tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 1, 2015 1:00am-3:01am EDT
going forward -- certainty going forward, so everyone can plan to build and install the latest and most efficient technology. we should let the department of energy do its job. let's not waste time, let's not waste energy, and let's not waste money and consumer savings that will result. i urge a no vote on the plaqueburn amendment. the chair: -- i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you. i am so pleased that my friend and colleague mrs. blackburn: i want to point out again what it would cost. these furneases 350 more and 250 $in installation costs and there are installations costs for preventening purposes.
those are $2:520 for the home that is venting. this is one of those regulations that is too expensive to afford. the cost is as trom call and d.o.e. seas the cogs to the american consumer is $12 billion to install these furnarnses. you are going to save. an amendment. i think this is one of those areas where you look at how much it is going to cost. it is why this amendment is so widely supported and i encourage support for the blackburn amendment. i yield back. .
opinion of the chair mblingt of. the amendment is agreed to. for twap of frappe. mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee and member of will trl. mrs. blackburn: this is and amendment i bring every year and i told the chairman that he was delighted to see me back on the floor again on theier with the one%. and this is important to not that the proposed funding amendment is $3 . billion be
low. but i got to say with the situation in our nation with our debt, i think our 1 one percent reduction reduction is something that is necessary and it is a step that we need to take. i'm fully awear that some of the appropriators aren't standing in favor of the 1% across the board cut. i was told that cuts go far too deep. when you look at the fact we need to be cutting a penny out of the dollar, that is not too
deep because our debt is damaging our nation's security. and admiral said it is our growing nabble debt, we need to do a little bit more to get this 18.2 trillion debt under control. as i said, across the debt and they give flex built but knee don't knicks winners and losers, many of our our governors support them. when i was in the state senate of tep see, we cannot aeuropean that. our state, our controlling their
debt and we kicked ever cat fer can the down. it is time to get it under control. safe a penny is a necessary step. the chair: the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i appreciate the gentlelady from tennessee consistency. the problem is with the delate. you would think we won't thinking we were cutting spending. the committee who is not cutting and we have been cutting spendic. this bill we have before us today falls within the budget
resshution and we should have adopted a different dugget resolution. we can't do. we have teab it and we have cut it more and more. so it's not we want to reduce spending. we want to cut spending. and we will have a new baseline. and we ought to cut one peppy out of wunl baseline. and then we will have a baseline and cut pun penny. we are trying to do it smarter
and the increase is paid for. and this bill makes tough choice es within an allocation that add heers to current law. acknowledge there are accounts in this bill that i think we ought to be spending more money and there are accounts in this bill that we ought to be spending less murn on. that's kind of the nature of how the appropriations process works. nobody gets everything we want but one thing we have been knt on we have been reducing spending. we prioritize spending on our
nation's defense. and it went to the national defense. the na smp sa. we prioritize funding for critical fwrarbg. the president cut $7500 million out of the harbor maintenance trust fund and trying to secure our waterways where our economy fleeds we replace that. and we need to make cuts. impacts on their impoonts. the gentlelady's would propose a cut on every one of these
programs. a no one way to promote our needs and limit spending. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and let me say again i appreciate the gentlelady's consistent effort in making sure we keep focused on what is the number one focus and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. ms. kaptur: i'm opposeed to this amendment. everybody us helping to pull. that isn't the case right now. the largest rescission.
america eye chief am vulnerability for over a quantity consentry and economic law is energy. it rests in energy. since 2003. or country has spent imported importing petroleum. that is not a country that is skelf-real linet. but depp lie needs help at home. it will be less nefment in helping us to right this hole. can you imagine if that had been spent. the greater almt of income
flowing into people's pockets. and moving us babwartsdz, this will be let in water resources and have 62 billion. we have no new stars on this bill. that's a country in retrempment. this amendment, it isn't a 56% cut. i say to the gentlelady as i said to the chairman who walked to the back of the chamber, the wages have been cut and you don't put receive news on the table. some of those blukecrative operations transnational national corporations. they are holding it over there.
