this 50th year, i ask my colleagues to continue support for president obama's ambitious levels of funding for the national science foundation. i invite my friends on both sides of the aisle to visit boulder, colorado, and its facility and see what government, academia and private ingenuity can do.

my district, even in this economy, continues to have lower unemployment than surrounding districts. one of the reasons is the result of the science and federal research dollars that are spent in our strict. -- district. my hope is that they will continue to yield world cutting-edge research with practical applications and as a result continue to make boulder the world's headquarters for climate and weather research. congratulations to ncar and to the scientists and people who work there. my constituents carry on this important mission. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: madam speaker, i'm not going to talk for five minutes, but i would like to talk to my democrat colleagues tonight because once again it

seems we're spending money that we don't have. i know this may sound funny but the american people can't figure out why they have to balance their budgets and we just keep spending money we don't have and we don't have and we don't have. now, the bill we passed today provided $6 million in funds that we did appropriate money for, for youth -- for summer jobs. we had $5.1 billion for disaster relief. when a disaster relief i think is something very laudable. we had the president say for what is called pay-go. if you come up with a program and you don't have the money, you have to find the money someplace else by cutting another program to take care of the one that you're funding. so we had another $5.1 billion added to the deficit today. the deficit projected by the white house over the next 10 years is $900 billion a year. and they've been short on their projections all over the place.

for instance, they said that the health care bill we just passed, which most americans don't want, was only going to cost about $800 billion-some. but when you recallize -- realize you're paying for six years of benefits and taxes 10 years, it will cost more than $800 billion they are talking about. it will cost $1.6 trillion or $1.7 trillion at least for 10 years of coverage and 10 years of taxes, but they don't tell us that. i'd just like to say to my colleagues tonight and my colleagues back in the office and if i were talking to the american people if they were listening, if i could talk to them, i know i can't, madam speaker, i would say what we need to be doing in washington is we need to be telling the president and the democrat leadership to go down and buy several thousand reams of additional paper and several million gallons of ink so they can go down to the printing

presses at the mint and print money we don't have. that's what they ought to be doing. and then the people who have money in the bank, let's just say you have $1,000 in the bank, madam speaker, and we double the money supply by printing money that we don't have, we double the money supply, you have $1,000 in the bank, you still have the $1,000 but only buy $500 worth of product. that's where we're heading. inflation is a hidden tax that people don't even realize they're getting. and that's what's going to happen if we don't get control of spending. the budget this year was $3.85 trillion that we don't vfment the health care bill's going to cost more like $3 trillion in the next 10 years that we don't have. that doesn't include the doc fix which is going to cost, what, $250 million-some we don't have. -- $250 billion-some we don't have. i would say to my colleagues and to the american people if i could talk to them, and i know i can't, you ought to tell your

representative, quit spending money we don't have. you're ruining our children's future, you're creating a society that's going to be costing them a lot more, taxing them a lot more and giving them a quality of life that does not equal what we have today. and it's a terrible legacy to leave to the future generations. and, madam speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey. mr. jones. mr. defazio. of oregon. mr. moran of kansas. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. franks. mr. mccotter of michigan. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. mr. carter of texas. mr. wolf of virginia. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the majority leader. fwaregare -- mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i doubt we'll be here for the full 60 minutes but there are things we need to discuss, especially following the previous speaker as he talked about the american recovery act and the things that have actually been done to really move the american economy forward. one of those things was the stimulus bill, the american recovery act, that is now just about 13 months old. in that american recovery act there was a major element dealing with green technology, green jobs which i think most americans and most economists feel is where the future lies. we know we have an energy security issue. we know we import far more in an we possibly could afford in foreign oil. we have to become energy independent, and in the american recovery act there was an enormous advancement in

research and in subsidies to encourage green technologies. i'd like now with the permission of the speaker to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues, and i'd like to yield to our colleague from maryland, mr. sarbanes. mr. sarbanes: i thank my colleague for yielding. i appreciate him convening this discussion this evening on jobs in general. i'd like to focus, as he mentioned, on green jobs in particular. you mentioned the american recovery and reinvestment act which when you look at it was really the first major down payment, an investment that we've had in this country really ever in this kind of green technology which is going to jump, i believe, over time will jump the economy forward in a significant way. one of the things all the economists agree on is that we're in a transitional phase.

there are industries and jobs that once existed in plenty that are now going to be transitioned to a new place and we have to create new economic frontiers and new space to create these new jobs. there's no better place to do that than with a green economy. one of the thing that excites me the most, i must tell you, i believe if we can get a new energy framework in place, and we certainly made our efforts here in the house to do that with the american clean energy and security act and other efforts that have been undertaken, if we create a new energy framework, new rules of the road for what investments in clean technology can mean, then what you're going to see is businesses all across this country, investors are going to start putting their investments into clean technology. right now they're kind of hanging back a little bit because they don't know what

the rules of the road are yet. they don't know how to measure that investment in a new technology, in a renewable energy source, for example, against traditional investments. if we can get a framework in place for them i think they will come and they will fill that space. so you will see entrepreneurs and business people jumping into that space and creating these new clean technologies. the other thing you will see and all of this will result in job creation, the other thing you will see is ordinary citizens stepping into that space. one of the things that i perceived, there's a growing trend among our citizenry to become stakeholders in this green revolution, to take personal ownership of cleaning up the environment and thinking of things that they can do right at the household level, right there in their own homes, right there in their own neighborhoods. one particular effort that i'm very interested in, and i

introduced legislation to this effect, has to do with these programs called pace programs. pace is an acronym for property assess clean energy program. what these are is a local municipality will decide to borrow funds and make those available to local homeowners. so that those homeowners can borrow the money and invest it in retrofitting their homes to make it more energy efficient. there's legislation moving through the congress ithe now that would create two new category, silver star and gold star, under a home star brem of energy efficiency to try to encourage people of achieving these high standards of green technology and energy efficiency in their own homes. what the pace programs do is make these loans available to a homeowner who can then take

that, invest it in upgrading and retrofitting, you know, their hvac system or whatever it may be, and then the repayment on that becomes part of the property tax payment over time. so it runs with the house. then the next home one whore comes in takes that obligation and continues to pay on the property tax. the bill thive introduced attempts, as many other initiatives do, try to facilitate this more by making the bonds that can be issued by municipalities tax free that makes them more attract toiv investor who will then begin to provide the capital -- more attractive to investors who will then begin to provide the capital. >> if i might interrupt you far moment, mr. sarbanes, this is actually happening, and your piece of legislation will expand what is taking place.

i know that in california, the city of berkley put this program into effect two years ago but it was a real struggle for them to find a way in which they could sell the bonds. now your proposal would, as i understand it, provide a tax exempt municipal bond opportunity so investors would be throling do this. this is a very, very powerful thing in berkley and a couple of other cities in california that have initiated this, they're putting solar panels on the roof, good for 20, 30 years. you sell the home, the payment mechanism, the repayment mechanism goes to the next buyer. this is really an excellent concept. you're moving this thing one step forward and where is your bill right now? what's happening with it? >> we're gatt -- mr. sarbanes: we're gathering up co-sponsorship for the bill, and i appreciate your comments. this is designed to jump this movement forward.

there are municipalities across the program that have begun to put the pace programs in place. indianapolis, maryland is another one. what we're trying to do is create a more inviting environment for these types of program. this is just one example of how we can partner with good legislation and good initiatives and good leverage coming from the legislation here we can partner with the citizenry out there in our communities to do the right thing. and to get back to the jobs priority. if we begin to get homeowners making these kinds of changes, that is going to have a tremendous positive impact on all of those businesses, a lot of them small businesses who are in a position to do this retrofit. mr. garamendi: let me give you an example in my own district, the community colleges are

putting together educational programs for the men and women that will start their own businesses to do that retrofitting to do the insulation, the caulking of the doors and windows. we need a million caulkers out there in order for our homes to be energy efficient, but they have to be train the installation of the solar panels, that's a kind of employment opportunity for small businesses to get up and get going, often in conjunction with the manufacturers. 10 what you're doing with your legislation is to provide a foundation, the financial foundation, that these small businesses, or that the homeowner would then take advantage of the loan and the small businesses would then have the opportunity to engage with the home oner to do the work. this is the kind of thinking that we're finding on the democratic side of the aisle. how do leverage. and your piece of legislation, together with the educational programs that have also passed

this house in the last several months, all come together to key ate jobs. mr. sarbanes: let me give you another example, and i appreciate your comments because i think they're right on the mark, but let me give you another example of where the ordinary citizen can take ownership of the problem, can really become part of the solution to these issues and these challenges that we have. i represent a lot of the area that, you know, thinks every day, when we get up, about the chesapeake bay which is a national treasure. in fact, i think there's 41 or 42 members of congress who have districts that include tributaries that flow into the chesapeake bay watershed. there's a lot of folks with stake in the health of the chesapeake bay. one of the things we're wrestling with is storm water runoff. every time you see it rain, on

the one hand you know it's making the flowers grork but on the hand you know it's sweeping off a lot of oil and other toxins and putting those into the chesapeake bay. because we can do better in the ways we collect and disperse that rainwater so it doesn't have that impact on the bay. i want to mention before i yield back my time here, one of my colleagues -- one of our colleagues, donna edwards of maryland, has introduced something called the green infrastructure for water act what this recognizes is that we need to really explore and develop technologies that can address this storm water runoff. and the term she's using for that is green infrastructure. and this bill would create five centers of excellence across the country to begin to develop these technologies and help communities respond to this important challenge. again if you can help

communities do this, ordinary citizens take ownership at that level of what's happening to the environment, in my case and donna's what's happening to the chesapeake bay. they become a critical part of the solution. and they generate an interest in new technologies, which in turn generates jobs. and it is all part of this kind of leading edge, using the environment as the leading edge of a new economy that can produce new jobs for the -- for future generations. that's what's so exciting about this. >> your comment about chesapeake bay brought back memories, in the mid 1990's, i was deputy secretary in the department of interior and during that time, there was a major effort under way, what are we going to do about chesapeake bay? how do we say the bay because of the enormous decline in crab

fishing and shellfish and other assets in chesapeake bay. now you and your colleagues are carrying this thing a step forward using the programs to generate new ways of keeping water that flows in the bay, or cleaning watter that flows into the way. i want one of those centers of excellence in my district. i represent the delta of california, the sacramento-san joaquin delta. this is an enormous environmental problem. fish are declining, invase iver species, we know that contamination from various sources is a problem. maybe we can get one of those centers of excellence in california also. what's at stake here is the knowledge necessary to solve our environmental problems and simultaneously from that knowledge will come the new technologies and jobs which will be useful not only for

chesapeake bay or the san joaquin delta, but we can export that. >> we're in a terrific place now where we have the opportunity to not just do the right thing for the environment, but at the same time to create a tremendous number of jobs and economic opportunity -- opportunitiers in work force-out there it's a wonderful alignment, it's one that we need to take advantage of with smart legislation. i will yield back to you at this time. mr. garamendi: i was just thinking about the legislation that passed before i arrived here, the effort, it was called climate change legislation, but it was for marne that it really dealt with national security. that legislation is now over in the senate and perhaps will become -- will pass the senate or we'll have a dnches committee and mu it together, but from that climate change legislation it's really national security and the discussion we were hag here on the national security side and about climate and about jobs, all of those things come together.

