>> i want to turn to afghanistan, please. how concerned are you by reports that the obama administration may be considering a faster draw down than had previously been envisioned, related in part to the death of osama bin laden? and how would you characterize the relationship right now between isaf and president karzai? >> and between? >> nato and president karzai, isaf, the relationship with the president. thanks. >> first, on the draw down. actually, i am confident that all decisions to be taken by the u.s. president will take into account the security situation on the ground. and i feel confident that the u.s. will not take any decision that will have a negative impact on the security situation. we outlined a clear roadmap for

transition to lead afghan responsibility at the nato summit in lisbon in november last year, and according to that roadmap we will start transition to lead afghan responsibility already next month in seven provinces and districts representing 25% of the afghan population. actually, a very significant start of that process. and hopefully it will be completed by the end of 2014. we stick to that timetable. but obviously during that process, or transition, you will see a gradual change of role that our troops play in afghanistan from combat into support. and you may also see some withdrawals.

but such reductions in the troop level will take place in an organized and coordinated manner, according to the principles all 48 isaf partners have agreed. so i'm not concerned. on the contrary, i think we're on track. i visited afghanistan recently and i'm encouraged by what i saw. and all 48 allies stick with the timetable we outlined in lisbon last year, but within that timeline you will, as i said, see a change of the role our troops play in afghanistan. as regards to the relationship between isaf and president karzai, i think we have the very best relationship.

i had meetings with president karzai when i visited afghanistan a couple of weeks ago -- a very positive meeting actually -- where we focused on the future of afghanistan and our future partnership. i think president karzai realizes that the presence of international troops in afghanistan is a prerequisite for a successful transition to lead afghan responsibility. he has outlined the goal to see afghan security forces take lead responsibility all over afghanistan by the end of 2014. and it's our clear intention to help him accomplish that goal. and i think president karzai realizes that our presence is a prerequisite for a successful transition.

>> german television. >> you just pointed out that nato does not want to play a major role in the post gaddafi era, but can you give us an idea of when does the final curtain fall for nato? when gaddafi is dead or arrested? and does that mean that nato is hunting after gaddafi, be if he's dead or arrested then nato's role would be over? so just give us an idea of what you're hunting for and when the final curtain falls for nato? >> first of all, let me stress that we do not target individuals. we are targeting critical military capabilities that could be used to attack civilians, including, of course, command- and-control centres that could be used to plan and organize such attacks.

but we do not target individuals. having said that, nato allies and partners endorse the international call on gaddafi to step down. you will recall that the international contact group called on gaddafi to step down. you will recall that the g8 group repeated that call and it has been endorsed by nato and partner, nato allies and partners at the foreign ministers meeting in berlin. i would like to stress that we have two tracks. we have the military track, and we have defined three very clear military objectives for our operation. firstly, a complete end to all attacks against civilians.

secondly, withdrawal of gaddafi forces and paramilitary forces to their barracks. and thirdly, immediate and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need in libya. and we will continue our operation until these objectives are met. in a parallel political track, the international community has put more and more pressure on gaddafi and his regime and i also think it is hard to imagine a complete end to all against civilians as long as gaddafi remains in power. so in that respect you might see a link between the two tracks, but the nato track is a military track. we have defined the three very clear military objectives and we are there to fully implement the un security council

resolution, no more, no less. >> we are fast running out of time. we have time for two very quick questions. >> just on smart defense, could you explain if you have any -- if you're going to present specific proposals for pooling and sharing to defense ministers, and if you expect any sort of agreement on any broad areas in particular. and also, how are you working with the european defense agency, because they're doing a similar exercise? >> yes. we have outlined a roadmap according to which concrete proposals will be presented to defense ministers at their meeting in october. so what we will do this week is to have a preliminary discussion based on a briefing commander

transformation in norfolk, general abrial. and we will receive response from defense ministers and on the basis of that we will elaborate more concrete proposals, hopefully for approval in october. but i would add to that that it is an ongoing project, and i'm also working on that project with a view to the nato summit in may, next year. because i attach very strong importance to this project. to my mind it is the answer to the economic challenges we are faced with. and the second part of your question was about? uphow you're going to link with -- how you plan to link up with what the european defense agency is doing? >> oh yes, sorry.

we have contacts with the european defense agency and it goes without saying that if we are to reach the full potential of multinational cooperation we also need cooperation and coordination between nato and the european union. within the european union defense ministers have launched the project pooling and sharing of resources and actually these projects are very much in line with each other and taking into account that 21 countries are members of both organizations, it's common sense to ensure cooperation between the two organizations. but as you also know, that cooperation must take place within what is called the agreed framework, which,

unfortunately, also contains some restrictions as regards how close and intense we can make that cooperation. but it's clearly my intention to ensure such cooperation between nato and the european union that we avoid waste of taxpayers' money. >> one last question. >> secretary general, it seems to be that nato is relaxing surveillance activity along the border between pakistan and afghanistan, and 400 of [inaudible] taliban terrorists cross into pakistan and killed 35 pakistani troops. is it -- there's a lot of

section in pakistani society think is it deliberate to just put heat -- more heat on pakistan to cooperate? >> not in the way you describe it. it's not to put more heat on pakistan to cooperate, but it goes without saying that we need a positive engagement of pakistan if we are to resolve problems in afghanistan. the cross-border activity is a matter of concern. and of course it's not acceptable to have sanctuaries just across the border from which the enemies of afghanistan can launch their attacks on international troops, as well as on the afghan people.

and to that end we need a close cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan and between isaf and pakistan. we have seen some progress, but i think there is potential for even closer cooperation. >> thank you very much. i'm afraid we're run out of time. hope to see you all on wednesday at the meeting of nato defense ministers. >> former pennsylvania senator is running for the republican presidential nomination. he made the announcement today, citing president obama's health care plan as a significant motivating factor. you can see his comments tonight at 8:00. assesses the status of broadband today, as well as other pending

issues before the fcc. >> she will be the first woman executive of "the new york times." go to the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. >> the new york congressman held a press conference a short time ago. he will not resign. his comments are about half an hour. >> thank you very much for being here. good afternoon. i would like to take this time to clear up some of the questions that have been raised

over the past 10 days and take all responsibility for my actions. i would like to make it clear the die is made terrible mistakes and they've hurt the people i care about the most. i am deeply sorry. i have not been honest with myself, my family, my constituents, my friends, supporters, and the media. last friday night, iwtweeted a photograph of myself to a woman in the seattle. i continued with that story and stuck with that story, which was a mistake. this woman was unwittingly dragged into this and bears no responsibility. i am so sorry to have disrupted her life in this way. the picture was of me and i sent it. i am deeply sorry for the pain that this has caused.

in addition, over the past few years, i have engaged in several inappropriate conversations conducted over facebook and twitter with women not met online bread i have exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with six women over the last three years. these communications took place before my marriage, though some have taken place after. i never meant any of these women or have had physical relationships at any time. i have not told the truth, and i have done things that i regret. i brought pain to people i care about the most. for that, i am deeply sorry.

i apologize to my wife, our family and, as well to our friends and supporters. i am deeply ashamed of my terrible judgment and actions. i will be glad to take any questions. >> [inaudible] >> i came here to accept the full responsibility for what i have done. i am deeply regretting what i have done and i am not resigning. i have made it clear that i except responsibility for this, people who want to draw conclusions about me are free to do so. i hope that the people in my district will see this as a deeply regrettable mistake. >> [inaudible]

>> it is more inappropriate, the things that have done since i have been married. my primary apology goes to my wife. i should not have done this. >> [inaudible] why would you do this after you were married? [inaudible] what were you thinking? >> i do not know what i was thinking. this was a destructive thing to do, and i am apologetic for doing it. it was deeply hurt called for the people i care about the most. it was something that i did that was just wrong. i regret it. >> [inaudible]

is that a violation of the public trust? >> [inaudible] >> i did not -- listen, i will try to tell you everything i can remember. my black barry is not a government -- blackberry is not a government blackberry. >> [inaudible] >> no, i cannot. i regret not being honest about this. this was a big mistake. i was embarrassed. i was elated. i am still to this moment. i was trying to protect my wife

and myself from shame. it was a mistake and i really regret it. >> [inaudible] >> this was a mistake and i am very sorry for it. i take it seriously, but where i go from here, i take it seriously. this was a destructive thing to do that i deeply regret. >> [inaudible] >> i love my wife very much. i love my wife very much. we have no intention of splitting up over this. we have been do a great deal together. -- we have been through a great deal together and we will weather this. i love for very much, and she loves me. >> [inaudible]

>> in some cases, i initiated them. these are women that i met on facebook. >> [inaudible] >> i am deeply apologetic the first and foremost to my wife. everyone that i misled, everyone in the media, my staff, they all deserve an apology. >> why did you do such a thing? >> it was a very dumb thing to do. it was a destructive thing to do. it was not part of any plan to be hurtful to my wife, it was not part of a plan to be deceitful to you. it was not part of a plan. it was a destructive thing that i did. if you are looking for some kind of the explanation for it, i do

not have one. except that i am sorry. >> [inaudible] >> i did not think of it that way. from time to time, i would say to myself, this is a mistake break this conversation, someone could listen in on. i know that -- in this case, it was me doing a very dumb thing. >> [inaudible] >> i did not see any of the pictures that were released today. i can tell you that there were some women that i had conversations with, inappropriate things were sent by me, and i accept

responsibility for that. >> [inaudible] >> blasting on this day, when i have done this time to my wife and family, i am standing before all of you and accepting this, the last thing he's thinking about next year's election. i need to make sure that this never happens again. and that i make it up to my wife and to my family and to all of the people i have harmed. >> [inaudible] >> i will try to handle this and i have not ruled out seeing someone, but i am not blaming anyone. this is not something that can be traded away. this is my own personal mistake. this is a the weakness that i have demonstrated. for that, i apologize.