receive news need to be on the table. he walked away from me. appropriations committee captain do this alone and can't do it where america is hurting when americans are losing americans are struggling, we should be securing the american dream. this bill underfunds that. the chairman has spoken to that and and energy growth and energy security and damages those portions of our budget that are critical to our national security. our naval research. we believe our built builds
america ca forward and not re trenchment. i apossess the gentlelady's amendment but they is looking in the wrong place. i oppose her amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mrs. blackburn: we need a robust economy. it has been abysmal and has been terrible for our count stwri . wages have been cut all that has happened and the american people are sick and tired of it. and the obama economy has caused much of the problems that are in front of us. the . trillion that we have
spent importing oil. who has been importing a lot of that oil opec. it is within of the stop and our national security challenges. it is time to drill here and grill now. it is another way to engage rank and file employees. i know other states that have used that. both democrat and republic can governors. we reduced the size and growth by the budget. we were the test case for hoipt hillary clinton health care plan. so yes, we found ourselves
cutting nine cents across the board. do they send the right message? are they a step twarled getting out of control spending out of control, yes think were. wyatt now that is over 56,000 worth of the debt that he they would be response i will for for our 18.2 trillion worth of debt. . we've got $18.2 trillion worth of debt and we can't cut another penny out of the dollar? the chairman has done a great job. they have the right focus. i think that what we do is give them another little push engage the bureaucracy, which by the way, they are not having
to make the cuts that men and women in small businesses are having to make. it's the fair thing to do. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: i commnd a -- demand a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri sec reek in addition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16, offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: from extreme flooding to extreme drought, the missouri river basin has been hit hard over the last few
year. the families who live and work along the missouri river have endured great hardships and these have served to highlight maintaining effective flood control infrastructure. though one of our greatest resources, the missouri river would po deuce extreme flooding and be mostly unfit for navigation if not for aggressive long-term management by the corps of engineers. congress first authorized the missouri river project in 1912 with intention of mitigating flood risk and maintaining a navigable channel from sioux city iowa, to the mouth of the river in st. louis. the construction was completed in the 1980's, the corps' ability to make adjustments as needed remain crucial to this day. president obama in his fiscal year 2016 budget requested $2.6 million for the project which would go for.
it's preposterous to think that environmental projects are more important than protection of human life. i do not take for franted the importance of river ecosystems. i grew up near the missouri river as did many of the people we represent. yet we have reached a point in our nation where we value the fish and birds more than the welfare of our fellow human beings. our priorities are backwards. my amendment will limit the ecosystem recovery program a study that's become little more than a tool of environmentalists for the purpose of returning the river to its most natural state with little regard for flood control, navigation, trade, power generation or the people who depend on the missouri river for those in favor say aye livelihood. the end of the story will in way jeopardize the corps' ability to meet the requirements of the endangered
species act. it's one of no fewer than 0 environmental studies focused on the missouri river. the people who have had to foot the bill for these studies many of which that take years to complete and are inconclusive are the people who have lost farm, businesses and homes. our vote today will show that we are aware of the gross disparity between the funding for environmental questions and for safety. this has passed in the last three appropriations bills. it is supported by groups like the missouri farm growers and missouri farm bureau. it is time to look at this bill it is time to send a message to the federal entities that manage our waterways. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and encourage more balance in federal funding for infrastructure management. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
time. any member claim time in opposition? the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. page 57, after line 1, insert the following. section 507, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to purchase water to supplement or enhance the in-stream flow requirements in the state of california that are mandated under the endangered species act of 1973 the value valley project improvement act or the national environmental policy act of 1969. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223 the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will troll five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you mr.