if we're able to reduce our reliance on foreign oil if we're able to transition to low carbon fuel source, whether solar or wind or wave or whatever, we will also enhance our national security. i'd like to take just a few seconds, actually a few minutes talking about some of the other things that were in the american recovery act of last year. there was a $400 per person tax credit for men and women that were working. so that they would have more purchasing power. that's $800 for a family of two. there was a tax credit for colleges and in the legislation that we just passed two two days ago along with the health care reform, there was an enormous expansion of the pell grants so that kids can go to college so they can get the thation needed. for community colleges and expansion for community college, pell grants, again, changing the way in which we

look at employment. employment is more than just a job. it's preparing for the next job. and in that corrections bill, sometimes called a reconciliation bill, that was accompanied with the health rereform, we have the program to expand the support for men and women who wanted to go back to school and men and women in school. we also expanded the -- over time, the ability for those men and women to pay those loans back. presently it's 15%, maximum, for each year of employment, when they're employed. we're going to reduce that to 10% so they can spend time acquiring a home, wife, kids, a husband, and be able to continue to pay back the loans over a longer period of time. very, very important. but unnoticed in the health care reform but much noticed in the health care reform was the

employment for the employers, the small business tax credit for those employers that continue to provide insurance for their employees. i remember a phone call i got from a radio station, fellow phoned up and said, how does this piece of legislation, health care reform, help me? my wife and i are small business, we have two employees, my wife, myself. what does it do for me? i have i was able to respond when the bill becomes law and it is now the law lau of the land, the president signed it yesterday, when it becomes law, it will do this for you. 35% of the money you spend purchasing that insurance for you and your wife will be a tax credit. you will be able to deduct that from your taxes. literally reducing the cost of the health insurance by 35%. and as you grow, up to 100

employees in your business, you will continue to receive that tax credit for every insurance pomcy you buy for your employees. and in 2014, that tax credit goes to 50%. an incredible reduction in the cost of health insurance for small businesses all across america and it goes into effect now. january 1, 2010, now that that bill has been signed. a very, very significant reduction in the cost of health insurance allowing member men, women, who are in business -- allowing men, women, who are in business, maybe it's a gardening business or home health care business, to be able to continue, to provide that insurance. on another scale, i received a press release today from a group in the san francisco bay area that points out that they

are in strong support of what the president -- this is 1,500. biotechnology businesses in the bay area that banded together in an organization called bay bio. they said this is tremendous assistance to us. small businesses which i just talked about, the tax credit available to them but also there are billions of dollars in this bill for research on pharmaceuticals, biological pharmaceuticals, enormous impetus for those businesses to produce the biological pharmaceuticals, the next generation of pharmaceuticals, drugs, to help us in our health care, when we become sick. all kinds of things from diabetes to cancer treatment and everything in between. the pharmaceutical industry in the biological area has an enormous push, they have 12

years to recoup their investment. it's given to them in the health care reform. so when our colleagues over here on the republican side say there's nothing in this, wait a minute, i've got 1,200 businesses in the biological community in the bay area alone saying, this is a great inducement for us to produce new biologicals that will help people with their health care. also, in the fuel business, the same thing applies in the enormous effort that's under way to do biofuels. the incentives are built into not just the health care bill but also into the previous american recovery act to push along a whole new industry that will create enormous number of jobs throughout the nation. the health care bill is far more than just health insurance. it's also an inducement for businesses to invest and to create new businesses and new

pharmaceuticals to keep us healthy and to repair our bodies when we become ill. i want to talk just for a few moments about another aspect of the health care reform. we heard before i took the microphone here about the health care bill not being paid for. that's simply not true. the health reform is fully funded. it's funded in a variety of ways but one of the most important ways is the considerable reduction in the cost of health care. i had a gentleman come into my office earlier yesterday talking about, all right, in the health care reform bill there's an opportunity for us to engage in keeping people healthy, a major part of that health care reform is about keeping people healthy. it's wellness, it's prevention of medical illnesses. and he was looking at this and he said, here's an opportunity

for me and my colleagues to expand our business. and he talked about a company that's coming to california that will take an idea about wellness, and this is specifically for the senior citizens and it is specifically in the legislation, wellness for medicare. he said, the bill allows us to change the way in which the medicare services are provided. instead of just fee for service we can do captation and there's an incentive in there for us to keep people healthy. the company operates out of florida, they're now going to come to california, they're doing 50,000 people, seniors in florida, proven that they can reduce the cost by 20% by keeping people healthy. keeping seniors from having to go to the hospital, having to go to the emergency room. they want to import it to california, they're going to move it and ramp it up to 500,000 seniors. in a wellness program. and, you know, everything, i

suppose from the food that's being served and the meals that the seniors prepare to, i pose, exercise and yoga and other kinds of -- i suppose, exercise and yoga and other kinds of activities, again emphasizing wellness instead of sickness. nobody talks -- talks about that from our republican colleagues but that's in the bill and if that 20% reduction is available we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars over the years ahead. so there are many, many parts to the program. i want to just conclude with discussing another part of the health care reform and this is good for businesses, it's good for parents, it's good for children and this is the insurance reform. i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years. 1991 to 1995 and 2003 to 2007. and during my tenure i know the

terrible things that the insurance companies were doing to their customers. first of all, a person would buy an insurance -- health insurance policy, they'd pay into it year after year after year, then they would get sick, probably a significant issue, maybe they'd get diabetes or cancer, some other -- maybe a heart illness, and it would get expensive and the insurance companies would go back, they would actually pay a bonus to their people to review those claims, go back to the original application that may have been made years before and find an error. perhaps it was something as simple as having acne when they were teenagers or an asthma attack at the age of 3. they would then use that to cancel the policy, leaving the person high and dry, in deep financial trouble. the health care reform law signed by the president yesterday says, no more, no more

rescissions, those days are over. the health insurance industry in this year will be prohibited from rescinding policies and dumping people after they become sick. now, for those that are already sick and don't have a health insurance policy, the legislation provides for people that are 50 to 65 who have a pre-existing condition and this is the population that is literally unemployble because they're sick. they have some pre-existing illness and nobody, no employer up there would want to pick them up because they know that if they were to hire that person the cost of health care for all of their employees would go up. so those people aren't left out. but under the new law there's a solution for them, it's a high risk pool that starts immediately, it goes into place in the next 90 days and those people, there are millions that fall into this category, they'll be able to get insurance, they

will not have to face bankruptcy, they will be able to be employble. this is an enormously important thing and i've seen this in my days as insurance commissioner, we didn't have the ability to deal with this except in a very narrow way in california with what we call the high risk medical insurance program. but now with the federal government assistance people will be able to get insurance. the same thing for young children. infants, the day they're born, they come up with some serious illness, let's say it's a heart issue, that child is -- cannot be insured under the old program. but now that the president has used his left hand to sign the legislation, we now know that those children, from the day they're born until they are 26, will be able to get insurance and their parents will be able to insure not only themselves but also their child. the day i was sworn in, two days after i was sworn in i stood

here on the floor and i spoke about the health care reform that i voted on on november 6. and i spoke about a dear friend of mine whose child was born with a kidney ailment. he and his wife struggled for years to find the money to pay for the insurance. their insurance was canceled, they had it when the child was born, but their insurance was canceled by the insurance company because the kid had a very serious kidney problem. with the new law in place the hardship that that family has gone through for now 20 years is over. the insurance policy that they had the day the child was born cannot be canceled. and so for that family and millions of families like that the insurance reform provides an immediate benefit and for all of

the men and women out there, the mothers and fathers, that have a kid that is approaching the age of 23 and about to be thrown off the family's insurance policy, know this, that with the bill that was signed yesterday and in six months that child, young adult, will be able to stay on their family's health insurance policy until the age of 26. i cannot even begin to count the number of cause that i've had -- calls that i've had and emails i've had that say, thank god, i know as a parent that my child will continue to have health insurance at least until they're 26 and then at that time, 2014, the rest of the program kicks in to place. final point is this, and that is, pre-existing conditions for all of us. at the end of this year those pre-existing conditions will no longer be the case.

final point and then i'll going to close, long before my hour is over, and my final point is this, this legislation is fully paid for. part of the pay, part of the money to pay for this is an obscene bonus that the insurance companies were granted six years ago and that is known as the medicare advantage bonus. the average cost of providing medicare insurance was calculated and the insurance companies were given a 15% bonus to do what they should have been able to do without any additional money. we're going to end thabo us in, we're going to take that money ant and plow it back in to the medicare program. and the medicare program by law, no benefit reduction. that's what the law says. i hear a lot of other talk out there and a lot of scare tactics but the fact is that the medicare advantage program will continue but the bonus that was

given to the insurance companies , an unnecessary multibillion-dollar bonus is going to end and the money will be put back into the basic medicare program so that the financial solvency of the medicare program will be extended nine years. that's important to everybody that is approaching medicare and is in medicare today. so people are going to continue to want to live to get into medicare. that's what's out ahead for the medicare recipients and i talked about the wellness program earlier. final point is this, on the financial side of the health care reform, the deficit of the united states government in the years 2010 to 2020 will be reduced by $132 billion. that's in the first year. so that is a reduction in the national deficit.