>> some of these relationships date back as much as three years. >> [inaudible] >> almost from the moment -- when you say something like that, i was embarrassed. i did not want it to lead to other embarrassing things. it was a dumb thing to do, to try to tell lies about it, because it just led to other allies. almost immediately after our satellite, i knew that i was putting people in a very bad position. i did not want to continue doing that. >> [inaudible] did any of these women ever asking for anything? >> no.

>> win did you tell your wife? >> my wife has known about some of these online relationship since before we were married. we spoke frankly about them because we spoke frankly about them. she did not know until this morning deadeye had not been telling the truth about whether i posted the twitter posting. >> [inaudible] >> i am here to express my apologies to my wife and family. anyone who was ms. ladd, all of you who were misled, people -- misled, all of you were misled. i believe that everyone deserves an apology. >> where is your wife right now?

>> i apologize to the media. i apologize to my wife and my family. >> where is your wife right now? >> she is not here. >> [inaudible] >> i have a loving wife. it is not anything like that -- like that. i treat it as as a frivolous thing, not acknowledging that it was causing harm to some many people. >> [inaudible] >> i spoke briefly to leader policy -- pelosi. she said to be truthful and to say what you know. she was painful but i was doing that today. -- she was thankful that i was doing that today. she was not happy, and she told me as much.

my primary apology is to my wife. but she made it very clear that she thought what i did was very down and she was not happy about it. she is very disappointed. she also told me that she loved me and wanted us to pull through this. >> [inaudible] >> i did it regrettable thing. for that, i apologize. what did you have phone sex with these women? >> i never met any of these women. i never was in the same room with them grade i never had a physical relationship with them whatsoever. i am reluctant for their privacy. the exchanges were consensual, but i am not going to dispute

any think that any of the women have come forward to say. every right to do so. i will not make any efforts to characterize those. >> to do it on congressional time as a congressman. >> and congressional time could theoretically be anything. i do not believe that i did anything that violates any laws or my oath to my constituents. what i did was something that demonstrated a the personal failing and that is why i'm here to apologize. >> is there any other type of behavior? >> i have never had sex outside

of my marriage. i've never done anything that you described. >> [inaudible] >> i am not making any excuses for my behavior. i do not do drugs. i was not drinking. that was not because of this. this was me doing a dumb thing. and doing it repeatedly and lying about it. that is all there is. i am here to accept responsibility. i am not asking to shift the blame to anyone else. >> [inaudible] >> i did not speak to her, we exchanged some text messages. mostly for me to express my apologies that she got drawn into this.

-- dragged into this. we exchanged some perfunctory direct messages, but we had never spoken. >> [inaudible] >> i have not. my wife is a remarkable woman. she is not responsible for any of the best. it was -- she is not responsible for any of this. i apologized to her. >> [inaudible] >> people have to make that determination. i am here to express my apologies. i am here to take responsibility great beyond that, my constituents have to make the determination. it is up to them if this is something that will make them

not want to vote for me. this is a personal feeling of mind. i work very hard for my constituents for a long time. nothing about this should reflect on my official duties or my oath of office. >> [inaudible] >> i certainly used bad judgment, that is for sure. if someone wants to draw that conclusion. i am here to accept responsibility for some very bad decisions. i do not know the exact ages of the women. i will respect their privacy. they were all adult. to the best of my knowledge, they were all adults. they were engaging in these conversations can centrally.

-- consentualuly. >> [inaudible] >> i was not telling the truth. i had done something that was dishonorable. i do not begrudge anyone for not leaping to my defense. this is not anyone else's fault. this was me. i did it. i take responsibility for that, and i am not looking to point blame or shared responsibility with anyone.

i will go back to work and i will try to convince them that this was a personal failing, an aberration from which i have learned. all i can do is just keep doing what i have done, work very hard every day. there was nothing about this that changes in liability or record about getting bills passed or filling potholes or community service. this was a personal family and i hope that they see it that way pride i do not begrudge them -- see it that way. i do not begrudge them if they do not vote for me. that is their decision. >> [inaudible] >> i do not want to get into

anybody else's situation, but i can tell you about mine. it is one that i regret. it has to do with a personal weakness. people can draw their own conclusions about that. i am not resigning. i will try very hard to go back to work. i will try to be a better husband. she was buried on happy, very disappointed. -- she was very unhappy, very disappointed. she told me as much. she also told me that she loves me, but she deserves much better than that. and i know that. >> [inaudible] >> my primary concern about the entire incident was my concern about some of these relationships that had becoming public. it seems that what i have done by denying the original action

had only started to make things worse and only served to people being passed tougher questions. the better thing would be just to tell the truth. let the chips fall where they may. that is why i am here. >> are you addicted? >> all i can do is give you the facts. i never met these women, and i never had much desire to. to me, it was almost a frivolous exchanged among friends. >> [inaudible]

jalapeno that these women are not under age? -- how long do you know that these women are not under age? >> i know that i had no intention of speaking with underage women. whenever you engage with anyone, and that is always true in social media, you are relying upon their characterization. i took them at those characterization's. >> [inaudible] >> look, i am sorry, and i continue to be. but i do not backseat anything that i did that violated the rules of the house. i engaged in inappropriate online conversations with people, that included photographs, and it was a mistake. i do not believe that i did

anything that violates any laws. >> [inaudible] >> i did not have the sense that they were complete strangers. these were people that i had developed relationships with online. i believe that we had the, -- we had become friends. that was clearly a mistake. i clearly regret that. i do not know her, and i still don't really know her. she was a follower who we had a cursory direct contact. it was a mistake. i want to make it very clear.

there are long list of people that i harmed here, but this poor woman was one of them as well. i deeply regret that she got dragged into this. >> [inaudible] >> i suggest that people not do dumb things like this. not do things like this, there is nothing inherently wrong with social media. nothing inherently wrong with these outlets. but i did was a mistake. -- what i did was a mistake. >> [inaudible] >> i know a time did i try to do anything to cover anything up. she did reach out to me and expressed how she had been set

upon, and i expressed my apologies to her. but there was no coaching of any sort going on. >> [inaudible] >> my staff has never had any contact. my staff did not know the actual story. i misled them as well. they only heard the full story late this afternoon as i was getting ready to come over here. they are another group of people who i have let down. they knew nothing bread -- they knew nothing. >> was there anything predatory about your behavior? >> the women i have been in contact with, i do not know

their ages. the people i have had these engagement with on facebook are not beyond. -- nopt young. >> [inaudible] >> i am deeply sorry that i lied about this, but at the end of the day, i was embarrassed. i lied because i was ashamed of what i had done and i did not want to get caught. did i violate the constitution of the united states? i certainly do not think so. if people want to say that this is a violation of my of --oath, people are entitled to that viewpoint. >> [inaudible]

>> i do not believe i will use its the same way, that is for sure. i deeply regrets the way i have used it to date. for my use of twitter, it is something that i found useful. i certainly would not do the things that i have done. >> [inaudible] >> of course. i did not. they were inappropriate. they were part of a consensual exchange of e-mails and i do not

want to violate the privacy of the women who were involved. it was clearly a mistake. thank you. >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule. at 8:00, former pennsylvania senator announces his plan to run for the republican presidential nomination trade -- nomination. william caldwell, commander of the naval training mission in afghanistan, talks about the training of afghan security forces as they prepare for the reduction of u.s. troops there. the brookings institution hold a discussion with the foreign minister of france about political unrest in the arab world.

at the white house briefing, dick carney said that the president will receive recommendations from its military commanders on how many troops to withdraw from afghanistan dragged a this is about 50 minutes. >> it is a magnificent day in our history. the beginning of the end of the nazi regime.

the president led its monthly meeting on afghanistan with the national security team this morning. the meeting lasted nearly two hours. by video, secretary gates breezed the president on his recent trip to afghanistan. it will take place on wednesday, jan 8. they also discussed our strategic partnership with afghanistan and the progress we have made. the president received an update on our efforts to insure effective cooperation with pakistan against al qaeda and other extremists. secretary clinton, secretary gates, chief of staff, john

brennan, etc. we will make it available. i will take some questions. >> [inaudible] >> it was not a top -- a topic of discussion. it was not on the agenda. the president has not received a recommendation from his commanders. this is not a subject for today's meeting.

>> [inaudible] >> i do not have an update on scheduling. i do not have a date for you. >> [inaudible] >> the president has yet to make a decision. there were skeptics of his suggested that july 2011 was the beginning of the drawdown -- the president is going to make a decision. the pace of the drawdown. he has not made the decision,

but he will make it fairly soon. in an interview earlier today, he talked about the fact that this will be a summer of transition. he has talked about some of the progress that we have made, including the elimination of osama bin laden. we have all qaeda back on its heels. there has been some stabilization in afghanistan. it is part of a process that is under way of transferring security lead to the afghan national security forces, and that process will be reached its culmination as promised in portugal in 2014. >> [inaudible] >> i do not have a format for you. he will make a decision and then

inform the public of this decision. i would not too much -- but too much credence in that at this point. he is not yet made a decision. >> the president gave an interview to a german newspaper. he said that the two sides agree on something, but disagree on others. >> i need something a little more specific. >> how about the imf? funding for greece? they are looking for further bailout money. will the president encouraged germany to provide that money? our european -- we are in constant communication with our european counterparts. they will do whatever is

necessary to tackle this problem and we believe that is completely within their capacity to do that. i do not have any more specifics about that, but that is our position. >> the u.s. does not want imf funds? >> without getting more specific, i think that by saying that it is within their capacity to do that, we believe they are capable of handling this challenge successfully. >> can you give us a feel for what [inaudible] >> it is a vital relationship, obviously. germany is an important partner of ours, globally. i do not have the number of meetings that they have had, but they have been numerous. he looks forward to our visit and for the meetings that they will have. it is a very important

partnership. >> [inaudible] >> i am sure they will discuss the range of foreign-policy issues that are out there. the relationship is important, the cooperation is excellent, and i'm sure they will talk about those issues as well as many others. >> is this a state visit or an official visit? >> because she is head of government, this is an official visit. i have to check, i do not know. this is a technicality. >> the state dinner is tomorrow, right? >> there is a state dinner tomorrow. we can give you some of the details of the distinctions, but we are glad that she is coming