chairman. high rolingses tell us california -- hydrologyists tell us california is facing the worst drought in years. our snow pack is 3% of normal and californians are threatened with draconian fines if they take too long in the shower. this amendment forebids the bureau of reclamation from purr chatsing scare water in california in the midst of this catastrophic drought for the purpose of cumping it into rivers to ad just water temperatures to nudge by by fish to swim to the ocean. as ridiculous as this sounds, that's exactly what the bureau of reclamation has been doing throughout this drought. it is using money taken from families' taxes in order to purchase water that's desperately needed by these same families and then literally dumping it dun the drain in front of them. this exacerbates an already
perilous scarcity of water while forcing the price of our remaining supplies even higher. it also makes a mockery of the sacrifices that every californian is making to stretch every drop of water in their homes and it undermines the moral authority of the government to demand fult conservation from the people when when it is squandering watt sore outrageously itself. we don't know exactly how much the bureau is spending for this purpose because they don't account for how their purchased water is used. this measure would forbid them from wasting any of our water on such frivolities as adjusting watt etemperatures this sounds harsh for the fesh. let's remember that in a drought like this one, there would be no water in our rivers, there would be no fish. the dams make it possible to save the water from wet years so we can get through the dry years. that doesn't work if we open flood gates in an extreme
drought like this to make the fish happy. this month, the bureau of reclamation released nearly 30,000 acre-feet of water from the new milonas dam in my district for that purpose. that's enough water to meet the annual residential needs of a population of nearly 300,000 human beings. for the express purpose of encouraging the offspring of some 29 steelhead trout to swim toward the ocean which, by the way, they tend to do anyway. and to add insult to injury almost all of them will be eaten by predators before they reach the ocean. in order to benefit a handful of steelhead trout, the bureau sacrificed enough water to meet the human -- a human pop lakes of 00,000. the cost of this exercise amounted to $21 million. this is the lunacy of the
environmental left and the policies they've imposed on our state and our country. it needs to stop now. and to the extent we can do so through the power of the purts, we must. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. kaptur: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in opposition. ms. kaptur: i oppose this amendment because it sounds like a solution in search of a problem. this amendment seeks to undermine the endangered species act by restricting the bureau of reclamation from expending funds on water for the purpose of managing endangered fish populations. while i oppose the spirit of the amendment i must also object to it because it does absolutely nothing. the bureau of reclamation does not purchase water. for the purpose of temperature management. the bureau of reclamation does
not purchase water and they have no plans to do it in fiscal year 2016. in fact, due to water scarcity, the price of water is too high. the extreme drought in the west presents significant management challenges and the bureau of reclamation biologists should have every tool possible to make decisions and provide a safety net for species nearing extinction. instead of attempting to undermine the jum of those professionals, we should be working on solutions to grow the water supply in california. that involves water reuse increased efficiencies, which are very -- which have rr started, conservation, storm water capture agricultural practices, the dry west faces very difficult choices and we want to walk alongside them. but with solutions that make sense. and that are capable of being
implemented. i oppose the gentleman's amendment and -- i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: perhaps from the damp state of ohio, this might look like a solution in search of a problem. i would invite the gentlelady from -- the gentlelady to come to california in the midst of this drought and see the devastation it's causing. the bureau just released 10 billion gallons for this stated purpose, to adjust river water temperatures and to nudge steelhead trout to the ocean. they weren't coy about it. they were very, very clear. they've been very clear in their budget requests. for this practice. but let me just for the sake of argument accept the gentlelady's point that they have no plans to to so. well if that's the case, she
should have no objections to this measure. the fact is, they not only have plans to do so they've been doing so and it is devastating what little precious water is remaining behind our reservoirs. we will run out before the end of the sum fer these practices continue and if they continue and if we do, i think that the gentlelady will have a -- an apology she needs to make to the 38 million suffering people of california. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. kaptur p.c. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk.
