it comes from nadine aufsauzen. >> we all know there will be spending after the general election after who wins. why can't you be honest and tell us. >> nick clegg. >> we have set out in our manifesto. you can have a look at it. we set out numbers right there specifying the savings we think should be there. we set it out in much greater detail than any other party, 15 million pounds in savings which are up-front payments to deal with this huge black hole we have in our public finance. what are we talking about? things like scrapping biometric passports. saying that the top 20% of recipients of tax credits shouldn't receive those tax credits so they can be targeted elsewhere. and saying no to things like the multibillion pound euro-fighter typhoon project, a defense project. those are the big decisions you need to take. what you can't -- and this is why i disagree with david cameron and gordon brown -- is just saying efficiency savings are enough. you can't fill the black hole with just a few papererclips. >> we set out a four-year reduction plan, and that starts in 2011, and it is desi

nadin addition, madam president, this amendment that we're offering does not preempt the century and a half preemption with respect to national banks. i think we should be very cautious by allowing national banks to be regulated by 50 different states and opening up the door to needless regulation that only enriches lawyers and raises costs to consumers. the republican amendment that i'm discussing also grants the fdic primary supervision and enforcement authority over large non-bank mortgage originators and other financial service providers that have violated -- yes, violated -- consumer protection statutes. this would give the fdic broad authority to clamp down on the worst offenders of our consumer protection laws without needlessly subjecting law-abiding businesses to expensive regulation. the republican approach here to consumer protection sharply contrasts with the approach of the dodd bill. under the dodd bill, the consumer financial protection bureau, madam president, would issue rules without considering the impact on the safety and soundness of financial institutions. need

nadin addition, madam president, this amendment that we're offering does not preempt the century and a half preemption with respect to national banks. i think we should be very cautious by allowing national banks to be regulated by 50 different states and opening up the door to needless regulation that only enriches lawyers and raises costs to consumers. the republican amendment that i'm discussing also grants the fdic primary supervision and enforcement authority over large non-bank mortgage originators and other financial service providers that have violated -- yes, violated -- consumer protection statutes. this would give the fdic broad authority to clamp down on the worst offenders of our consumer protection laws without needlessly subjecting law-abiding businesses to expensive regulation. the republican approach here to consumer protection sharply contrasts with the approach of the dodd bill. under the dodd bill, the consumer financial protection bureau, madam president, would issue rules without considering the impact on the safety and soundness of financial institutions. need