as head of government. what can you tell us? >> an official visit with a state dinner. >> i am right, that is what he is saying. does anyone else have something similar to say? [laughter] >> thank you. >> excellent, thank you. >> is the soliciting proposals from any other generals or individuals and government as an alternative to the recommendation from the commanders that he is waiting for? >> not that i am aware of, and i

do not think that is the case. what needs to be understood is that the debate and discussion about the president's policy took place in the fall above -- of 2009. this decision about the size of the initial drawdown is one in keeping with the decision the president made back in december of 2009. there is not enormous debate about this, despite reporting. the president is moving to the next stage of implementing a policy that he thought long and hard about. he looks forward to the recommendation that he gets from

his commanders. if there are options contained within that recommendation, i am sure those options will be reviewed and discussed. it is rare that there will be one alternative put on the table. i do not expect -- this is not a reopening of a process that was completed in december of 2009. >> do you expect -- what significant is or modest is spread -- modest is. it will depend on the conditions on the ground. he relies on his commanders to inform him about. there will be some discussion about how you implement that decision empowered but the policy decision has been made to break this is a step along the

way of implementing that policy. >> paris tonight, the house passed a resolution -- first tonight, the house passed a resolution saying that the president had two weeks to answer questions about libya military operation. the defense bill is coming up. does demonstration intend to answer all of the demands -- does the administration and then to answer all the demands from the house? have they saw the opinion of the department of justice is how closely or whether not the white house is in compliance? >> we believe that we are acting consistent with the war powers resolution. i am not aware of any special

seeking of guidance that we asked for. we believe we are acting consistent with the war powers resolution. there have been numerous briefings on the u.s. participation in the nato mission, as well in our other actions in regard to libya. those consultations will continue. there are questions asked that we can answer, and we will enter without question. -- and we will answer without question. we've still confident that the president is executing the the policy that he made in the exact manner that he said he would. the consultations have been consistent and we are acting consistently with the war powers resolution. we would welcome and support a

resolution similar to the resolution and the senate. it is incorrect to suggest that we have not been informing more consulting with congress to regulate. >> of the house is suggesting it very clearly. >> we have consulted regularly and will continue to trade we will answer questions regularly. >> it does not sound like you take the resolution very seriously. >> we think it is important as we continue to act with our partners to implement the actions that we have taken, that

we continue to do that. we have made enormous progress. we think the progress will continue. we have been encouraged by the steps taken by the opposition in libya. we have been encouraged by some of the declarations they have made about their support for democratic reform. we are encouraged by the regular indications that those around gaddafi are beginning to realize that the future of that regime is very bleak, and the libyan people need to be the ones who will decide who will lead them into the future. >> last question. the house is demanding a list of information about this operation. you are saying that it is not helpful. you are suggesting that you will not provide the information in

written form. they have the legal authority to cut off funding for the libyan operation. you are not concerned about this? >> we take seriously our obligation to consult with congress. to the extent there are questions that need to be answered, we will endeavor to answer them. we take seriously concern expressed by members about questions they have about our mission. we do believe we have acted consistent with the war powers resolution, and we do think -- we would welcome the support of congress and the form of a resolution similar to the one put forward by senator kerry and senator mccain. beyond that, it will depend on the consultations that we have with congress, the questions that we can answer as we go

forward. we want to continue to put -- to keep the pressure on the gaddafi regina. -- haute cuisine. >> -- regime. >> can you give us a sense of the president's process incoming to a decision? how often is a consulting with advisers? >> the consults regularly with his team of national security advisers. he has his regular afghan- pakistan meetings. i am sure he will have additional meetings as he begins to consider the recommendations that he receives from secretary dates. he will evaluate the options before and and make a decision consistent with the original decision that he made in

december of 2009. >> busy consulting with outside advisers? >> -- is key consulting with outside advisers? >> i do not know if he is doing that in this case. this is not a debate about policy. this is the implementation of a policy that has already been decided on. i do not anticipate the seeking of a canyon in some broad circle beyond his team of national security advisers. >> it sounds like he is getting -- there will be some differing opinions. >> that is why he is president, he has to make the final decision on these many issues. everyone understands what the policy decision is. the beginning of the drawdown will began in 2011 and will end

with the -- it is a transfer of security responsibility to an afghan lead across the country and will be complete in 2014. this is a moment along the way, an important moment, because it is the implementation of a key element. it is a part of a policy decision, not a new saying. -- a new thing. > the president likes and ges along with the speaker. they have spent a lot of time earlier together, working on a

number of agreements that were reached, the tax cut deal in december and continuing resolution, which continued funding for the government, and spending cuts. they have a lot to talk about. this is more of a social outing. they will not resolve the budget negotiations on the back 9. [unintelligible] no, i do not think so. he is looking forward to it. i do not think they have worked -- you know how these things are. they get along very well, i think. who is next? yes, sir. >> is president obama and giving thought to personally attending the next round of talks later in the week? >> no.

the president at asked his vice president to lead these negotiations, and i would simply say the fact that he did that demonstrated the significance that the president places on these talks. as you read about or spoke about on air, the vice president has been a key player in some major negotiations, including those that led to the agreement last december, and it is a fitting role for him to play, given his strong religious on capitol hill, in both parties. that process is important. it is very high level. it involves members of the senate and house, appointed by their leaders, so we hope the leaders have faith in those they appointed to negotiate on their behalf. obviously, as we can closer to

an end point in these negotiations, there will no doubt be presidential involvement and engagement in some form, phone calls, meetings. he is the president, and as with the decision he makes with troop draw-downs, this will be a decision he makes with the administration. he has a great deal of confidence with the cars of the negotiations been led by the vice president. >> is their frustration at the white house about the congressional schedule, one week the senate this year, the next week the house is here? , it is important that the talks continue, and that is why the meeting will be on thursday, despite the house being out. when you bring together members from both houses with members of the administration, you have to

work through scheduling conflicts. >> what is the status of discussions with keeping u.s. forces there be on the end of the year? >> i would like to say we are aware of the fact that we lost u.s. servicemen today, we express condolences to their families. notifications have been made, and it is a reminder that those who served in iraq to sell in a way that continues to place them at risk, despite the progress that has been made there. on your question, i have nothing new to announce. the process is simply that we are abiding by the status of forces agreement that will withdraw all -- have us with a drawl the remainder of our troops by the end of this year. we will entertain requests by the iraqi government and we will

entertain and it turned -- in terms of discussed requests as far as a new agreement that would obviously be quite different from the one we have now. we intend to fulfill our obligation under that sofa and withdraw all our remaining forces. since the president has come into office, we have withdrawn 100,000 troops from iraq. >> admiral mullin said in april that without an agreement in weeks, soon, we would have to start making irreversible decisions, he said. that means start bringing troops home. >> we have been bringing troops home consistently, and we are moving along according to the existing agreements we have. obviously, we have different needs of discussing with the iraqi government whatever ideas

they may have about any other kind of agreement we might reach. for now, we will keep the commitments we have made. no new talkse been given n on sofa? >> i have no information of talks that are under way. we have talks through ambassadors and military commanders, but no talks in that sense. >> is cost in any way a factor of how many troops are brought home next month? as i said before, in response to a question regarding a story about this, as powerful we are as a country, we have limited resources and the president has to make decisions about priorities. his policy decision that he made

in december of 2009 had as its objectives -- disrupt, this medal, a defeat al qaeda and stabilize afghanistan so it would not become a haven for terse as it had been in the past. those are the objectives. the decisions he made he will make going forward regarding withdrawal and to drawdowns will be based on the success of fulfilling those objectives. within the broader sense, we have limited resources. we have to make decisions about our priorities. a decision is made with a mind toward cost, but this is about national security interests primarily. >> there is with the policies --

the policy decisions that are made, that is not changing. on libya, he said it was unhelpful. you plan to respond to what the resolution called for, which was a report within 14 days? >> i do not have anything new for you be on my question about this earlier. we believe we are acting consistently with the war powers resolution. we have said repeatedly prior to and throughout this period when there has been -- this mission in libya, that we have consulted with congress, and we had. there are always disagreements in washington about different things. the over all thing we agree on is we need to make sure the nato

mission succeeds. we need to make sure through the non-legal measures that we have embarked upon that we continue to keep the pressure on gaddafi and ensure libya in the future, that people have the opportunity to choose their future, and i think we enjoy broad support within congress for those goals. >> you brought up kerry-mccain -- >> do not control the calendar, regrettably, but our position has not changed. we believe there is bipartisan support for the actions that were taken ticn. >> has anybody been in touch with the president of yemen and saudi a rabia?