it comes about by reducing the amount of money that will have to be spent by the government on health care as a result of all of these reforms that are in the bill, some of which i've talked about tonight. in the next 10 years, 2020 until 2030, the deficit will be reduced by $1.3 trillion, an enormous amount of money. so whatever the discussion you've heard out there in public and all of the mischaracterizations of this bill that have been going on for months and indeed almost a year now, the facts are the deficit will be reduced, the program is fully funded and it provides very, very necessary benefits immediately to small businesses with a tax credit to help pay for their insurance, for individuals, ending insurance discrimination and for seniors, a major new effort to keep you healthy so that you can enjoy

life more and the cost of the medicare programs will be reduced. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back and thank people for the opportunity to explain a very, very important part of the new america that we will have in the years ahead. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

mr. garamendi: madam speaker. i move that the house stand in adjournment until the call of the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands ad

right now with reconciliation on track, the senate is considering the house changes to that bill. amendment votes later today. a final vote expected this week. >> and now today's white house briefing with press secretary robert gibbs. topics include u.s. relations with israel and the future of health care legislation now that the president has signed the initial bill. this is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon.

one quick announcement before i take your questions. president obama spoke today by video teleconference with gordon brown and angela merckle and nicholas sarkozy. the president and his counterparts discussed the international communities' next steps on iran, international peace process and global economic issues. the president will be hosting president sarkozy and to continue collaboration with the three close colleagues. i should mention he congratulated him on the passage and signing of comprehensive health care reform. >> two points, on the star treaty, can you just give a good assessment of where that stands. is a deal done?

>> i have said on many occasions that we are making strong progress toward getting an agreement. wer i think, very close to having an agreement on a star treaty. and won't have one until president obama and his counterpart, mr. medvedev have a chance to speak again. >> is that scheduled? >> they will likely speak in the next few days. >> so we were hearing friday as a possible -- as the most likely day. how would you assess that? >> again, i would categorize this as having made strong progress. the president spoke personally on march 13 to mr. medvedev and i think we're very close to getting an agreement. >> on israel, i would like to ask you briefly about the visit

yesterday by prime minister netanyahu. diplomacy involves not just the event but how it's handled and there were normal trappings of the foreign visit, in terms of press coverage and even a readout. can you explain why the white house decided to handle it that way. >> let me categorize, the president and the prime minister met first off at the oval and had an honest and straight-forward discussion about our relationship, about regional security and about comprehensive peace efforts. the president asked the prime minister to take steps to build confidence for proximity talks so that progress can be made towards the come puerto ricans presence i have -- comprehensive middle east

peace. there are areas of agreement and disagreement. and that is ongoing. the prime minister arrived a little after 5:30. that meeting concluded a little after 7:00 last evening. the president went back to the residence. prime minister netanyahu remained in the white house and consulted with his staff in the roosevelt room and then requested to see the president again and they returned to the oval house at 8:20 and met for a little more than a half hour. >> on the substance, just one second on that's correct but back to my original question on the handling of this. why did the white house decide to handle it that way that it was so profile? >> this is the way we felt most comfortable. >> was there any concern how it would be perceived by jewish donors, that this was a cold

shoulder kind of visit? >> no. look, they spoke for over two hours last night face to face. we have a strong relationship with a strong ally. there are areas that they discussed last night, some of which they agreed and some of which they disagreed. those talks are ongoing. and the conversation was honest and straightforward. >> just to follow on that, particularly on the issue of settlements. what did the president ask of the prime minister and how do you think that went? >> i'm not going to get into -- walking through the substance of what they discussed. yes, ma'am. >> on the competent-building measures, the prime minister made clear going into the meeting, he had no intention of backing down on the demand for freezing structures in east

jerusalem and i wonder if there were any good-will gestures or concessions made? >> i'm not going to get into the substance of what they talked about at each of the meetings. again, we have asked the prime minister to take steps to build confidence for proximity talks to be able to make progress. >> can you explain that. >> again, there was a meeting -- the original meeting. at the conclusion of the meeting, prime minister netanyahu wanted not to leave but instead meet with his staff here, his team here. they did so in the oval office. at some point, i don't know the exact timing, but at some point, they came -- word was sent out of that meeting that

the prime minister would like to see the president -- requested to see the president again. >> was it in the roosevelt room at the time? >> no. someone was sent out to locate him. >> the prime minister and his staff were in the roosevelt room. >> yes. >> does the president expect to see netanyahu today or tomorrow? >> there is nothing on the schedule. i think prime minister netanyahu has some meetings scheduled later on today with administration staff, but nothing on the schedule. >> but does he expect answers from netanyahu -- >> i don't know where those meetings are. >> will he see prime minister netanyahu before he leaves town? >> again, the conversations that the prime minister and the president are having are ongoing. >> are their plans to expand

housing in east jerusalem? do you have any comment on that? >> i asked our team on this. they said they are seeking clarification on that announcement. and i will withhold comment until we have clarification based on questions they have for the israelis. i would say this. i think our position is fairly well known. >> on financial regulatory reform, can you talk about the meeting with dodd and frank and what the prospects are for a bipartisan deal and will you need help from the republicans? >> i think you have seen comments today from senator corker saying he believes there will be republicans that do support financial reform. i think the president had a good meeting with chairman frank and chairman dodd. thanked them both for their work in moving this process through. chairman dodd has a bill now

through the committee process. i think the president expects that we will finish financial reform in the next couple of months, certainly by the time we mark the second anniversary of the financial collapse in the early fall. >> do you think the president is going to be taking a hands-on role to get this done as he did with health care in the final weeks, to try to meet with republicans to get them on board? >> i think the president has been very hands-on regarding financial reform and i think it is one of the president's top priorities now. understanding, as i have said many times is we need strong rules going forward to prevent the type of collapse we saw in the fall of 2008. >> i wanted to follow up on the

question about israel and keeping that event closed with the prime minister. the president is signing an executive order on abortion. why would that be closed press, no pictures. >> we'll put out a picture. >> a picture -- >> it will be from the actual event. >> what about allowing us in for openness and transparency? >> we will have a nice picture from pete that will demonstrate that transparency. i know you all disagree. pete takes wonderful photos. i don't know why you want to attack pete but i'm going to defend pete. and you will have a lovely picture from pete. >> why just a photograph on an issue so important? >> i think you will see the president sign an executive

order. >> and not hear what anybody has to say. >> you'll have a nice picture. >> the president has been saying the last few days that one of the biggest benefits of the the new health care law is that within six months children with pre-existing conditions won't be denied. and closer reading shows it's not true. >> insurance companies cannot deny coverage to a child based on a pre-existing condition. under the act, the plan includes -- plans that include coverage for children cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions to ensure there is no ambiguity on this, the secretary of health and human services, is preparing to issue regulations next month making clear that the term pre-existing applies to both a child's access to a

plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan. >> experts are already saying that they don't believe it's clear enough. >> our lawyers are clear and the regulations -- we believe the law is clear and the regulations will clear up that with experts. >> you mentioned that the president asked netanyahu with confidence-building measures with the palestinians and you mentioned areas of agreement and disagreement. can you be any more specific on that? >> not right now. >> when the president holds events and does not allow photographers in, it implies that the president is hiding something, is not embarrassed about something, is uncomfortable for photographs to be made public. >> i disagree with all three of

those. >> the president has welcomed netanyahu to the white house and embarrassed to be seen, not even allowing us to take photographs. >> we were comfortable with the coverage of last night's meeting. we were comfortable with that. >> even when -- you're pleased when there's no coverage? >> we're pleased -- we were pleased with the way we set up the coverage of last night. i think it comes as a great shock to you and me and not everything the president does is for the cameras and for the press. >> there is no closer ally than israel and the president won't even allow the photograph of him and the israeli prime

minister. is he embarrassed to be seen with him? >> that's your characterization. >> is the president concerned with photographs being seen by the rest of the world with the prime minister? >> i think there have been many pictures of and many --  >> not a single one-on-one. >> that's not true. there was a spread in the oval office with just the two of them. >> but not -- the last -- two times in a row. >> that's true. >> one question about the executive order. does the president think that this executive order is necessary? does he think there was a.m. big youth in the law or does he think there wasn't any ambiguity but this was done because bart stupak wanted it done? >> the president has always

believed that health care reform should be about that and not other issues. the president did not in health care reform believe we did change the status quo and believes that this ry it rates that it's not -- reit rates that it's not changed. it's an executive order. it's not a frivolous thing. >> of course not. does this executive order change anything that the law already didn't do? >> it ensures that health care, the law the president signed yesterday maintains the status quo of the federal law prohibiting the use of federal dollars for abortion. >> the law was not clear enough. >> the president reiterated that in the executive order. >> you can't have it both ways, the executive order is needed to clarify something. >> the executive order was in the statements we made over the

statements. >> it's not necessary? >> we reate rated the -- reiterated the status quo. and we are comfortable reiterating that status quo. >> doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of an executive order if all he is doing is reiterating what is already in the law? why would he do that? >> we don't see it that way. >> has he already made the hard pivot to jobs or are we still waiting? >> we saw the jobs bill a week ago. >> in terms of the president's time. >> signing a bill doesn't take much time but we talked -- i think we laid out a plan for

one of the things was a tax break for companies that hire the unemployed. we talked in here extensively about the fact that there are several different things that will go through congress. the next bill that the house will take up related to jobs includes the president's plan for zero capital gains. there are additional plans that we have to increase lending through community banks to small businesses so they have adequate access to capital and credit to meet payrolls and to expand. chip, the president's been working on the economy since day one. >> i mean, you talked about this year, going to make a big pivot to jobs. >> the president's been focused on jobs. he works on jobs every day. >> stupak and company, there have been death threats against some of these and children of these people have been used in

advertisements, it has been extraordinary on some of the attacks these people have been been coming under. is the president aware of that? >> i don't know if the president has seem some of that coverage. but i don't think the president would need to see the coverage to know that as he has said countless times, regardless of the passion of your views, he has very passionate beliefs and views and believes in a country as big and free as america, that people should have a right to those passionate views. but we ought to exercise those views not in a way that threatens anybody's safety or security or promotes violence. a country as proud and rich in tradition as the united states of america, should have a debate in a way that is civil, in a way that demonstrates position the passion of our beliefs and the values we hold dearly as a country.