the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman specify which one he's asking for? >> amendment one. the chair: amendment one. need more specificity, please. >> pertaining to army corps of engineers and farming practices in california. the chair: the 404 permitting? mr. lamalfa: correct. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lamalfa of california. at the end of the bill insert the following. none of the funds in this act may be used to enforce the requirement in section 234.12 of tite 383 of title code of regulations or title 40 code regulations that activities identified in paragraph 1a of
subsection f of section 404 of the federal water pollution control act 33 united states code 1344 f.1a must best tablied or ongoing in order to receive an exemption under such subsection. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. chairman. the house has previously passed language to require the army corps of engineers to apply the clean water act as congress has passed it. not as the corps may wish it to have been written. unfortunately the corps has disregarded these efforts and posed regulations that could prevent farmers from changing crops or fallowing fields during especially california's historic drought. section 404 of the clean water act exempts regulation if the following, and i quote normal farming, civil culture ranching activities such as
plowing, seeding cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber and forest products or upland soil and conservation practices. no additional requirements are included and these are identified as exempt. however the corps and e.p.a. used creative interpretations to increase their jurisdiction beyond what congress has intended. . in fact the corps states on their website future would not apply. operation is no longerest tablied when the area on which it's conducted has rain idle. under this and normal activity and could be subject to regulation. as i mentioned earlier.
in this time of record drought. leaving the field fallow, amongst that replanting the following year would be seen as the corps as a new triggering regulation. this is not the intention that congress had wlt clone water act. this overreach could prevent farmers during california's droughts for fear cht requrements or with the cuts that have been under way and have been required to have new permits. mr. chair, two other occasions previously passed and yet the
corps has refused to look at this. my amendment and i urge subbesh effort. i reserve. the chair: anyone seeking time in opposition . ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition. i rise to oppose the amendment. this amendment makes a significant change to the clean water act regulations one we should not be making late at night. activities that convert wetlands ongoing farming and agricultural activities do not
require 404. the clean water act explicitly activities certain activities and by plowing fields, planting and maintaining irrigation. thoice mr. emmer: shons were added. the 1977 law for normal farm imming than included safeguard to ensure that that is activities were not exploited by large scall commercial interests. the regulations were completed in 198 duration the reagan administration. the bill before us includes language includes 06 that these
erp that these 38 years ago continue to be ex permit of cement. may be use todd help wire a permit when the activities are conducted. the gentleman from wants to go further. p the lapping already the bill. wet lppeds should be abled to filled and/or farm fields so long that modifications to the hydrology are necessary to conduct operations. any discharge can be normal for a an place. why does this concern me. 's cord toing the home state, 90% of ohio on wetland resource is have been zridesthruemoives.
because of the modification, all impanths are wet land and settlements, sediments and con tan mans resulting in improved water quality. they performor qualification and almost like the lungs of the earth, the lungs to the earth and one-third agenda on it for survival. and northwesting, resting. we should make certain any chapings we make to a destruction to these eekcoling
call or r are and it is for reasons we must oppose and he yield back. the chair: i yield back the balance of my time. >> i appreciate the colleagues but in practice, in california >> he we are moving beyond the 0 section that would allow for normal activities, and i say normal, it is normal for farmers to change crops. what the farmer deems to do with his or her lands. so it's amazing to me that the
army corps interprets the bill, the abelt to switch crops. and em-- emshon shons and we have worked when i was told recently they quo ignore the section and ignore the efforts. that is why this is necessary but to remove the funding that they would try to remove the factors. to do as they see fit and outside of what the army corps are. with that, tpwhr chairman, i would ask for an eye vote.