>> we have been in touch with the acting president in the president's absence. i do not want to get into the details. >> is it the same message as saleh? >> our position is we were support the agreement that the president had talked about signing several times, and did not, which would lead to a transfer of power, and we have supported -- we made calls for a cessation of violence. we meant that on both sides. we want a peaceful and orderly transition, and that is consistent with the yemeni's constitutional process, and we believe an immediate transition

is in the best interest of maintaining stability. saudia arabia is an important ally, and it is fair to say they have been helpful, as have others in the region who have worked with us and others to try to bring about a transition their that is best -- in the best interests of the people of yemen, and from our perspective, in the best interests of the national security interests of the united states. >> the administration have other people queued up, considering congress has blocked at least three or four nominees? >> we will move quickly, ford as an as possible with replacement nominee. i will take this opportunity to

express our does appointment of with the partisan stretch -- obstructionism that led mr. diamond to withdraw his nomination. this is an enormously qualified candidate, and you know the process is broken when a nobel laureate is denied a post in the federal reserve, and that is a problem, and we regret that very much. we echoed the sentiment that peter diamond expressed in his op-ed this morning. >> what is the impact -- may be hard to assess for him -- the impact of nominees not getting into their positions? >> we have a situation when we talk about economic appointments, this is a top priority. it is a top priority of

congress, both houses, and it is vital that we have people in positions, at the fed or elsewhere, who are capable of fulfilling their responsibility of the job they have been nominated for in the name of improving the economic situation in this country. when you have highly qualified, highly regarded nominees for posts like this, they should be -- the senate should act accordingly and allow that nomination to go forward. this is somebody in the case of peter diamond that benefited from bipartisan support of several occasions from committee votes. it is very regrettable. >> if the administration had consult with congress, why do they continue to have so many questions? >> it is their target of that questions and our obligation to answer those questions. it is partly how the process works. we do not have a problem with the fact that they have additional questions and we will

endeavor to answer those questions as we have brought this process. >> was the white house surprised by peter diamond's announcement? >> no. >> was there more that the white house could have done? >> i do not think so. >> was that something that he will stress with the german chancellor tomorrow? >> i am sure that will be a part of their conversation. the economy is of interest of both leaders and an issue that they are addressing in different ways. as the president noted in his address, we have been hit with the fallout from the tsunami an earthquake in japan, high energy prices, and the continuing drag presented by the european euro zone economic issues.

in many ways i am sure all three of those will be topics of conversation between the chancellor and the president. [unintelligible] it is possible. the president has made clear what his view is, which is we support the selection of the most qualified nominee. [unintelligible] not that i am aware of that they would speak about a specific candidacy, but i will not rule out what would come up. >> is there a sense regarding the troop withdrawal decision -- >> will not be a precipitous withdrawal, press of this being an adjective that suggests -- precipitous been an adjective

suggests haste. it will be a condition that will review the conditions on the ground, and will be very reflected in the decision are originally, with a policy decision he made in december, two dozen 9, very deliberate and thought through. -- 2009, a very deliberate and fought through. we will inform our allies about decision once it is made. i think that kind of cooperation will continue. >> given that the last troops are scheduled to leave in 2014, this is not a huge window. talk about why this july 1 drawdown is so significant. >> is the beginning of a process.

it is a port to remember when the president came into office there were a certain number of troops, and he has increased been significantly because of his focus to defeat al qaeda where al qaeda central is located, where they september 11 attacks were launched from. he followed through on his commitment he made in his campaign to refocus our attention on the original fight here, the fight that was so important, and we now have because of the surge reach a troop level that is allowing us to make important progress in terms of stabilizing afghanistan and beginning the process of transferring a security lead over to the afghan security forces.

we are now at a point as was envisioned by the president's policy where we can begin a drop down, and the pace wowill depend on conditions on the ground. i think your point, but how that is based out between now and 2014, there is some room to decide what that slope looks like, and this is the first of those decisions. >> on that slope, the recommendation that the president gets, does he expect it to be more than just a july number? how much of the slope will be outlined in this recommendation, and it's not specific, do you revisit this every month on how many trips to bring back and when? >> obviously this will be a proposal that looks at the situation we have now envision

what the situation will be going for. as has always been the case, the process will be revisited according to what is happening on the ground. it would be foolish to say that a certain portion will come out today and a certain portion in six months and three days from now. i think the answer is -- >> we know where you want to be in 2014, but you may not be able to put an exact numbers to exact dates, but will there be certain mileposts that you will set down they can revisit? >> not that i can announce from here. only the president can announce the decision he makes when he makes the decision. it is but premature here. to anticipate how that will look would be foolhardy on my part.

>> how well he conveyed this to the american people who will he speak and review this policy and look over the next three years? >> we are getting ahead of the process. he will convey suggestions to how. >> can i go back to the question about peter diamond. do you think the white house did everything possible to push this nomination forward? the the president pick up the phone? -- did the president pick up the phone and call mr. shelby? >> weast park -- we strongly supported this and regret he has withdrawn his nomination. again, he enjoys significant bipartisan support as he should

have given his qualifications, and we think the suggestion that he somehow not be qualified is ridiculous. is important for us to move forward in this process because these posts need to be felt because we have such important issues before us in dealing with the economy. we look forward to working with congress and the senate to get a nominee who replaces mr. diamond confirmed and other nominations that are still pending confirmed. >> [unintelligible] >> i hope it is isolated. i hope the process can move forward. i am not suggesting it is uniform. we have had some nominees move forward and we appreciate that. we would like to see others move forward. >> under a new law that the

president signed in december -- a lot of people worry that if the the certification does not place by the end of this month [unintelligible] >> i think the process is moving at the pace we anticipated, and i think it is the president's policy and it will be implemented regardless of who is secretary of defense. [unintelligible] we do not share that concern, no. >> official relationship now with the and i did state government and the taliban -- if he could flush that house.

-- that house. at the asian trade conference, talk about how we could work together, that would build a relationship with the united states government and the taliban. could you give us any information as the president works to draw down troops. >> i think what this refers to is our oft-stated report for the reconciliation process that president karzai has begun. the contingencies and conditions of reconciliation are respect, renouncing violence, renouncing terrorism, laying down your arms, and abiding by the afghan constitution. there has to be a political settlement in afghanistan, and that would have to include elements of the taliban.

and we support that process. if in some future day when there is we hope a relative peace in afghanistan and there has been a robust and successful reconciliation effort, people who used to be members of the taliban who are now reconciled into the afghan government, and we have a relationship with the afghan government, then that would include elements of the taliban from the past. the process of getting to the reconciliation is not simply saying i would like to reconcile. >> there is a history there. are we at this point able to trust what ever the taliban says? >> there is an important to make sure that is clear, and this is a process being undertaken by president karzai who believes that reconciliation is the

central for a long-term solution in afghanistan. we support him in that and agree with him. there are irreconcilable elements, and we are taking the fight in afghanistan to those elements and have made progress. and halted the taliban's lamented. going forward, written salesian has to be part of afghanistan's feature and we support that process. >> if the president plays golf with a spear, will you please ask them if he will let them see if he will let us see them tee off? >> the president enjoys playing golf on occasion in part because it is a nice break. there are not many opportunities

a president gets to get outside and be away from the trappings of office. in terms of the specifics golf date that you mention, i do not have anything yet on how we are going to cover that. >> concerning the national security challenges, and what we saw last week in terms of the economic recovery slow down, could he talk to us about -- >> you do not have much of a choice when you become president. these are the two priorities your hand and for good reason. national security of a united states, protecting the people of the united states, at home and abroad, and the economic

vitality and job creation of the nation. these are the two parties the president focuses on every day. these are complicated times and when he took office we were in economic freefall, and that was the focus, appropriately, of the immediate attention, but it is often lost or we forget sometimes that he also, when he came into office, inherited two wars, that he had to spend a lot of time thinking about in terms of fulfilling his process of ending the war in iraq, a promise that he is keeping, and also the promises he made about how to successfully prosecute our efforts in afghanistan, another promised he is keeping. you do not have a choice. you have to do both. that is the reality of the office, and it is why it is such

an important one. >> i feel like i might have been on vacation, but why did the president stopped doing the economic daily briefing? when did it stop being a daily thing? >> happens occasionally, does not happen all the time, and that was always the case, but i can check. i do not have any scheduling changes to a mouse. >> last week an al qaeda spokesperson said [unintelligible] i am wondering how seriously take this statement, and if you have directed the justice department to look into the matter. [unintelligible] >> i am not aware of the

statement that you mentioned, and i would encourage you to go to the justice department on it. we are very mindful of any threats emanating from al qaeda and taken seriously, so the upper root folks are aware of an acting on it. i do not have to send you to justice on that. >> [unintelligible] handicap? >> that is classified. i do not think any of that has been worked out. it is an opportunity for the man to spend time together. as the president said, and the speaker shares the opinion, this is useful and valuable because they obviously both have a lot of responsibility for the kinds

of decisions that need to be made in this country on behalf of the american people. the fact that they can spend a few hours together playing golf is absolutely a good thing. how that game goes, we will this have to wait to see. i do not have anything on who else will be playing. >> most of the country does not have -- it seems to be another -- in washington. [unintelligible] are you confident that you can resolve that issue -- >> we are confident that congress will vote to raise the

debt ceiling. we believe that members of congress have heard about the imperative here, not from us, but from a variety of places, and that that message is getting through, and is one that has been expressed by leaders of congress of both parties. to your point, it is not just the international financial community that would be adversely affected by it to fall. everyone in this country would be adversely affected by a default. the consequence for the economy would be very serious, very great, and that would affect growth, jobs, retirement accounts, it would affect every single american, and to the point as in terms of the global impact, it would affect people around the world and that is why it is important to take this

vote. what people need to understand is this vote, always one that congress is resistant to take for additional reasons, is to lift the debt ceiling in order to pay obligations that the government has already made. is not a decision to spend money. this is the decision to honor the obligations already made by a united states government, by the congress, administration, of both parties, and it has to be done because defaulting on our obligations, on the full faith and credit of the united states government would be a terrible, terrible idea with unpredictable consequences. thank you , all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> speaking to supporters in pennsylvania, rick santorum announced he is a candidate for the republican presidential nomination. we will have his comments tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span. the obama administration's 2012 budget proposal would allow pension benefit guaranty corp. to charge an additional premium for overseeing benefit pension plans. the agency has been operating under a deficits since 2002. here is more from this morning's "washington journal." host: joshua gotbaum is our guest. thank you for being here. guest: nice to be here. host: how endanger american pension plans?