>> does he have any plans for any job events coming up? >> he does. >> details? >> nope. >> any of these amendments that the republicans are offering on the senate floor this week, any of them here that the white house finds is a good idea and maybe that should be added? >> chuck, we want the senate to finish the corrections legislation so that the president can quickly sign it. >> anything strike the president? >> i would say this. i think when you go through the different swing of what these amendments are directed at, i think it's pretty clear that there is a lot of game playing going on. i think these are intended to create a political distraction. i don't think they're intended, quite frankly, relating to the budget deficit, relating to

health care. and i think if people find things that they want to correct in the legislation ultimately, we can do that through the legislative process. >> does he have any plans to meet with any of the leaders that are in the middle of this rebuilding? effort? >> not that i'm aware of. >> finally on the israeli meeting, my understanding is that the prime minister came with a set of proposals for the first meeting and was the whole point of him staying to tweak those or -- >> i'm not prepared to read out. >> would you characterize it as -- >> a straight-forward discussion that continues. >> negotiations? >> i'm happy with mine. again, they had an honest and straight-forward discussion. >> they're going off campus to

meet with the president? >> i don't know the answer to that. that's my sense. i don't know whether those meetings are here or elsewhere. >> the staff met until 1:00 in the morning. >> 12:30. >> what is the issue that he had to have two meetings with the president. does the president still believe in bipartisanship after the solid vote against the health care bill? >> on the meetings with prime minister netanyahu, we -- and we are reading those meetings out. we will do so. we're not hiding anything. the conversations and discussions are ongoing, as chuck mentioned, they continued until the very early in the morning. and the staff discussions have not formally continued but they

continue right now. when we have something that we feel is able to be read out, we will do so. in terms of bipartisanship, i would say -- kara mentioned this earlier, senator corker says he thinks there will be republicans that will support financial reform. i find it curious that not getting your way on one thing means you have decided to take your toys and go home. i don't think -- doesn't work well for my six-year-old. i doubt it works well in the united states senate, because we have issues that are important for his constituents and for all of america. look, again, when it comes to financial reform, people are going to have an opportunity to

weigh in on behalf of the banks or on behalf of consumers. and their vote on that dictates which side of that ledger they feel most comfortable on. i'm saying is the notion if you don't get what you want, you aren't going to cooperate on anything else is a whole lot different than i might hear from a six-year-old. >> it's the reconciliation process that the republicans are upset and they say that spoils the bipartisan atmosphere and not getting what you want. >> when the reconciliation happened in 2001 with the bush tax cuts, i don't sense it spoiled the ability for congress to continue working together. i don't see why that would happen now unless people decided that they were going to take their toys and go home. >> could you clarify exactly

why a regulation is needed for the pre-existing conditions issue for children? >> regulations have to happen regarding a lot of aspects of the legislation in order to ensure that any ambiguity, if there is any, the regulations will clearly note that someone who offers a plan and covers children cannot deny coverage. >> does the white house believe there is any ambiguity? >> no. but we will ensure there isn't any ambiguity. >> particular regulation on this one issue or regulation on the whole package? >> look, i think there will be regulations surrounding any number of issues on this. the answer that i gave and that's particular to pre-existing conditions for children. >> is the president going to

talk about that? >> absolutely. >> when this rule kick in, the coverage of -- >> the rules -- the media events that i described a couple of days ago -- i'll find the exact number of days, keeping your coverage, a 26-year-old staying on their parents' plan, small business -- what i'm saying is the several immediate benefits that i outlined over the course of the past couple days phase in at different points in the year 2010. >> can an insurance company right now refuse to provide coverage for a child with pre-existing conditions? >> my understanding is is that will phase over a certain amount of time. when that phases in, they will not be able to.

>> when does it begin? >> that's what i said. >> i wanted to follow up on one point about this obama-netanyahu communications. you said there are ongoing conversations and then you said there are ongoing conversations between the president and the prime minister -- >> i don't think -- i may have been imprecise. the prime minister will meet with -- i believe is going to meet with senator mitchell and there may be other sfaff as well in town -- staff as well. the president's staff and the prime minister's staff met until 12:30 or so last night and have continued to be in touch as part of that ongoing discussion today. earlier, i said there's nothing on the president's schedule that involves a meeting with the prime minister. >> phone conversation between

-- before the prime minister leaves? >> i don't know that one has been requested. >> the president is going to iowa tomorrow. we have the state attorneys general challenges. is he going to talk about that tomorrow? how will he handle that? >> i have a draft of the remarks, but haven't had a chance to look at them. i don't know if he addresses those in the remarks, roger, but i'll say this. you saw the statement from the department of justice and you have seen lawsuits from several of these attorneys general that we do not believe will be successful. >> i assume justice will be fighting those and some of the appeals were filed yesterday. >> i saw many press conferences did he noting that. >> another question. the chow founder of google --

the co-founder of google is asking for help. do you know about that? >> i don't know anything on the co-founder's request. i will check on that. >> he says he wants the white house to help make it a human rights issue. >> well, the president fulfilled that last november as the secretary of state has fulfilled in meetings also with the chinese saying that we believe free communication. and a free internet are rights that everyone should enjoy. the president said that quite clearly in shanghai last year. >> anything new since then? >> i don't know. but i will check. yes, sir. >> was senator mitchell involved in the conversations last night the ones involved

until 12:30? >> yes. >> so he has been involved. >> absolutely. >> is there something you are uncomfortable with in using the word negotiation because most people would assume if there is all this negotiation taking place -- but you don't use that word. is it fair to assume that this is something that the administration is asking of the israelis and until it fulfills there isn't any negotiation because some of the points are nonnegotiable? >> i don't have any strong allegiance to different words. i will say again, major, that the president has asked the prime minister for certain things to build confidence leading up to proximity talks that we think can make progress. these are discussions that are ongoing and needless to say, we have had many of these discussions for many months

relating to different issues. >> from the president's point of view, are the things requested non-negotiable? >> i'm not going to get into the substance. i appreciate you trying to pin me down on me not saying i'm not going to discuss the substance. >> if they are non-negotiable -- >> i'm not going to get into the substance. i have said that on camera about eight times. and i appreciate the atmosphere of parsing, but i'm not going to getting into them. i'm learning. >> there will be a signing ceremony in prague for the star treaty. is that premature. >> we have discussed internally

returning to the city the president outlined a speech in the last year, envisioning a world without nuclear weapons. we believe that a new star treaty begins to take many important steps between the two greatest holders of those nuclear weapons. so i would anticipate that when we have something to sign, it will be on par. >> is it premature to place that date? >> again, as i said earlier, the president, i think, hopes to speak to the russian leader in the next several days, but there are still some things that need to be worked out. final conversation -- >> i don't want to get ahead of what the conversation might be. >> on the -- commerce department reported today housing sales fell 2.2% last month in large measure due to the terrible weather and fourth

executive month that sales have declined. to what degree is there concern about this sector of the economy and what other ideas or proposals do you have? >> let me check on the expiration of the current tax credit. i know that the vice president did an event earlier in the week demonstrating that tax returns will be bigger this year as a result of many of the tax credits in the recovery act as the home buyers being one of the bigger ones. look, there is no doubt that housing and real estate continue to be complicated problems for our economy and we will continue our modification

program to strengthen that program in order to keep as many people as possible in their houses. and continue to work towards building an economy that has a stable foundation and we can see a turnaround in that. >> did prime minister netanyahu's staff request different coverage scheme for last night? did they ask for a picture taking? >> i honestly don't know. >> what leverage is the president bringing to bear on these discussions, again, when you see new housing today in east jerusalem announced? what is the leverage -- >> i would say or categorize -- we have a strong partnership with a strong ally. we share great concerns about

israel's security. and we, as i've said here probably the past two weeks, there is an unbrookeable bond between the united states and the israeli people. as i have also said many times, there are areas in which we have agreements and areas in which we have disagreements. those were discussed last night between the president and prime minister. >> is the question of usaid to israel been linked to these talks? >> not that i know of. >> senator kerry and lugar are meeting this morning. did the president share language with those two senators? does he have language on verification and missile defense that he is convinced that the senate will actually

ratify? >> i think we understand that ratification is what ultimately has to happen. we are mindful of that. the president took the opportunity to update the chair and ranking member of the foreign relations committee on the status of our negotiations with the rushians on star -- russians on star. obviously, it will play a big role on senate ratification. and needless to say, the president and senator lugar have had a relationship on this issue that dates back to a week after he was elected to the senate. they had a conversation about the president joining the senate foreign relations committee. asked senator lugar to be part of a trip tore russia -- to

russia. >> on the two issues i'm asking about, is there language now? >> obviously, i think we're getting quite close to an agreement. so i would say language and interpretation are certainly part of that ongoing process. >> briefly, if you will on iowa city tomorrow, this is such a great deal the president has been talking about. why does he need to sell it? >> well, obviously, the law that was signed yesterday will -- as we talked about here, there were some immediate benefits and then there are aspects as the president discussed yesterday, will be phased in over the next several years. the president believes it's important to continue to talk about the many aspects of the law that will do precisely what he said they are intended to