chifmente those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the eyes have it. ms. kaptur: i rise to ask tore a recorded vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lamalfa section, nope of the funds made available by this act may be used to oofer water to the trinity record of the decision or to supplement flows. the chair: chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> california is seeing the most
severe drought. and our governor has doven on rationishonning. and hundreds of farmland and caused economic damage. the buyer of reclamation which serves the state. to salmon state. the salmon are not endangered and have been returning. the bureau has misused which has been up to 800,000 member or nevada reached an agreement and haveal previous agreement for
salmon according to the trinity record of decision. it goes beyond and the agreement and impact the stakeholders. two years ago bipartisan group sent a letter not to carry out this activity. this prohibits from releasening water beyond the record of decision it is a party to and ensures that they have access to as many water as possible and ll maintains the water and keeps it promises. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: any member seeking time to in opposition. calmtcaucht i oppose the
amendment. i oppose this amendment but believe me with sympathy with the people as they are spacing and i hope we can get mue this situation reasonably and seamlessless but i oppose the amendment that it would look in a rigs em. in 2014. the bureau of reclamation made the decision not to release water, clearly showing they are relate particular and clearly to change . reclamation monitored temperatures, and fish health. and less september the bureau did release flows because of a parasite impacting salmon.
yet, we must ensure that the fish kim in 2002 doesn't happen again. this act is difficult but we cannot and ball aves the need of people and the earn virmente in the west. we must meet our obligations. none of this will be easy. we shouldn't be operating in an separating wreg emand does president a lou and i op possess the gentleman amendment and to what isness to help the west. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. >> i appreciate that helping the
west and the flood flows would help us out. what is what is happening with the systems rnings this the salmon is are not danger -- endangered. this amendment will assist did you know stream on the the additional flow. so even though there have been a parasite and this goes beyond the record of decision with the agreed record flow amounts. this is b.l.r. deciding that additional flows based on those science, yord the record of decision are taking water away
and could take away. these waters or other ones and really doesn't seem to be paying attention to the farms cities and the water being used to the benefit of the fish being used. it doesn't fulfillson if i have particular follings votes 6789 the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentlelady from ohio. a recorded vote.
for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: before i make a motion let me commend you on your actions here, you've been fair and helped move things along in an orderly fashion. with that, i move that the committee rise. the chair: the motion is on the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h r. 2028 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the chair: the committee on the wholewhole -- the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has reports it has
had under consideration h.r. 2028 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, my administration fully supports the underlying objectives of the recommendations that the military compensation and retirement modernization commission offered in january. these recommendations represent an important step forward in protecting the long-term viability of the all-volunteer force, improving quality of life for service members and their families and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of the military compensation and retirement systems. as i directed in my letter of march 30, my team has worked with the commission to further analyze recommendations and identify areas of agreement. at this time i'm prepared to support specific proposals for 10 of the commission's 15 recommendations either as proposed or with modifications that have been discussed among the department of defense, other agencies and the
commission. these include the following. survivor benefit plan, financial education medical personnel readiness, department of defense and department of veterans i affairs collaboration. child care service member education, transition assistance, nutritional financial assistance. dependent space available travel. report on military connected dependents. finally, i agree with the commission that we need to continue to improve the military health care system. the health care reforms proposed to my fiscal year 2016 budget are a god first step and offer service members, retirees and their families more control and choice over their health care decisions. this remains a critical issue and my administration will work with the commission and interested members of congress in the coming months to develop additional reform proposals for consideration as part of my miscall year 2017 budget. signed, barack obama, the white house, april 30, 2015.
the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on armed services and ordered printed. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. lewis of georgia for today and ms. wagner of missouri for today after 4:00 p.m. and for tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests is grant . -- granted. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. today.
how different is the spending bill next year compared to the current year? >> the majority goes to the energy department. the rest goes to the army corps of engineers and the interior department. this is about a billion dollars larger than last years. >> last year's bill never made it into law because it was rolled into the omnibus measure? is that right? >> is that going to happen again this year? there was a veto threat over certain provisions. there are some questions surrounding that. >> one of the issues that regularly comes up is the ago mountain nuclear waste storage area. what is the status of that?
what is the proposed status? >> the obama administration and congressional democrats effectively mothballed the program. this would restore funding. they continue the licensing process. that's one of the things the obama administration is opposed to. >> what about the army corps of engineers? is the amount more or less than what the current fiscal year is giving them? >> it's more than the obama administration requested. the bill would allow firearms on certain army corps of engineers property. we have already seen attempts by democrats to strip that out. >> you tweeted about the administration's opposition to the measure.