-- how endangered our american pension plans? guest: the fact is, the vast majority will be absolutely fine. one thing is, you have a lot of money invested in the stock market, so when markets go down, the plans are underfunded. one of the things about markets is, stocks go down, stocks go up. eventually, they return. the vast majority of pension plans are and will be fine. but it is hard to tell them right now because right now, the market is in bad shape, the economy is in bad shape. these kind of pension plans are underfunded currently. what let's talk about your pension guaranty corporation does. someone has a private pension and they expect to see -- receive that. if you have defined benefits, you will get a certain amount of

money going into retirement, but your company goes bankrupt. guest: the pdic was founded on the fdic. when a bank closes, the fdic steps in and makes sure your deposits or clip -- are covered up to some limits. host: just because my bank fails, my deposits are not unnecessarily -- guest: exactly, and that is what the pdic does for pensions. if the company fails, we step in and pay up to a certain limit. we have been doing it for 37 years. but right now, we are responsible for about 1.5 million people's pensions. and we are also ensuring, protecting if you will, the pensions of 40 million others. host: let's look at some statistics by mcclatchy.

guest: yes, well, the revenues actually come from premiums. like the fdic, the way the pbgc works, we are insuring them against failure. you do not use tax payer money. you charge pension plans, an insurance premium. it is those funds, plus the fund's we get from the plans that we take over that paid for our obligations. host: talk us through how a company would engage pbgc. if i am concerned about my pension plan, can i take matters into my own hands? guest: no, the way this works is when a company is in so much

trouble that they have to terminate their plan, normally, that means they are in bankruptcy and they may not get out. then they will talk to us and say, we think we have to terminate our pension plan. the first thing we try to do, quite frankly, is to convince them not to terminate their pension plans. we think is important to keep the pension plans in place. we spend a lot of effort trying to get companies to keep their plans. but it is clear that the company cannot, then we come in and we take over the plan. we will then come to all of the people who are participants in that plan, the current employees, retirees or wherever, and say, the bad news is that your plan has been terminated. the good news is that the pbgc will pay your benefits. we then go in and figure out

what benefits you would have received under your plan. couey csis -- we see if that is within our limits and we pay it. we paid on time. we are very proud of the fact -- as i say, we have taken 1.5 million people on. for those on pensions, when we take over their plans, we always pick up the payment on time. host: and mcclatchy story running in the "seattle times" recently says --

where has this left you? guest: it has left me convinced that it is really important to have a pbgc. as we all know, in the past couple of years the economy has gone through the wringer. while clearly getting better, it is also the fact that a lot of companies have gone through tough times, a lot of companies have gone through bankruptcy, and a lot of companies have been unable to keep their plants. and that is why the pbgc is so important. that is why we have stepped in. the effect of all of this on our finances is that we have taken on a lot more obligations than we used to have and we do not currently have all of the resources to pay it. but that is why we charge premiums to plans. we have a proposal in front of congress now to raise our premiums so that we can make sure we can pay our obligations

for the long term. host: we have the director of the pension benefit guaranty corp., p pbgc, appointed by president obama in july of last year. let's go to our first call. caller: you are in charge of the organization that covers private environmental pensions. i have a question. can you profile the difference between government and private pensions in terms of the amount of time it takes to qualify for a private worker in the united states and a government worker, and the probability that a pension will pay out in its full extension? i am 57 and the anecdote is i have seen a lot of the industry,

the textile industry in the south, i have seen a lot of industries close up shop and ship offshore because of international labor rates. and i have a father-in-law that was involved in a company that closed in downtown manhattan. all of these companies were deep-sixed and abolished. my question is, -- and this is my bias and my question -- i think the government pensions are easier to qualify for and much more fruitful in terms of long payout for coverage than private pensions. what is your opinion? guest: one of the things you should know is that the pension benefit guaranty corp. only deals with private pension

plans. we do not deal with government pension plans. we are not expert in them. i will not be able to give you an informed judgment about the comparison between the two. i think there are some commonalities that we are to talk about. one is, there are still a very large number of people in america that have traditional defined-benefit pension plans. we at the pbgc project only private pensions and recover 40 million people. -- and we cover 40 million people. in the public sector there are many but tens of millions in addition. we think in this country there are 70, 80 million people who have traditional pension plans. and we think that is worth protecting. part of the way we do it, frankly, is we urge companies to keep their plants. if we succeed in that, we are

very proud. one of the things of which i am actually proudest is that last we talked to companies and said, even though you are in bankruptcy, can't you find a way to reorganize without killing your attention? and in a lot of cases we were successful. today, just from our efforts last year, there are 300,000 people who have not lost their pensions because of that kind of effort. we think that matters. one of the things we always do is to try to make sure that people understand the benefits of the traditional pension because one of the sad facts of life is, you are right, half the people in america do not have any pension at all. that is sad.

what we try to do is preserve folks who do have pensions. and we also try to encourage people to expand where they have pensions. my view is, 35 years ago, the pbgc and shourd penchant covering 35 million americans. today, we cover 44 million americans. we have a lot of work to do, but that is what we are doing. host: you mentioned that you deem them success stories because you have convinced companies not to cut off pension plans. i was trying to find a delicate way to put it. one thing that has happened in the last couple of years is the auto industry. just looking at this story from bloomberg business week, gm used pbgc and you took responsibility for $6.1 billion in pension payments.

what kind of impact does that have won an issue like this comes up? in my speech a huge amount of money for you to have to deal with. guest: the pbgc has assets of $80 billion. last year, we paid out about $6 billion in benefits. and we took in a little over $2 billion in premiums and we had high single-digit billions in investment income. no one would say, oh, does it not worry you when you take on a large plan or when a large plan fails -- of course it does. that is where we work very hard to preserve those plans. in the auto industry last year,

the auto parts business of ford -- that had been part of ford was in bankruptcy. they were planning on terminating their pension plan. we went to them and said, do you really need to do this? can you reorganize your business with are doing that? in the end, they agreed. as a result, i do not know how many of those workers there are, but there were a lot of them who have their pension and health insurance, etc. because of what we did. because of what we did, the delphi employees in set of getting their pension and health insurance, they get a pbgc pension. host: let's go to a caller. caller: let's go back to your statement that the vast majority of corporations are underfunded in their pension plans.

this could be nick in the bud if we had congress and the white house -- this could be nipped in the bud if we have congress and the white house establishing that no bonuses would be paid to if the pension system is underfunded. perhaps not only congress and the ordaz are sleeping at the switch, but is it -- and the white house are sitting at the switch, but also the unions and other organizations who are not getting the pension plans properly funded. guest: i have to tell you that there are a lot of folks who agree with that in some way, shape or form. there are a lot of folks that think if the pension plan is

underfunded, then shouldn't something happen? and also tell you that over the starting with compl, the legislation that created the ,bgc in the mid-1970's including the federal government saying if you're going to have a pension plan you have got to put money away for it and you have to make sure the money is there when the time is right. there is already in place a lot of protection. notwithstanding those protections, when the stock market goes down, especially when it has gone down as much as it has in the last couple of years, and when the economy is as weak as it has been the last couple of years, even very sound companies have underfunded pension plans. personally, i do not think the response is to say, let's add another additional regulation in

that circumstance. i think the right response is to do what we have proposed to do, which is to say, when it comes time to set in the premiums -- when it comes time to set the premiums that they paid to the pbgc, we ought to take that into account and if they oughstart to pay fat -- if they start to play fast and loose, then their premiums are to go up. host: pbgc debt has gone up since 2002. what are your thoughts about that? guest: actually, it has shown an accounting deficit for most of its existence. the reason is, we take on obligations. when a company fails, we take on the pension plan. there is never enough money in the pension plan to cover it. we start with a deficit and then

we make up the difference in two ways. one is, we try to invest those funds conservatively and defensively. and the other thing is, we charge premiums to folks. time after time in our history, the congress has said, oh, you have a deficit, so premiums have to go up to cover it. right now, our deficit is large by historical terms, not surprisingly, there are a lot of conversations about raising pbgc premiums. personally, i do not worry about whether or not the pbgc will be able to meet its obligations, notwithstanding the deficit. we will. right now, we have $80 billion in assets and we can pay them -- pay benefits for decades.

host: under the new proposal the pbgc would get approval to charge more for premiums. guest: yes, part of the reason it is important to have realistic premiums is because that is the way we make sure that we can actually pay the pensions when the time comes. and historically, every time the deficit has gone large, congress has stepped in. what we are proposing now is rather than congress do it in a way that tree debris the same, why don't we do with more business like that actually -- that actually treat everybody the same, why do we actually do it more businesslike, in a way that rewards people? host: from michigan, pete, a republican. caller: your guest talks about a large number of folks pepe pbgc

is helping, and it is probably is helping, pbgcx and it probably of a large number. what i would like to know is what is the percentage of people that are being helped? the percentage is probably very low. the rest of us are saving through 41 k pension plans, ira's. and we are taking the risk ourselves and we need to return to retire comfortably. i find it a bit disturbing that all of us, which is a large percentage of american workers, 80%, 90% of us who are saving for retirement are paying any taxes at all to guarantee defined benefit pension plans for such a small number of private workers who have these plans.

and i would say, most of those -- and maybe you could tell me what a small percentage of workers who have defined benefit pension plans are part of union labor. it seems to me this whole program is a giveaway that we can no longer afford to union labor. and those people, if their pension goes bad, they should get a cash lump-sum payment, rolled into an ira and take the risk like the rest of us. guest: let me start with some facts. you are a taxpayer. so am i, by the way. neither of us paid a dime of taxpayer money to ensure pensions. not a dime. the pbgc has never used taxpayer funds and part of my job is to make sure that we never do. that is why we charge premiums and that is what the pension plan is all about. this is not from your tax

dollars or mine. u.s. the question of how many people -- you can't ask the question of how many people are under traditional pension -- you asked the question of how many people are a traditional pension plans. there are about 40 million in total. the number of employees is something approaching 30% of the work force. 30% of the people have a defined benefit pension plan. however, the reason why i think it matters is because most of the rest do not have anything at all. most of the rest do not have pension plans. some of the rest are folks like you, and by the way me, whoever ira, 401k type of pension plans. but very couple of problems with them.