do, help small businesses that provide health coverage for their employees. i'm sure there will be parents of those that attend the university of iowa that will have some interest in keeping their children on a health insurance policy until the age of 26. i think there are many aspects that the president will talk about not only tomorrow in iowa city, but spend some time talking about in all honesty the next several years. >> you said several days. >> i think i said the next few days. i think it's in the next few days. i don't have a schedule in front of me that would say which day that is. >> back to star for a second. >> i'm saying the next few days. i won't guess on which day. >> back to star, how would you

characterize the russians' negotiating style? would you characterize it as respectful and when this is signed, do you hope to use it as a new sense of symbolism for other aspects of this important relationship? >> i think that ever since the two leaders got together in london, i think last march or april or early april, i forget the exact date, we have been focused on a new type of dialogue, a partnership where the two countries can address the issues that -- the issues of mutual agreement. we have worked with them on our next steps on iran. we have worked with them in

different avenues relating to north korea. i have said several times that we -- we wanted to get this treaty right and i'm sure their perspective would be the same, but we wanted to get this treaty right for the united states of america. it's taken a little extra time for us to get that. but i think the president believes we're close. and i would say this, the president has been deeply involved personally in in moving this process forward and along throughout that process, speaking directly again with -- on march 13, in order to move this process further along. >> does the president think there has been a risk having left the treaty laps the end of

last year, does he have an indication that they have taken advantage? >> let me get more detailed guidance from n.s.c. on any type of bridging agreements that have been had. but both sides have negotiated in good faith. >> does the president think that -- describing again the end point of this new treaty, what the president wants and has held out for. >> because we have not finished negotiations, i would prefer not to read out where we are on some of the individual aspects of this. we'll have an opportunity, no doubt, to do that in the next several days pending an agreement. >> he wants reductions on both sides. leading to no nuclear weapons

in what, a century or a lifetime? >> i think he said in prague that he may not live to see this day, but former secretary of state george schultz, former senator sam nunn, former secretary of state henry kissinger, are some of the people that the president has spoken fairly regularly to and shares the same goal as he does, eliminating nuclear weapons from our planet and the risk of that, which would be a great focus of the president's nuclear security summit in mid-april in securing quickly loose nuclear material throughout the world to prevent that material from falling into the hands of terrorists. >>

[inaudible question] >> i think we're very close. >> the just ties statements depend on the series of future actions such as the cadillac tax and even the c.b.o. has said congress rarely falls through on fiscal restraint promises. does the president plan to vito any of those things that would reduce cost savings? >> broader point. it's interesting the degree to which people either lean on or lean away from c.b.o. based on whether they believe c.b.o. has proved or not proved their point. setting that aside, the president is confident in what

he signed will come to fruition and will take actions to ensure that happens. i think many of the team believe that cost saving that c.b.o. can't look into will actually exceed what has been outlined as is often the case with legislation that they look at. so the president is confident that we will be on a path toward meeting the more than $1 trillion in deficit savings that the congressional budget office says will happen as a result of the president's signature over the course of the next two decades. >> sounds like he is ready to stand up for it -- if congress comes in with a bill that would reduce those cost savings, sounds like he's prepared. >> the president throughout the negotiations was clear, even

when others either inside or outside of government did not want to be part of cost reductions as part of health care reform. so the president is very focused on ensuring that what he has outlined comes to fruition. >> how many -- of the 219 democrats who voted for obamacare have invited the president to campaign for them in their districts this fall? >> i don't have a political schedule in front of me. >> not one of the republicans in the house voted for obamacare, and 32 democrats -- >> do you mean by that the law that the president signed yesterday? >> yes. the health care bill. >> i didn't know if that was the internet wording or the

name of the bill. >> not one of the republicans in the house voted for this and 32 democrats voted against it -- 34, and if one -- won by seven votes, how can you say this is a victory? >> lester, i'm a simple man, but i could not really -- i do. i'm going to have -- i'm not doing this on purpose, i'm going to have pete print me a very nice picture that shows the president's signature on a law yesterday that will benefit the lives of millions of people in this country for many, many years to come.

i will let anybody decide what they would like to call that victory. the president believes it was a substantial victory for the safety and security of the american people in knowing that their station in life is not now determined by their access to health care. .

. we want to take tax cuts away from small businesses that, they get help in providing health care to their employees, if they'd like to campaign

actively on taking help from seniors that fall into the doughnut hole as part of the prescription drug benefit, and if they'd like to take away the safety and security that that mother feels in knowing that the insurance company that she's -- she pays premiums to each and every month can't tell her that her child has a pre-existing condition, if that's the platform they want to run on, that sounds like a heck of a good time. david. >> in 2007 during the campaign the president said that he does not support the hyde amendment and the federal government should not indrude onto a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or terminate her pregnancy. so my question is today, as he signs this executive order which will further enshrine the hyde amendment, how did he feel about that? >> i would have to see what -- i don't know the comment that

you're referring to. >> the hyde amendment. >> i'd have to -- >> it was in a questionnaire. >> i'll have somebody -- i just -- i haven't -- you can just -- i haven't looked at a questionnaire. >> he opposed the hyde amendment. >> i would say that the president believes in a woman's right to choose. >> you've said with a great deal of confidence that you believe the health reform act will be able to with stand legal challenges. what specifically, so you can give us an idea, what's the basis of your confidence? have you gotten anything from the council's office? >> i think you've seen the statement that justice put out yesterday. obviously this -- the argument of constitutionality was one that was brought up during the debate but i think the council's office here, the department of justice and quite frankly legal experts

throughout the country believe that the right -- that the law does not -- the law is not unconstitutional based on what these attorneys general are suing for. the notion that we believe the president and the federal government does have the ability through the interstate commerce clause to ensure health care. i mean, this was a been an article today quoting a law professer from stanford, it says, it would be surprising if the supreme court says congress can't regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health care market. said david freeman, a stanford university law school professor. the lawsuit probably doesn't have legs, both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense. >> as i'm sure you're aware there have been

counterarguments in this talk, you can provide us in the interest of transparency with some of the memos that have been provided to the administration in terms of justifying the legal foundation for your -- >> i'd have to go back and see whether there's been anything formal that's been prepared on that. one more and then i'll -- >> governor mcdonald in virginia signing legislation today to void in a sense his state from having to participate in the health care reforms, etc. in a broader sense, though, this is the first piece of legislation perhaps since the civil rights movement that so many states have lined up against. is there some way of making an analogy on there? >> i don't know which attorneys general in the 1960's were running for higher office, so i don't know if i could draw the direct analogy that i'd like to draw. thanks, guys.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you're watching c-span. here's what's ahead. next, a number of speeches on the current economic situation in great britain. at 8:00 an update on the financial regulation bill being worked on in congress. and later, u.s. secretary of state clinton and her pakistani counterpart discuss relations between the two countries. >> an update now on health care. yesterday the president signed the initial bill into law that allow the senate to begin work on health-made changes to the measure, using the reconciliation process. the senators have been taking votes since 5:30 p.m. eastern and are expected to continue

voting on republican-offered amendments tonight, possibly throughout the night. a final passage vote is expected this week. and a reminder that we've got all kinds of information for you on health care, read all the different proposals from the house and senate, democrat and republican. watch hearings, speeches, town hall meetings and rallies and link to analysis and articles. again, that's all available to you at c-span.org/healthcare. taking a look at the $787 billion economic stimulus program, now more than a year old, just under $353 billion has been committed to recovery projects while $202 billion has actually been paid out as of march 16. and a reminder, we've got a website dehe voted to the economic stimulus program. www.c-span.org/stimulus. it's where you'll find news conferences, hearings and congressional debates.

as well as lynx to government and watch -- links to government and watchdog groups who are tracking the spending. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and online and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube and sign up for our schedule alert emails at c-span.org. >> britain is expected to hold parliamentary elections on may 6. today chancellor of the exchequer talked about reducing the deficit. following his statement, reaction from conservative party leader david cameron and liberal democratic leader nick click. if the conservative party win as majority in parliament, the new chancellor will present a budget after the election. this is about 50 minutes. >> mr. deputy speaker, this budget takes place as the u.k. economy is emerging from the

deepest global recession for over 60 years. it has been a testing time which has required governments across the world to make difficult decisions, difficult choices and take unprecedented actions. we had to decide whether to intervene to rescue the financial system or to stand on the sidelines. whether we should support the economy, business and families or let the recession take its course. the record shows the right calls were made. mr. deputy speaker, global recession has not turned into depression. unemployment here in the u.k. has not risen as much as was feared. borrowing, as i will explain later, is lower than forecast last year. but the recovery is still in its infancy under equally tough choices ahead. choices that will shape our economy and society for decades to come. the task now is to bring down

borrowing in a way which does not damage the recovery or frontline services on which people depend. the challenge now is how we invest as a country to support the industries of the future and allow the talent of the british people to flourish. and at the heart of our decisions is a belief that government should not stand beside but should instead help people and business achieve their ambitions. my budget today builds on this belief and our confidence in this country. this will be a budget to secure the recovery, to tackle borrowing and to invest in our industrial future. it will continue targeted support for businesses and families where and when it is needed. it will set out how we will stick to our plan to half the deficit within four years. mr. deputy speaker, our economy is at a cross roads. having come through this global recession, this budget will set

out a route for the country to long-term prosperity. asity heart is a $2.5 billion one-off growth package to help small businesses promote innovation, invest in national infrastructure and in key skills. this package will be paid for by switching spending from within existing allocations and the extra proceeds from the tax on bank bonuses in line with the budget that is balanced over the period. mr. deputy speaker, the world is still recovering from the severest economic shock of our lifetime. despite what some try and suggest, the recession has not been restricted to the u.k., nor did it begin here. a storm which began in america spread rapidly around the world. it was the biggest test countries had faced in modern times. when i presented my budget a year ago, world leaders had