here is a look at their tweet. developing clean and secure energy. seniors recommend the president veto the bill. what was the original proposal? what is missing that the white house wanted? >> this is about a billion dollars less than the white house requested. there was funding for fossil fuel research and nuclear energy programs. this was a long-running fight we have seen between house republicans and the administration. they want to increase funding. usually democrats want to increase funding for renewables. >> in your article, looking at the debate in the house, you
talk about possible amendments, including rolling back greenhouse gas emissions standards. what else are we looking for? >> they are considering amendments that would roll back efficiency standards for light bulbs, ceiling fans, requiring certain furnaces to be more energy efficient. those are amendments that have come up in the past. quite as it stands now, the white house is prepared to veto the bill. >> it depends what direction it takes. there is a strong veto threat. >> you can follow his reporting on twitter. thanks so much for the update. >> thanks for having me.
>> today senator bernie sanders announced he would be seeking the democratic party's nomination for president. he made his announcement at the u.s. capitol, where he will talk about the issues he will highlight. this is 10 minutes. >> thank you very being out here today. let me make a brief comment. i would be happy to take a few questions. we don't have an endless amount of time. we have to get back. this country has more serious crises than any time since the great depression of the 1930's. for most americans the reality is they are working longer hours for low wages. they are earning less money than
they used to, despite a huge increase in productivity. i talked to people. they say, how does it happen. my kid cannot afford to go to college. i'm having a hard time affording health care. how does it happen? 99% of all income in this country is going to the top 1%. how does it happen that the top 1% owns almost as much as the bottom 90%? my conclusion is that type of economics is unsustainable. it cannot continue. we cannot continue having a nation in which we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any nation at the same time we are seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires.
that is the major issue. the major issue is how do we create an economy that works for all of our people. the second issue is the fact it is the result of the disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united. we now have a political situation where billionaires are able to buy elections. that's the reality right now. you have the koch brothers and other billion or family to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in elections to buy the candidates of their choice. i am the former chairman of the veterans committee. i can tell you i don't believe the men and women who defended democracy where billionaires on the political process. that is a huge issue.
we have a republican party with few exceptions the does not even recognize the reality of climate change let alone this is the major crisis we face. i want to see the nation lead the world for sustainable energy. real unemployment is not five and a half percent. real unemployment is 11%. the best way is to rebuild the infrastructure. we do just that.
bright, young kids cannot afford to go to college. others are leaving deeply in debt. that's my view as well. there are enormous issues facing this country. i have never run a negative ad in my life. you ask people of vermont, and they will tell you bernie sanders has never run a negative ad. i believe what elections are about is not making campaigns into soap operas. this is not the red sox versus the inky's. honest people, my conservative friends, if her from me.
allow us to discuss important issues facing the american people, and let's not get hung up on all the other soap opera aspects. essentially, i regarded as unacceptable that you have major corporations in this country who made billions of dollars in profit who don't pay a nickel in federal income taxes because they stash their money in the cayman islands and bermuda and other tax havens. they have to come back to this country and maintain and respect their responsibility. the responsibility is not to ship jobs to china. we need real tax reform that says you will pay your fair
share of taxes. >> how did you decide i owe my brother and enormous amount. my mother graduated high school. we did not have a whole lot of books in the house. it was my brother who introduced me to a lot of my ideas. i hope my brother does very well in his race for parliament in the u.k. >> [question inaudible] sen. sanders: that is a fair question. to say that people disagree on issues, that is what a debate is about. that is what democracy is about. what i am saying is -- you know as well as i do, these vicious
attacks against other candidates, i think the american people are sick and tired of it. >> [question inaudible] sen. sanders: what is more fair game for my campaign is the role of money in politics. the koch brothers will be spending $900 million in this campaign, making a lot of money from fossil fuel and having a platform that calls for the elimination of social security medicare, and medicaid. do you think that is a conflict of interest? the internet -- the issue here is not the clinton foundation the issue is a huge amounts of money that it takes to run a campaign today. let me say this -- one of the hesitancy's i had about deciding whether to run or not is obviously dealing with money.