-- there are a couple of problems with them. one is, they forced people to become their own investment experts. and unfortunately, most of us are not investment experts, and as a result, are concerned -- are concerned areour concer-- o about those pension plans is that you will go to retire and discover it is not enough. one of the great things about this nation -- and we should all be proud of this -- we are all living longer, healthier lives. that is a great thing. in my view, is the greatest accomplishment of the last century. but it means that when people retired, their returns are going to last longer and cost more. as a result, pension plans will

cost more and people will have to save more. and folks do not necessarily do the math when they have the 401k. people will think they have a fair amount of money and they will retire and then they will live longer and run out of money and suddenly, instead of pouring kids, you have boomeranged parents. boomerang kidsthe more rai you have boomerang parents. host: here is a tweet. private, is there any subset that is not included in this? guest: we include a traditional pension plans that are sponsored

by businesses, non-profit, etc., so private pension plans. we do not guarantee 401k's, private contribution plans, government plans. the agency was not set up to do that. recover "only -- we cover "only " the 44 million people that we cover. host: but go to the next call. -- let's go to the next call. caller: i would like to know how many people had pension plans when ronald reagan stepped in office in 1980. before the assault on the middle class began. i know that newt gingrich's contract with america, he took away the guarantees for pension plans. the managers of pension plans

had the fiduciary responsibility to invest those plans in such a manner that the principle was never lost. the republicans and newt gingrich in their assault on america decided to let the company keep that reinvested and leverage against pension plans. they passed that law and i took an early retirement because i knew the pension plan was going to be gone. one of the reasons the bailout was necessary because so many pension plans were invested in this scam on real estate. basically, we have had our pension plans stolen and keep voting republican, folks. they will get everything. guest: let me start with some facts. as i mentioned, 30 years ago, the pbgc pension plans have

cover 35 million people. today, we ensured -- we insured pension plans covering almost 44 million people. that does not mean there are not lots of folks who are now doing defined contribution plans and 401k's, etc., but there are a lot of folks who are still in traditional pension plans and we think that is important. over the years, and i mention this to the previous caller, the government stepped in to say, when you have a traditional pension plan you have got to be responsible for it. there is a fiduciary obligation. there has been a fiduciary obligation since 1974. what has happened over time is, as people have tried things, companies have tried things, congress has from time to time stepped in and said, what we

meant by responsible did not include that, so you cannot do it. that has happened time and time again. the result is, frankly, as i mentioned at the beginning of this program, the majority of pension plans in this country are sound. and it does not mean that they are not going true tough times because of the market, but they are sound. they are going to pay benefits. and the vast majority of people who are in traditional pension plans are going to get their pensionget theira pbgc pension. -- going to get their pension plans, not a pbgc plan. host: 2003-05, our guest lead an

organization of hawaiian airlines as it emerged from chapter 11 in credit. creditors were paid in full as it emerged from bankruptcy. guest: i am actually quite proud of that. for me, one of the important experiences with these the gambert 11 fund. -- the 9/11 fund. one of the things you think when you are trying to help folks is, i am helping folks, isn't that great? and what we forget and what i learned when i was running the 9/11 fund is that people's lives had been turned upside down.

and when people are forced to deal with the pbgc their lives have been turned upside down. their companies are gone, their pension funds, etc. in cases like that, folks are not inclined to write thank you notes. for me, that was an important preparation and education. because one of the things we try never to forget that the pbgc is that we are helping folks at a time in their lives when they are distressed. host: in missouri, wayne joins us on the democrats line. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead, sir. caller: are you familiar with the survivor benefits under the pension plan? guest: i have some familiarity with survivor benefits. caller: my question is, after i we set up a benefit

plan of 50% that would go to my wife is something happened to me. but as time goes on, we decided we were both in good health and we thought we would stop the plan. lo and behold, there ain't no way on god's earth we are going to stop the plan. it was in solid bedrock. do you have an answer? is that something we cannot change? guest: one of the things that is important to remember about pension plans is your pension plan is your pension plan through your company. it is not the taxpayer plan or the government's plan. every plan is different. some of them let you make choices at varying times. some of them force you to make a

choice when you start. i have been present in both kinds of plants. that is -- i have participated in both kinds of plans. that is something you need to talk about with your company. host: we have talked about how the pbgc could have its opportunity to raise premium rates altered. recently, the obama administration proposed giving pbgc authority not only to raise premiums, but also to assess the risk of any given insurance company, much as f.d.i.c. does. but there is some push back here. the chamber of commerce opposes it. here is what is said.

guest: let's start with basics. i spent more than half my life in business and one thing that is true with all businesses, we do not want our premiums to go up. it doesn't matter if it's government or private insurance premiums. it is not surprising that the first reaction of all business groups when they hear that pbgc premiums may go up again, they say, oh, no, it is unnecessary. we do not want it. the second thing is, should premiums treat everyone alike? let me use an example. we are all required to have auto insurance, but we do not all pay

the same rate. if i am a lousy driver, i pay a higher rate. if you are a safer driver, you pay lower rates. if your rate goes up because i became a lousy year driver, you would be ticked off, right? and that is what we are finding in the business community. a lot of the members of the business community are saying, i do not want to pay for the mistakes of others. my response to them is, in that case, then you are going to have to actually trust us to set your rates differently from those others. that is what we have proposed. host: louisiana, john joins us on the republican line. caller: i am a retired delta airlines pilot who is currently drawing his pension from the pbgc. when delta declared bankruptcy,

our union basically through all of the retirees under the bus and we were turned over to the pbgc. i have not heard much said about how much a person gets compared to what they did get. i will give you some hard numbers. basically, when the pbgc took over, i got 50%, half of what i should be getting from delta air lines. that was 2003 through 2006. i just got a notice five years later that they did a we compute and i was now going to get $300 per month more, which brings it up to about 62%. i retired at age 60, which was mandatory retirement. in that bankruptcy, many pilots got early retirement, but were not covered by the pbgc.

in fact, when delta declare bankruptcy, they got zero and still to this day get zero. those are examples of what the pbgc may be does not do. i am interested in your comment on this. guest: i think it is a tragedy. as you know, i have worked with -- i am actually a fighter pilot, although, barry at of practice. but i have worked with the pilots union's -- a very art of practice. but i've worked with the putts unions and other airlines, so i have a lot of sympathy. the fact is, as you know, as you are seeing every month, the protection that the pbgc provides, by law, has limits. and that limit is less generous than most private pensions. it is unfortunately the case -- than most pilot pensions.

it is unfortunately the case that you are not alone. when airlines, despite pbgc efforts, terminate their pension plans, especially their pilots -- to some extent others, but especially their pilots got insurance to replace part of their pensions, but it was only part. there's nobody that is happy about this. thethe fact is, we do what's congress lets us do and that is what they let us do. host: you mentioned pilots in particular, but for the private pension plans that pbgc helps with, what percentage of them see a reduction in their rates? guest: i do not know exactly, but fortunately it is not a large percentage of the people we injured.

-- insure. but the fact that there are only tens of thousands of them in the millions that we insure is cold comfort. host: is there any way to fight back? like for the color that had his own personal experience that he shared -- of the caller that had his own personal experience that he guest: shared -- that he shared. guest: although i am very proud of the fact that hawaiian airlines, i was able to get 100 cents on the dollar, that is incredibly rare. normally, it is pennies on the dollar. this is unfortunately one of the sad facts of our lives. host: joshua gotbaum

>> here is a look at our prime time schedule. anthony wiener hold a news conference. after that, the tenet journal william caldwell talks about the training of afghan security forces. the brookings institution holds a discussion with the foreign minister of france and political unrest in the arab world. >> members from the canadian

house of commons question the cabinet on the federal budget. steven harper was absent from the proceedings. this is 45 minutes. >> are there any questions? >> mr. speaker, i like to congratulate the prime minister and all members of this house on their election. i would like to remind the conservatives that 60% of canadians voted against this government.

the prime minister said he was going to have to work with all members of the house. in the throne speech, there is no change of tone. what happened to the willingness to work together? >> i would like to congratulate the new opposition leader. he was very successful in the election, and we can see the results here in this speech. we repeated promises that we made during the election campaign. the results were clear, and we now have a majority conservative government. [applause]

mr. speaker, in the election, canadians clearly voted for change, and they clearly wanted members of parliament to work together. i think the sentiment was very strong. they wanted to focus on their families and the issues that were affecting them each and every day. new democrats have committed to work respectfully to end heckling and give this place the decorum that it deserves. will the government commit today to do the same? [applause] >> mr. speaker, we are of course looking forward to a mandate in which we can move forward constructively on the issues that we talked about as canadians and have here in this house a debate which is meaningful, which is thought all, which is focused on policy and the values of canadians. i think we will have that in the years to come, and it promises to be a productive, district of parliament. our clear mandate, and having

laid out exactly what we intend to do for canadians, and carry out our commitments into exactly what we said we would do. [applause] >> i am sure the official record will show that the sentiment that was just expressed -- [laughter] spring time in the arab world this year has been extraordinary and unprecedented, and the steps to democracy has been painful ones. the people of these countries need support. last month, the g8 promised $20 billion, but nothing from canada. the conservatives don't seem to realize how important it is to help these people make the transition. why has canada isolated self from its g8 allies? [applause] >> the hon. minister of foreign

affairs. >> i congratulate my friend, the new leader of the opposition, on an impressive results at election time brought the government and i are committed to working them and other positions. over the past few years, we put more than a quarter of a billion dollars to support efforts to rob a direct ambassador to the people of egypt -- to have a direct ambassador to the people of egypt. i look forward to working with the leader of the opposition. [applause] >> mr. speaker, there have been recent reports of a number of human rights abuses in libya, including rape. this is happening and 8 benghazi, misurata, and a number of other cities in libya. our top priority should be providing humanitarian assistance, particularly for women at fleeing from the

violence. can the government commit to making this? will the government contribute to bringing gaddafi regime war criminals to justice? the hon. foreign affairs minister. [applause] >> mr. speaker, i am equally concerned about the huge number of fair fight allegations with respect to sexual violence as the use as a tool for. i have had discussions with the foreign affairs critic on this issue. i had a specific briefing on what we might do in canada to tackle this issue, working with the international criminal court, or providing tangible assistance on the social services side or the prosecution or policing a side. i would be pleased to work with a member on something that should be at uniting force. [applause] >> we see tremendous change in