just met in london to agree on unprecedented action to rescue the global economy. governments of all political colors acted to stabilize their banking systems and to use fiscal and monetary policy to boost demand and to protect jobs. now, not everyone here supported the action taken. but with hindsight it is even clearer that the right calls were made. economic disaster was averted, growth has begun to return across the major world economies. and the prospects for the global economy are much more positive than they were a year ago. mr. deputy speaker, there is nothing preordained about continues recovery. there is still uncertainties. financial markets are feeble, oil prices have increased by over 50%, bank credit, while it's improved, still remains weak in many parts of the world. and confidence is not fully returned to either businesses

or consumers. and this is particularly the case in europe which is the market for 60% of our exports. germany saw no growth in the last quarter. ireland and other key trading partners contracted by over 10%. spain is still in recession. italy has slid back into negative growth. unemployment at 10% across the euro area is adding to uncertainty. and all these factors are having an impact particularly on an open trading economy like the u.k. so the imperative that e.u. countries act with renewed energy and vigor to get the european economy moving forward again. we need to support trade, discourage protectionism and take forward structural reforms. on such continued international reaction is critical not only to global prospects but to each and every country's future. now, over the last two years we've been reminded of the

force for good that governments can be in protecting people. the role of government is now equally critical in regulating the global financial system and putting in the right foundations for future growth, jobs and prosperity. mr. deputy speaker, the crisis in the world economy started in the banking sector so improved global financial regulation must be the key priority. our first test here in the u.k. came with a -- with the problems of northern rock. the government intervened to protect savers and underpin the financial system. the unprecedented decision to nationalize a high street bank was controversial as was our action later that year to recapitalize the banking system. on other governments, right across the globe, also acted to stabilize the financial system. and i believe this judgment has proved correct. in the united kingdom, the

latest figures from northern rock showed it is returning steadily to normality. r.b.s. is now being restructured and is rebuilding. last week lloyd predicted a return to profitability this year. we will sell our shares in r.b.s. and lloyd's as well as northern rock in a way that maximizes value to the taxpayer and recoups the money we've invested. mr. deputy speaker, we intend to get all taxpayers' money back. in the meantime i can tell the house that the treasury has already received over $8 -- eight billion pounds in fees and charges from the banks in return for our support. mr. deputy speaker, at the prebudget report, i put in place a one off 50% tax on the excessive bonuses of bankers. i made it clear that banks had a choice of whether to pay bonuses or not. but if they did, given the amount of taxpayer support that had been provided, i believed

it was right that the country as a whole should benefit. i can tell the house that this tax has raised two billion pounds, more than twice as much as was forecast. this is money paid by the banks, those receiving bonuses will also of course have to pay the income tax of their highest rate. mr. deputy speaker, as well as supporting the banking system during the crisis, we need long-term reform to prevent excessive risk taking. under our presidency of the g-20 last year, we put in place a plan to reform the nrm regulatory system -- regulatory system but we still need to do more. the g-20 countries must put in place new rules on capital and liquidity by the end of the year and we also need to reform renume ration practices to improve cross border resolution for when banks fail and ensure international standards are implemented. mr. deputy speaker, we cannot

continue with a situation where the banks are rewarded for creating excessive risk but the taxpayer foods -- foots the bill when things go bad i -- badly. more countries now agree on the need for an international systemic tax on the banks. and this must be brought forward quickly as i will urge the international finance ministers in washington when when they meet next month. and i agree with all those who think such a tax should be internationally coordinated. going it alone as some have suggested would cost thousands of jobs, not just in london but across the whole country. global efforts must be complimented in each country with a drive to implement existing banking reforms as we are in the u.k. as part of the reform of banking, i want to make it easier for everyone to access banking services. since 2003 the number of people without a bank account has been

halfed and i can announce today that we will do more to combat financial exclusion through a guarantee that everyone can have a basic bank account. that will mean over the next five years up to a million more people will have access to bank accounts, something essential to the modern world. now, mr. deputy speaker, we must be careful that as banks begin to return to profit the sense of urgency around form is not diminished. there can be no return to business as usual for the banks. but we must also remember that their success is vital not just for the global economy but also for britain's future. london is the world's leading financial center. across the country the section supports over a million jobs, including in leads, manchester and in other is it -- cities. a healthy, strong financial services industry is essential for our long-term prosperity. mr. deputy speaker, the crisis might have started in the

financial sector but it spread rapidly to the entire global economy, underlie loo -- underlining why intervention was essential. the impact has meant that the u.k. economy has contracted by around 6% over the course of the recession. and this compares to 8% in japan, 7% in germany and 4% in the united states. businesses in the u.k. have taken painful decisions. many families have seen their incomes squeezed. and given the intensity of the global storm, no government, of course, could prevent all jobs being lost or all businesses from closing. but i believe that governments have the ability to act and i believe the responsibility to rejuice the length and severity of the recession. which is why we took decisive action to stimulate the economy, cutting taxes for family and business, as well as bringing forward capital spending. we also introduced initiatives such as the scheme to protect jobs and skills. and i can tell the house that

this has helped drive an increase in sales of nearly 30% in the past year, this in the middle of a recession. these decisions, of course, have a cost. but the cost would have been far greater for families and for the economy if we had failed to act. so, mr. deputy speaker, we could have followed previous governments and watched on the sideline. we could have listened to all those who opposed these measures last year, but if we had, i believe that we would still have been in recession. i'm also certain that the pain caused would have been worse and more widely felt. indeed in the recession of the 1990's the rate of home repossessions was twice as high as now. that would have been the cost of abandoning families to their fate. double the rate of business failures, that would have been the cost of failing to support businesses through this recession. and because of the policy decisions that we made, the bank of england has been able

to take decisive monetary policy action during the downturn. interest rates have been held at record lows, below 1%, while the they were at double figures for almost three years in the 1990's. but more than anywhere else, we can see the impact of our choices in the state of the jobs market here. unemployment has been rising in this country as it has been around the world. last week's figures, however, showed that the u.k. unemployment had fallen and is lower than it is in the united states. even after the severity of this recession the claim count stands today at 1.6 million people. this compares with three million people -- in the recession of the early 1980's and 1990's. nor, mr. deputy speaker, because of a decade of welfare reform has there been the massive increase in the numbers

of knacktivity benefits that we saw in the -- inactivity benefits. and i can tell now, mr. deputy speaker, the claim ant count today is still lower than the number we inherited in 1997. that has that happened by chance, it's happened because of the choices that we made. it is because of the tremendous efforts by business and work forces to keep people in jobs. it's also because of the global storm hit our country, we responded with an additional five billion pounds to help people find new work quicker. we expanded the job center plus network and offered support through the rapid response service at firms hit by redun dansies. mr. deputy speaker, it is clear that our approach is making a difference. nearly four million people have been helped off the claimant count in the last year alone with personalized support, around three quarters of those losing a job or leaving the claimant count within six

months. indeed, if this recession had followed the course of the last one, four times as many jobs would have disappeared. the flexibility of the tax credit system has also provided automatic support, compensating families for loss of income due to shorter working hours and part time working. mr. deputy speaker, i can tell the house this year 440,000 families have benefited from this extra help on average by 38 pounds more per week when they need it most. despite all the support, there are groups that are likely to need more help even as the economy recovers. for older workers, i want to extend the support provided by tax credits, to make it easier for those over 60 so to receive working tax credits, we will reduce the minimum number of hours they need to work to be eligible. and to enable people who want to work longer we are now consulting on reform of employer's right to make people

retire at 65. we're looking at options which include scrapping the default retirement age, raising it or giving employees stronger rides. for younger workers i've introduced a guarantee of a job or training for every 18 to 24-year-old after six months out of work. which is already proving a success. this was to run until march next year, but with recovery still in its infancy we should not withdraw this support too soon and because up employment has been lower than forecast, the cost has been lower than expected. i therefore have decided to use the money saved to extend the guaranteed offer to young people until march, 2012. so for the next two years i can guarantee that no one under 24 will need to be unemployed for longer than six months before being offered work or training. help with jobs now, and as i will outline later, help for

jobs for the future. mr. deputy speaker, low mortgage rates have reduced costs for homeowners. but many families still face fierce over repossession. the scheme is already helping 220,000 homeowners who lost their jobs. to maintain this help during a recovery, i will continue to pay the support of the hire rate for another six months. i'm also determined to do more to help families take that first crucial step on the housing ladder. we have introduced new help through shared equity schemes and in 2008 we also brought in a stamp duty holiday on all transactions under 175,000 pounds which ended in december. by helping 260,000 home buyers, it supported the entire housing market when it needed it most. the housing market is now stabilized and has begun a slow recovery. but many first time buyers, particularly those without

large deposits, still find it hard to get a mortgage. and i want to help them, but to do so in a way that is properly funded. i can allow -- announce that i will double the stamp duty limit for first time buyers from midnight tonight from 125,000 to 250,000 for this year -- [inaudible] mr. deputy speaker, this means that nine in 10 first time buyers will pay no stamp duty at all. but to ensure this measure does not become a burden on public finances, this relief will be funded through an increase in the stamp duty to 5% for residential property over a million pounds -- [inaudible]

mr. deputy speaker. mr. deputy speaker, tax-free iphones have been an extraordinarily popular way to save, including for those saving for a deposit on their first home. since their introduction in 1999, 19 million people have taken them out, saving over 270 billion pounds. from next month, the annual limit will rise from 7,200 that 10,200 pounds of which half can be saved in cashment and to help encourage saving further, i've decided that limits will increase annually in line with inflation. now, these changes come at a time when the savings ration yo has already risen strongly over the past year to the highest it's been since 1998. mr. deputy speaker, the last year has been tough for many people. but the evident shows it would