the arab world, and canadians support that change, and they want to see our government do more trade at countries pledged $20 billion or more for the arab spring, and there was nothing new from canada at, nothing for egypt. the speech in 2008 promised to create democratic developing institute. the question is, why isn't it canada supporting these new democracies, and why is the government out of step with the rest of the world? [applause] >> i can report that canada remains incredibly supportive of the change we have seen going on in tunisia and egypt. we support initiatives which respect the people in egypt. he will underline the support we are giving both militarily and in humanitarian assistance to libya. we are doing a lot of a funding, more than a quarter of a million dollars in recent years, to multilateral bodies which will provide direct support. we are watching with interest

what is going on and we will see what can be done. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have a simple question for the government. the government leader talked about the fact that he wanted to establish in the speech canadian values. is a reduction of poverty in canada a priority for canadians? yes is it a top priority for the government? apparently not. why not, mr. speaker, why is poverty reduction not a priority for the conservative government? [applause] the hon. government house leader. >> i want to congratulate him for his new position as leader of the liberal party brought in elections afte -- liberal party. , in elections, where betts by the result -- they had surprising results -- this party

has been committed to improving the well-being of canadian families, throughout measures to reduce the tax burden the typical canadian family is about $300 billion better off on average -- $300 million better off on average. [applause] later today and the budget we may hear some more things -- [applause] >> the elegy to the word "-- poverty -- allergy to the word "poverty" seems to be there, mr. speaker. i wonder if i had asked the minister, congratulating him on his appointment again, to say that the chief, on his statement, made it clear that he regarded a meeting between the crown and the first nations and all the aboriginal people,

including the inuit, that had to take place on a government-to- government basis, that respects the jurisdictions of the aboriginal people. i would like to ask why that commitment -- >> the hon. minister of aboriginal affairs. [applause] >> we are at a place where we are having discussions with the national chief. we are looking at and action plans be that we can work on together -- action plan that we can work on together. part of the dialogue will be to discuss the very gathering your bringing up. that is something we will flesh out over the next period of time. oakleigh we will come to us something quite -- quite helpful -- hopefully we will come this on the qui -- come to something quite effective. >> there are people who have had water up to here. we are hearing all these nice

things, but the prime minister has shown as much empathy as someone having a tooth pulled without anesthetic. why is the prime minister not making more concessions and allowing the army to play the cleanup role when the problem -- they ask, "what you need?" what are you rooting for? -- what are you waiting for? [applause] >> the hon. minister of national defence. >> we are very sympathetic to the plight of those affected by the floods, not only in quebec, but manitoba as well, as well as those in saskatchewan brought mr. speaker, the prime minister has been in the region this morning. we have canadian soldiers who have been on the ground within 24 hours of being contacted by the province of quebec.

they continue to work with the province to the best of their ability to mitigate the damage and are condemning their efforts as we speak. there are 500 -- continuing their efforts as we speak. there are 500 soldiers, and we congratulate them period [applause] >> mr. speaker, the people are facing the worst flooding the region has ever seen. after 50 days, the prime minister has finally shown up, and we're learning that, unlike victims in manitoba and alberta, the residents can still not count on exhilarated processing of their -- accelerated processing of their ei claims. the hon. minister of the human- resources. [applause] >> mr. speaker, our government understands the difficulty and the stress that people are experiencing in the area. that aside -- that is why we

have accelerated processing of their claims. once i learned of the situation, i asked staff for details, and the details are now available on our website. >> mr. speaker, in our area, paul area is flooded -- the whole area is flooded. there are people who have run out of steam, but the government has shown very little concern for accelerating help. they have done so for manitoba and alberta, but they aren't -- they are ignoring those for quebec until today. will the minister of human- resources explain why the

victims still today have to wait for accelerated service? the hon. minister of human- resources. [applause] >> mr. speaker, all across canada, canadians who fall victim to national -- to natural disasters have to get the same support from the government regardless of where they live. that is why, as soon as i learned of the situation, i asked the department to be ensured that victims of the flooding in the regime would receive the same priority treatment and processing for ei claims as elsewhere in canada. it will get that immediately, and details are available on our website. [applause] >> mr. speaker. our communities both rural and urban and need support to give their infrastructure a second

wind. think of the champlain bridge. the minister of transport says there will be a permanent program for infrastructure development, but it is time to act. will this development be sustainable? will public transit be included? [applause] the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport. >> mr. speaker, our government has already enlisted an amount of money in infrastructure. our record is exceptional in this area when it comes to transfers to cities and municipalities. at present added stimulus contribution we have announced in the -- unprecedented stimulus contribution we have announced in the march budget, with the improvement that the gap tax fund will be made

permanent. [applause] >> in the 1990's, the federal deficit was put on the backs of canadian communities. 20 years later, canadians are stuck in traffic, our bridges are crumbling, our water systems are failing. canadians deserve a a a vision, and national public transit strategy. will the government act immediately with the new funds to deal with the $123 billion infrastructure deficit? [applause] >> i thank the hon. member for question. she will recall that in 2007, we extended the fund by for years. in 2009, we doubled the find. in 2010, despite economic challenges and efforts to keep

costs down, we protected the fund, and in today's budget, she will have occasion to stand and join hands with our government as we move forward in the effort to make the tax fund permanent to help our communities across this country. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the mandate to provide postal service to all canadians. economical, as did all meant -- stable element, a move towards representation. [unintelligible] will the government used this to make sure that management remembers that its mandate is to serve canadians -- that its mandate to serve canadians comes first? [applause] >> the hon. minister of. >> mr. speaker, our government is committed to quality postal service for all canadians, no matter where did they lift brought last year, canada post began a $2.1 billion modernization which will make

the investments. we are making canada post more effective for canadians, the clients, the people that and a service. canadians will be very pleased with the results. [applause] >> canada post made $281 million in profits and is still requesting concessions for its employees. this attitude is endangering the services in rural and remote regions. no one in the private sector can fulfill the mandate of the canada post, which is to offer postal services across canada. mr. speaker, will the federal government use its influence to remind the administration of canada post that its main mandate is to serve all canadians? [applause] the hon. minister of state.

>> mr. speaker, again, canada post is mandated to provide postal service to canadians regardless of whether they live. canada post has made substantial investments in the infrastructure, $2.1 billion, as i have already mentioned. we are working to be ensure that canadians receive the best possible postal service regardless of where they this. are we look forward to working with opposition parties and all stakeholders to ensure that canadians get the mail when they ask for it. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the 2011 progress report was released, and the conclusions are clear. this government failed to make progress because it failed to

show leadership. the prescription drug program fails canadians who are facing extraordinary drug costs. will the government acknowledge the lack of progress and commit to working with new democrats to protect canada's health care system? [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i look forward to working with my colleagues for the next four years. our government recognizes the importance of timely access to health care and is working to support the provinces and territories in their efforts to address the issues of we times. we will increase transfers to provinces by over 32% and we will continue said that the provinces can continue to focus on areas of importance. we will work collaborative lead with provinces to continue to reduce wait times in the respective jurisdictions. thank you.

[applause] >> well, mr. speaker, health care is far too important for and the rhetoric, and the canadians are tired of the false promises. leading into the 2014 health care negotiations, now is the time to bring much-needed improvement. mr. speaker, will the government commit to holding open consultations with canadians so that the next accord reflect their values and priorities for health care in this country? [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. as i said before, we are looking forward to working with the provinces and territories to renew the of the court and continue to address the areas -- wait time is an example. our discussions will emphasize the importance of accountability, including better reporting from the provinces and territories to measure progress and guarantees covering additional necessary procedures. thank you, mr. speaker. [applause] >> mr. speaker, in the speech last week we heard that the government is preparing to dismantle the committee on the status of women that has been working on legislative checks

since 2004. they affect canadian women of all or licensed. can the minister responsible for the status of women a assure this house and tell us that this committee will remain active through the parliament? [applause] hon. minister on the status of women. >> it is my first time getting up an in-house and at our four- majority mandate. [applause] i would like to take the opportunity to congratulate my colleagues and all the women who had been elected to parliament in this last election. [applause] we are working collaborative lee with all women in the house

to improve the lives of women all across this country. [applause] >> mr. speaker, when the government announced the beginning of the canada's but as a nation in the mission in libya, it said it was an effort to protect civilians. subsequently, dies been confusion about the mission's objectives. we wonder if the minister of foreign affairs can confirm that the objectives of the mission remained unchanged, to protect civilians, and that any subsequent extension of the mission, there will not be a change in the clear objectives of the mission and, for example, the military footprint will not change, including a commitment not to put canadian forces on the ground in libya. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to commend the member for his reelection as a foreign affairs critic. i look forward to working with him on events in a principald -- principled canadian foreign policy. i can tell the house that there is no change in the military mission. the military mission that was

approved by the united nations, resolution 1973, to protect the civilian population from gaddafi's forces. i look for it to an extension of that mission with all members of the house in short order. [applause] >> mr. speaker, both france and italy recognized that the national indian council, as the -- the national libyan council is the legitimate government of the country. i would ask the minister of foreign affairs if he can give details about the government of canada at's position. [applause] >> in canada, we recognize states, not particular governments. we look forward to working with the council through the canadian mission in libya. it has an important role to play in the future of libya.

the g8 leaders said at a political level that colonel gaddafi must go. that is an important political objective, and i think that we can work closely with the transitional council on this important objective. [applause] >> mr. speaker, it has cost canada some $300 million to close cannot arrive -- close camp mirage in uae. we hear that the minister of defense is planning to open a base in kuwait further away from afghanistan. will the minister tell canadian taxpayers, to this reopening will cost, in addition to the already $300 million sunk because of a turf war between the minister of defence and minister of foreign affairs? [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to take the opportunity to congratulate the new defense

critic for the liberal party, and assure him that relations between the minister of a foreign affairs and i are on good terms. [applause] i can also tell him, mr. speaker, is the figures are completely wrong. those numbers are completely false. what we have done, obviously, is make arrangements to have logistic cuts and a part of the middle east that allow us to continue the logistic support the ongoing mission and afghanistan. that is the intention of the department, mr. speaker, nothing more than. [applause] >> throughout 2009 and most of 2010, the prime minister repeatedly tell canadians that our military forces were leaving afghanistan in 2011 in accordance with the resolution of this house, when the minister of defense knew about extending the mission, he was quickly corrected by the prime minister's office. since march 2009, this government but all options back

on the table despite what the prime minister was telling parliament at the same time. why did the prime minister not tell canadians the truth about his plans for afghanistan? [applause] >> i am pleased to tell the prime minister -- tell this house that the prime minister has always tell the truth about this issue. i believe the numbers were talking about weeks -- not of canadian origin and the government policy is not to comment on such leaks. [applause] >> canadians are right to question this government's policy on afghanistan. conservative leaders have repeatedly denied pressure to extend at the military by the united states. yet we know that americans make a formal request of canada to extend the mission in 2009. instead of saying no, this government just asks us to have patience. can we trust the prime minister who says one thing to canadians and another thing to the american government? [applause] >> as the member from st. john's knows full well, we are open and transparent about canada's involvement in afghanistan.

we have debated this issue a number of times in the house of commons and we take up this question on a regular basis, and i look forward to doing so in the coming session of parliament. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the $35 billion was spent on the shipbuilding strategy that should be able to create jobs across the country. however, there are shipbuilding areas where people are worried because there are not enough shipbuilding sectors that will be able to share the money. can the government confirmed that canadian shipbuilding areas will be the only beneficiaries of the shipbuilding strategy? the hon. minister of public works. >> the historic decision to build ships that our navy and

coast guard need in canada, what that means is more than 75 million man hours of work over the coming decade. this is a competitive and open and transparent process between several shipyards. at the end of the day, tenet shipyards will be chosen to do a great deal of work, but there will be shipyards and manufacturing sectors all across the country that will benefit from those jobs. [applause] >> mr. speaker, that is just a problem. the government says it not just cost us our jobs, trust us on this fall, but they and -- not just trust us on jobs, trust us on this, but they can play politics with the issue. in b.c., ontario, quebec, atlantic canada, will the government to stop political games and look to use the strength of every shipbuilding region in our country for these contracts?

[applause] >> the hon. minister of public works. >> as the member well knows, the process that is under way through what is called the shipbuilding secretary, we have created an open, fair, transparent, and very competitive process. this includes not only independent oversight provided by tpmg, but a third party marine expert that is evaluating these bids to ensure the fairness and openness and transparency of the process. at the end of the day, this is a very competitive process, but, again, this will create 7 5 million man hours of work across the country. >> well done. [applause] >> mr. speaker, today is tax freedom day, the day canadians start working for themselves after pay off all the taxes they owe all levels of government. [applause] unlike the taxes of the opposition, we don't believe canadian families should pay high taxes.

that is why in 2006, our government reduced the overall federal tax burden to the lowest level in 50 years. in the next phase of the economic action plan, we will build on that record. please inform the house how much earlier tax freedom day is today compared to where was before we formed the government? [applause] >> the hon. minister of finance. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i would like to congratulate the member for new brunswick. [applause] he, of course, understand what about taxes. that is why we are celebrating today that tax freedom day is 20 days sooner. [applause] 20 days sooner than in 2005. i think we all know why that is. we have reduced over 120 different taxes, we've reduced gft from 7 to 65. i could go on and on -- >> the hon. member.

>> mr. speaker, the conservative government continues to sow doubt among federal employees. the threat of cuts is looming over the entire federal capital region. we have learned today that the government has already increased by 100% its use of temporary and vulnerable workers. mr. speaker, why that the conservative government prefer to use cheap labor instead of paying government officials are appropriately? [applause] >> i want to thank the electors for allowing me to be -- [applause] of course, mr. speaker, the issues that the member refers to involve nearly 1% of total payroll expenditures. of course we use temporary help

when it is crucial to ensuring the delivery of services to all canadians under unexpected circumstances, fluctuations in workloads. these help us deliver services to canadians, and that is why we are proud to do it. [applause] >> mr. speaker, in an article published today, we also learned that temporary workers are paid half of the value of the job. more and more, the conservative government is gutting the public service of its lifeblood, and we have seen the economic sector of our region, mr. speaker -- is that in the spirit of the government? does it want to encourage casual work in cheap labor?

[applause] >> mr. speaker, is the budget indicates that the annual priorities of our government in terms of budgetary planning and the assignment of resources for the fiscal year includes specifications on budget spending of over 2000 billion dollars. spending on things that canadians care about -- that is our mandate, and we're going through that. [applause] >> mr. speaker, canada has won another prize for the environment. canada was the last country to submit its ghg data to the u.n. canada's delay in complying with a photo obligations is another conservative failure in the area

of the environment. even japan, after a terrible tsunami, met expectations. why has the government failed to submit its data on time? [applause] >> the hon. environment minister. >> let me first congratulate my colleague on her appointment to the environment file. rising for the first time in this house, i would like to thank the voters -- [applause] the government of canada has always fully and fastidiously complied with the reporting requirements of the kyoto treaty. there was a 15-day grace period allowed at the end of the deadline, which occurred during the election. we have a file the details. [applause] >> mr. speaker, it turns out that not only were we late in reporting did it this year, but the government also decided to quietly remove the data on emissions, because the data showed a 20% increase in emissions in 2009 alone. that is more than every single car in canada, mr. speaker. will the minister tell us who

made the decision to try and hide this information on oil sands production? [applause] >> if i could offer a first direction to my hon. colleague, we refer -- first correction to my hon. colleague, which referred to the abundance in northern alberta's oil sands -- [applause] and with regard to the question, in 2008, in our reporting of the 2008 emissions, the department attempted to offer numbers. it did not work, and -- [inaudible] [applause]

>> mr. speaker, climate change was not even mentioned once in the throne speech. now the board gives canada a failing grade on climate policies. these plans are so disorganized and inefficient that canada will not meet its 2020 target. after five years of ignoring climate change, will the conservatives committed to a national plan that addresses the very real challenges? [applause] >> the hon. minister of the environment. >> i would like to congratulate my colleague for appointment to the environment file. we do have a plan. the plan, mr. speaker, is working. we have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions sector by sector, and that plan is working. with regards to the speech from

the throne, my colleague was somewhat a little in her expectations. we reiterated our commitment to reducing climate change emissions across -- [applause] >> mr. speaker, environment canada released its 2011 climate change plan to the united nations. it shows that actions taken by this conservative government are projected to reduce emissions by only 1/4 of what is needed to meet the 2020 target. does this government have a plan to address the other 3/4? beyond deliberately fudging a progress report to the u.n.? [applause] >> the hon. -- we have a plan.

it is to visit the environment. they make the living separate with transportation. there is electricity generation. we can work our way around it. >> mr. speaker, at the federal government's gradual withdrawal from harmlessness could lead to a dramatic increase in rent for hundreds of thousands of people in addition to be the more out on the street. mr. speaker, whether it is there the homelessness initiative or other programs for social housing, stakeholders are calling on the federal government to do its share. will the government help correct this situation?

>> i would like to welcome the new member. i wish her good luck. [applause] >> steering our plan, we had a tremendous investment in affordable housing. some 26 projects are under way. we did not support this. >> the hon. member, find work. it conservatives actually cut housing programs. thousands ontario families cannot do this.

make no mistake. this is a national crisis. when will the government opened this? >> it helps them get out of poverty. it is a self sustaining life. that is why we have invested a record amount of money in bis plan. we support the renovation. this is right across this.

they are extending this. >> thank you. our government is interested in protecting canadians. we have made it a priority to open the markets for canadian businesses. please tell us why we are pursuing this. >> i want to thank him and congratulate him of being reelected. he knows how important international trade is to creating jobs.

this is an issue for how important this is to our country. -- how important a free trade is to our country. >> mr. speaker, we saw a 15-year veteran who started a hunger strike for the department of affairs. he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. he has had to have government take ownership over a clerical error that caused a lapse in his benefits. my question is for the minister of veterans affairs. what his government going to do to ensure this person gets the puck past the treatment he so rightly deserves?

-- the compassionate treatment he so rightly deserves? [applause] >> mr. speaker, i want to usthik the member for his question. act, i cannotacy discuss this individual case. i commit myself to better the lives of our veterans. this is starting today. it was an unacceptable mistake. measures were taken. and asking officials to follow up. -- i am asking officials to follow up.

>> official said it threatening letter. they ordered workers to cease their information on the burlington alleged bridge. these workers are simply doing what the federal government is refusing to do, trying to stop u.s. steel from taking profits from the operation until the federal government's court case is resolved. when will this government get tough on foreign companies that break canadian laws, undermine the jobs come and attack canadian pectins -- canadian pensions? >> this is the same area i come from. mr. speaker, this matter is one of provincial regulation. i speak to the minister of labour. we are insuring that we can keep track of what is going on there.

i thank you for the question. >> last week the government general highlighted that our government is here for all canadians. i would like to ask the governor what steps they plan to take to reduce red tape and focus the attention and growing businesses that create jobs? >> mr. speaker, as you know, this will remain our government's top priority. these are canadian priorities. the government has designated 2011 as the year the entrepreneur in canada. in order to raise public awareness of the important role played by small businesses in wealth creation, we need to reduce the burden on companies.

that is what we are going to be doing with the red tape production commission. >> there was a solid order worth $400 million in private sector funding. all that was needed to secure hundreds of job was a commitment from the federal government. it was a major blow to job creation and london families that depended on the job is. can the minister explain to the people of london white [inaudible] [applause] >> we would like to thank the people of cambridge for reelecting me. the government of canada has already invested $20 million into this for the strategic aerospace initiative.

it would not be judicious to increase that amount by another $35 million. after a thorough read you, the company was advised by this government that we could not support the request. the company has other alternatives they are exploring. we wish them well. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister -- he visited after the flooding a month ago. he is not meeting the needs of residents. as one mayor said, i am not sure the prime minister understands the situation we have been going through. the victims of the flooding determine no less. the prime minister refuses to change the army's mandate. can