-- evidence shows it would have been harder still without the choices we made and the action we took to support the economy. we need the same good judgment and decisive action to secure and strengthen the economy and to provide the right basis for the country to seize the opportunities ahead. i want now to turn to my forecasts. i've said on many occasions the world economy is still in a period of great uncertainty. in the absence of government action to support the economy, the weakness in some of our overseas markets, particularly europe, could result in a substantial downward revision of our growth prospects. but because of the action we have taken through the recession and the measures that i'm announced today, i believe that it's only a small reduction is needed. this year, as i said in last year's budget, and last year's prebudget report, i expect the economy to grow between 1% and 1.5%. i've decided to revise slightly downwards my forecast for 2011

to bring it into line with those of the bank of england, growth between 3% and 3.5% and based as normal on the lower end of these forecast ranges. as the economy continues to rebound following the recession, my forecast for the following years is unchanged. we've already seen inflation rise above 3% in the first month of this year, increasing the cost of living. the inflation figures released yesterday show a rise of 3%. and although high compared to recent years, this is a far lower sum than the peaks of inflation of over 10% in the 1990's and 20% in the 1980's. and as the governor of the bank of england has said, the present increases of inflation should be temporary and result from the ending factors. i want, however, to help families and business through this period. so i've decided to stage next month's increase in fuel duties

instead of the planned increase, fuel duty will rise by a pen iny april which is less than inflation and it will be followed by a further one penny rise in october and the remaineder in january and the staging will ease the pressure on businesses and family incomes at a time when other prices are increasing. mr. deputy speaker, by the time the fuel rise comes in at the beginning of next year, i'm forecasting inflation will be back at 2%. and i am today writing to the governor of the bank of england in the usual way to confirm that inflation target remains unchanged at 2%. so with interest rates also expected to remain low and stable, this is essential for future growth. >> mr. deputy speaker, there we have the it. labor's big idea is a stamp duty cut on homes worth less than 250,000 pounds. where on earth did they get that one from? that has been policy for three years. he came in as chancellor, copying our inheritance tax cut, he leaves as chancellor

copying our stamp duty cut. the only new ideas in british politics are coming on this side of the house. and the only thing that labor are bringing are debt, waste and taxes. and here is a first. the centerpiece of this budget, the stamp duty cut, has already been torpedoed by a treasury minister. this is what the economic secretary said about this policy. raising stamp duty threshold to 250,000 pounds would not be an effective use of public money. less they -- first they denounce it, then they embrace it. we just heard, remember our tax plans for superstrength cider. the chancellor said that is illegal. it is now official government policy. remember our proposal for 10,000 extra university places? the higher education minister, he's over there, this is what he said, it is clear, as has been demonstrated in the house

today, that this fact use proposal of that extra places is elitist. once again, they've been caught taking the public for fools. now, mr. deputy speaker, the chancellor spoke for an hour. he could have done it all in a sentence. labor have made a complete mess of the british economy and they're doing nothing to clean it up. and i have to say, one figure in the red book stands out above all others. they have doubled the national debt and on these figures they are going to double the national debt again. in this election, in this year, an election year, they are borrowing 167 billion pounds. now we are meant to be impressed that it's turned out a few billion lower than the last disastrous forecast, but it is still an honorable member should be ashamed of this more than every single labor government in history has ever borrowed added up together. that's what they've done. like every labor government before them, they've run out of

money and they are leaving it to the next conservative government to kline up the mess -- clean up the mess. today this chancellor had his last chance to do the right thing for the country. he totally failed. they're going the taxes for higher are on their way out of the gate. they're just going to carry on spending, carry on borrowing and carry on failing. and i have to say the biggest risk to our recovery is five more years of this p.m. -- prime minister. five more years of falling confidence, five more years of bloat and debt and taxes. five more years of britain closed for business. most of the cabinet, look the at their blackberries, they can't think of a single reason why this country should have another five years of this minister. let's have an election and put them out of their misery. let's have a look in detail at the appalling mess that the prime minister seem to find so funny. here are some of the things they didn't tell us in the budget. they boasted about trade, they

voted about trade, they didn't tell us that on page 171 of the red book, just published, it says the trade deficit has risen by seven billion, they told us about investment, they didn't tell us that page 169 of the red book it says business investment is actually falling by 5% this year. mr. deputy speaker, almost everything they've told bus the economy has turned out not to be true. they told us they would be prudent, they told us they'd be prudent. this chancellor has just said that they will be borrowing 734 billion pounds over the next six years, giving us a national debt of $1.3 trillion pounds. they have confirmed in the red book that the deficit this year at 11.8% of g.d.p. is the worst in the o. -- oecd except for ireland. that's what this labor government has left us with. they talk about education and the importance of education. next year they're going to be

spending more on debt interest than they are going to be on educating our children. they told us, they told us endlessly they had abolished boom and bust but the figures show they have given us the deepest recession since the war. the figures show we lost 6.2% of our g.d.p. in total, the chancellor endlessly posted about the actions they've taken, the longest and deepest recession since the war, yes, i will say it again because you should be ashamed of it. endlessly talking about their brilliant judgments yet we are the first into recession and the last out of recession. endlessly talking about the great judgment, about how well prepared we were. we went in with the biggest budget deficit and we come out with the largest budget deficit and they promised us real help now yet more businesses went bust in this recession than any other and more people have gone bankrupt under labor than ever before in our history. and what about all those schemes? some of the schemes he mentioned, that were launched with great fanfare. how many people did they help?

let's take the mortgage support scheme. that was announced in december, 2008. they said this was real help for homeowners. so how many homeowners did it help? 15. 15. that cost 66,000 per pound per household help. or to put it in a currency the cabinet can understand, that's 13 days of jeff coon's consultsy fee. and they told us about how brilliantly they've done on unemployment. what a triumph it was on unemployment. one in four adults of working age in our country are not in work. they talked about the european comparisons. we've got more young people unemployed than anywhere else in europe. now, mr. deputy speaker, to be fair to this prime minister, there is one forecast he got absolutely spot on. it's when he told that audience of bankers, what you, as the city of london, have done for financial services, we as a government intend to do for the economy as a whole. taste a pledge he met in full -- that is a pledge he met in full. and, mr. deputy speaker, 13

years on from 1997 we can now see what's happened. in 1997 debt was 350 billion. now it's getting off 860 billion. in 1997 the deficit was six billion. that's what you inherited. a six billion deficit. today it's 167 billion. in 1997 we were ranked seventh in the world for competitiveness. now we're 13th. we were fourth in the world for tax and regulation. you want to know what we're going to do? we're going to get back to fourth in the world. i'm glad to see he slept through the chancellor's statement and he's woke up with my reply. do you know where we are today? from being fourth in the world for tax and regulation we are now 84th and 86th. we have gone from the top of the premier league to the bottom of the conference in 13

wasted years. and we say it is time to sack the manager. that's the mess. what about their plans to clear it up? pitiful. the bigger argument in british politics today is this, they say, don't do anything before the election. let's just sit tight and keep our fingers crossed. we say, we need real action to get our economy moving and urgently. we need a credible plan to deal with britain's record debt, starting now, and we need to show the world we are back, open for business. now, let's start, lets start with the debt. this chancellor repeated his hope to half the deficit by 2014. let's be clear about what this means. it means that in four years' time we will have a deficit almost as big as when dennis healey when went to the i.m.f. in the 1970's. we are not the only ones who think this is completely inadequate. the c.b.i. has said current plans to half the deficit over four years are too little too

late. the oecd has said more am business bishes fiscal plans would strengthen the recovery, strengthen the recovery, and the european commission says the government's plans are not sufficiently ambitious. and the prime minister, the prime minister used to bang on about how we needed a global early warning system. do we all remember that one? how many more warnings does he need? the lights are flashing, the alarm bells are ringing but he's ignoring them and doing nothing for this country. the credible plan also requires action now. and all we got was delay. the risk to recovery is not in dealing with the deficit now, it's in not dealing with the deficit now. the prime minister probably discussing what kind of charging fees they can give off the next election. they should lisp. every family knows that when your debts mount up, you need to start paying them up or things get worse and it's time for the government to learn the same lesson. the prime minister and chancellor -- [inaudible]

the prime minister and and the chancellor face the choice between bold action in an election year and just playing politics. and once again they chose politics. this prime minister will never get a medal for courage although it has to be said, those of his cabinet get mentioned in dispatches. the credible plan also requires some honesty and instead we got -- [inaudible] all those figures, all those figures they told us are about debt. they're all based on their growth forecast. so let's have a look at the growth forecast. look at their record of predicting growth. in 2008 they said we'd grow by 2%. in fact, the economy grow by .5%. in 2009 they predicted the decline of 3%. we shankly 5%. now they say the economy will grow by 3.25%. the independent experts say 2.1%. and the chancellor told us, standing there at the dispatch box, that his forecast was the same as the bank of england. they're not. the bank of england is

forecasting 3.1% this year and 3% next year compared with his forecast of 3.5%. you have to -- the former chancellor, you used to have to go -- yes. you used to have to go through the fine precipitation before you found that rubbish in the budget. this time the rubbish came straight from the dispatch box. having given us the lowest decade for growth since the second world war, they're not predicting one of the highest of the they've given us the biggest bust in british history and now they are forecasting an almost permanent boom. why on earth should anyone believe what they say anymore? what we need is a proper independent office of budget responsibility that we will set up to set independent forecasts and to keep the chancellor honest. we also need, we also need to get britain back open for business and again this budget completely fails the test. the chancellor spent half an hour talking about helping business, but the fact is, he is raising 19 billion pounds of extra taxes, many of them

charged on business. why? because they flunked the difficult decisions on spending and they are raising tax after tax after tax. there's the fuel duty rise, the broadband tax, the new taxes on small businesses. he talked about a cut, but he didn't mention what happens on april 5, the revaluation comes in, the end of transitional relief comes in, hitting every small business in the country. and biggest of all, the rise in national insurance which is tax on every single job in our country. they want to tax your car, your phone, your business, your jobs. these are the ticking tax bombshells. it. timed to go off in the election that will go -- what this budget needed to do is ease the burden on you are a families and businesses and let enterprise flourish. that's what a conservative government will bring. let's freeze the council tax no tax on jobs for new businesses. lower corporation tax rates and o'and lower small business tax. radical school and welfare

reform, that would be real action to get our economy morphinging. now, this prime minister is going around telling everyone, stick with me, stick with what you know. but that is the whole problem. this country's stuck with him. our economy's stuck. business is stuck. nothing is moving. and there is, mr. deputy speaker, the arrogance of it. stick with me, why? because i doubled the debt, i put up your taxes, i wrecked the economy, i mortgage your children's future. it's like the captain of the titanic saying, let me compland the lifeboats. it's like robert maxwell saying, let me reinvest your pension. richard nixon saying, i'm the man to clean up politics. does the prime minister really expect the british public to turn andsy, thank you for nearly brutting the economy? find me the small business owner who wakes up after a labor victory and says, thank god we have more years of this red tape and taxes? find me the international business that would think, yes, now's the time to invest in britain. no one has yet thought of a

question to which the answer is five more years of this prime minister. we need an unleashing of enterprise across this nation. we need a plan to boost employment through welfare and school reform. it is time this country had a radical change of direction. we need a conservative government to clean up the mess made by this labor government. to stop another five years of debt, of waste, of taxes. britain doesn't need this prime minister and this chancellor. it needs new energy, new leadership and values to get this country going again. that's the argument we'll take to the country the moment this man runs out of time and calls out, election. >> mr. deputy speaker, this budget has been billed as a preface for the labor manifesto. based on what we've seen today, it won't be a manifesto but an obituary. the prime minister may have wanted a giveaway budget. what we got was a given up budget. this is not the preface to a new government but a foot note to 13 years of failure. after 13 years the gap between

rich and poor has widened. the poorest 20% pay a high proportion of their income in taxes than the richest. so much for fairness under labor. we've had the most prolonged recession since the 1930's. and the spectacle of state-owned banks doing deals which put british people out of work. we need real change, we need a budget that gave us honesty on spending and fairness on taxation. we got neither. we've just seen where the leader of the opposition says that cuts should come now is a phony war about when to make cuts to cover up the fact that they are both the same. neither has the courage to come up with a the details of the cuts we will need in the years ahead to tackle britain's deficit. neither is being straight with the british people about the tough times ahead. this budget was a budget in denial about the scale of change needed. about as honest as the c.v. of the right honorable member. it's built on growth figures

that are unlikely to materialize. it's built on false comfort from a small drop in borrowing that doesn't effect the structural deficit. we're still borrowing 450 million pounds every single day. and above all it's a budget in denial about the unavoidable cuts in savings ahead. the chancellor claims to have identified -- billions of pounds of cuts but there's only real detail about a tiny fraction of the total. all the rest we've had today is insubstantial waffle about so-called efficiency savings and a tiny savings in the relocation of civil servants to places outside london. we've had tough talk about the need to be honest on the deficit. they have barely a fig leaf of detail to back up their claims. they say -- they say -- they say we need more than 40 billion pounds of cuts but the end -- by the end of the next parliament but a published details about just -- but have published debail -- details by

about just two billion pounds. make the biggest fuss about the subject they have the most to hide. labor is in denial, the conservatives are talking tough to cover the truth. they offer more of the same. we needed a budget that gave us honesty in spending and fairness in tax. we got neither. liberal democrats are putting our cards on the table. we've identified a first installment of 15 billion pounds of cuts that can be realized by 2012, 2013. saving half a billion a year by ending government contributions to child trust funds, saving 1.3 billion pound as year by stopping benefits to the top 20% of tax credit claim ants. canceling i.d. cards in second generation, saving 2.5 billion over the next parliament. and making longer term savings to by saying no to the like for like replacement. savings which we will need to

start implementing once the economy is strong enough to take the strain. the chancellor could have made some of those choices today. so could he. but what do we hear from both of them? nothing. lots of noise and no honesty whatsoever. mr. speaker, one of the government's most shocking slights of hands in recent months is to try to duck blame for the recession. yes, there were global forces at play, but most of the problems started right here at home. the overdependence on the banking industry, the personal debt bubble encouraged by this government, and the overinflated housing market which labored -- which labor did everything in their power to soak up. of course we welcome any moves to make the system more progressive. but with 1.8 million families still on the waist -- waiting list for an affordable hope, it is quite astonishing that this budget was completely silent on the urgently -- urgent need for more affordable homes for all and it's added to this by a change to housing benefit announced today which will make life impossible for low income

families in high price areas like london. labor should stop trying to kid people about this recession. they got us into it only by being honest about how we got into this mess will we ever be able to get out. let me turn a few of the details of the budget today. the chancellor's only slightly modified his wildly overoptimistic growth -- growth forecast against a consensus everywhere from independent forecasters of 2%. he cannot bury his head in the sand over this just to hide the truth about how long it will take to reduce the deficit. the chancellor spent a good portion of his speech boasting about the 11 billion pounds he claims to have saved on unemployment costs and unexpected higher tax revenues. he's living in a fancy land. this government still came in 167 billion pounds overbudget last year. that's no record to boast of. someone living off their credit cards, thousands of pounds in debt, is not suddenly flush with cash just because their phone bill comes in slightly

cheaper than he predicted. we are not better off. we are just ever so slightly less worse off. even with unemployment lower than originally forecasted, you'll still have more than two million people unemployed and eight million economically inactive. at a time of mass unemployment to help young people. i only wish the chancellor had had the courage to go further and shorten the guarantee for young people from six months to three months. one in five young people are still out of work and waiting around for six months before they get any help pushes many of them into a state of real desperation. i welcome the -- for an infrastructure bank that supports green industries, to stimulate more job creation. on fuel duty, i note the government's decision to stage future increases, but they're missing the point. there is a fundamental problem with fuel duty in rural areas where using a car is not a luxury but a necessity. the real priority should be to

help rural areas, not just a staged reprieve. on one of the most shocking emissions from this budget was the failure to address the systemic failures in our banking system. we bailed out the banks to a tune of a trillion pounds and they are hoarding money that should instead be lent to businesses. killing off sound businesses and people's jobs. the banks are even helping support deals pa put british people out of work like the cross takeover of cadbury. the failure to get the banks lending is the absolute centerpiece of the government's economic mismanagement. the chants lohr today promises new bank lending targets but why should anyone believe a word he says after last time he made promises like this? r.b.s. and lloyd's were told to increase net lending by 27 billion pounds. instead they decreased that lending by 41 billion pounds. moving to gross from that is a calm that will let the banks off the hook again. the government must now

recognize that its heavy pressure on the banks to rebuild their cap tail bases is limiting bank lending. the banks end up hoarding money instead of lending it. the priority for the nationalized banks in particular should be putting money into the real economy, not into their balance sheets. mr. speaker, the government raidsed more than two billion pounds, more money than it expected from its tax, but that's because the banks refused to change their behavior. the amazing how much the banks are willing to pay back to get back to business as usual. a decent budget would have set out a plan to make sure that they can never get back to business as usual. we must ensure the high street banks on which families and small businesses depend, i'll never -- are never again put at the risk of financial banking. the bank of england has recommended we need to separate high street investment banking for good and until this can be introduced the banks, all banks, will reinmate beneficiaries of a unique

guarantee against failure from the taxpayer. a guarantee which they should pay for. and that's why last year we proposed a new levee of 10% on the profits of the banks until they can be split up. i'll give the chancellor credit for at least some consistency. he has always opposed our plan for this and he has done today. while the conservatives, they first ruled it out, then they ruled it in, only for their latest proposed bank tax to fall apart in less than 24 hours. both parties are wrong. both parties are wrong. britain is unique in the world in terms of the liabilities of our banking industry, relative to the size of our economy. we do not have the luxury of time, we have to protect ourselves against a future collapse. mr. speaker, finally on tax, the other gross disappointment in this budget was the failure to make our tax system fair. under labor the bottom 10% pay a staggering 48% of their income in tax while the richest pay 34%. he took pride in saying today he would make no big announcements on tax. how can he look at a system

like that and say, let's have more of the same? indeed his comments seem to suggest a freeze in income tax rates which would if earnings rise once again hit the poorest hardest. so much for fairness under labor. how can he happily accept that it's ok for a banker in the city of london to pay a far lower rate of tax on their capital gains than their cleaner does on their wages? so much for fairness under labor. liberal democrats propose the most radical tax reform in a generation. hard wiring fairness into britain's taxes once and for all. we will ensure no one pace tax on the first 10,000 pounds they earn, paid for by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit those of the top. a mansion tax and higher taxes on aircraft. that would mean complete freedom from income tax for 3.6 million more low earners and pensioners and 700 pounds in the pockets of tens of millions more. and crucialy it would be a down payment to the british people who are about to take the brunt of the biggest fiscal

contraction in post war history. a declaration of nent. sbsh intent. yes, there will be change but we guarantee it will be fair. action on tax is the only way to ensure we can take people with us down the difficult road of deficit reduction. only liberal democrats are prepared to make real changes in tax to help the millions of people who simply need a break. mr. deputy speaker, after 13 years of labor, britain is ready for something different. as we stand on the brink of an election campaign where everything is to play for, where the future of the country is at stake, my message is simple, this budget is the old politics and the old politics is not good enough anymore. it's time for honesty in spending, it's time for fairness in taxes and the only party that offers both are the liberal democrats. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> using the reconciliation

process. the senators from have been taking votes since 5:30 p.m. eastern and are expected to continue voting on republican-offered amendments tonight. possibly throughout the night. a final passage vote is expected this week. and a remind that are we've got all kinds of information for you on health care, read all the different proposals from the house and senate, democrat and republican, watch hearings, speeches, town hall meetings and rallies and link to analysis and articles, again that's all available to you at c-span.org/healthcare. taking a look at the $787 billion economic stimulus program, now more than a year old, just under $353 billion has been committed to recovery projects while $202 billion has actually been paid out as of march 16. and a reminder, we've got a website devoted to the economic stimulus program. www.c-span.org/stimulus.

is where you'll find news conferences, hearings and congressional debates. as well as lynx to government and -- links to government and watchdog groups who are tracking the spending. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and online and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. and sign up for our schedule alert emails at c-span dworling -- c-span.org. >> tonight on c-span, senator chris d.o.d. and representative barney frank discuss proposed financial industry regulations. secretary of state hillary clinton meets with pakistan's foreign minister and a federal commission holds a hearings on china's regulation of the china's regulation of the internet.