i am not going to get money from the koch brothers or billionaires. small, individual contributions. i seriously want them. it is not just bernie sanders. i wonder if it is possible for any candidate who is not a billionaire or who is not beholden to the billionaire class to be able to run successful campaigns. if that is the case, i want you all to recognize what a sad state of affairs that is for american democracy. >> what stances do you have on issues that make you a better nominee than hillary clinton? sen. sanders: we do not know what her stances are on all the issues, but this is what i can tell you -- i voted against the war in iraq. not only did i vote against it i helped lead the effort and many of the things i said back then turned out to be true. massive destabilization in the region. i am helping lead the effort
against the transpacific partnership because i believe it continues a trend of horrendous trade policies which have cost us billions of decent-paying jobs. i helped lead the effort against the keystone pipeline because i do not think we should be transporting some of the dirtiest fuel in the world. we have be vigorous in terms of transforming our energy system. those are some of my views. we will see where secretary clinton comes out. with that, i am going to get going. last question. we are in this race to win. you have to understand -- i have asked people to understand my history. you are looking at a guy undisputedly, who has the most unusual political history of anyone in the united states.
i got 1% of the vote. i do not know if i should be proud of that, but my last election, i got 71% of the vote. that is not the question. the question is, if you raise the issues in the hearts and minds of the american people, if you try to put together a movement which says, we have to stand together as people and say that this beautiful capital, our country does not belong to the billionaire class, that is not raising an issue, that is winning an election. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal," walter jones of north carolina and jim mcgovern of massachusetts talk about the fight against isis and giving the president authorization for the use of military force. starting live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.
>> 150 years ago this weekend, a grieving nation gathered along the road of abraham lincoln's funeral train as it made its way from washington, d.c., to its final resting place in springfield, illinois. this sunday afternoon on american history tv, we are live from oak ridge cemetery to commemorate the anniversary of president lincoln's funeral with over 1000 reenactors and every creation of the 1865 eulogy, speeches, musical performances as well as historians and authors on the funeral journey. also on c-span this weekend saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern the grand prize winners in our studentcam documentary competition. and then the state visit of shinzo abe, including his arrival at the white house and the toast and dinner in his
honor. then the supreme court oral arguments on same-sex marriage. whether the 14th amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. on book tv, author peterson 11 -- peter slevin looks at the life of our first lady. then, our lives three-our conversation with jon ronson, who has written many books. join the conversation. we will also be taking your phone calls, e-mails facebook comments, and tweets. get the full schedule at c-span.org. >> written is holding -- britain is holding parliamentary elections next thursday. the leaders of the three main political parties took questions
from voters. they took a variety of topics, including immigration policies and membership in the eu. david dimbleby moderated the program. it is 1.5 hours and it comes from leeds, england. >> tonight david cameron, ed miliband, and nick clegg face our audience in the town hall. this is "question time." [applause] mr. dimbleby: thank you very much. over the next 90 minutes, the three party leaders are going to take the stage here. they will take questions from our audience, which is made up of 25% who intend to vote for
each of the three party leaders and the remaining 25% who are either undecided or will vote for another party. you can text comments to 83981. you can push the red button and see what other people are saying. let's get cracking and hear from the leader of the conservative party, david cameron. [applause] mr. dimbleby: our first question comes from jenny johnson. >> will you put to bed rumors the plan to cut the child tax credit? mr. cameron: thank you for the question. i do not want to do that. the report that came out today is something i rejected at the
time as prime minister and i reject again today. it is important that we go on reforming welfare. when i became prime minister, we had a situation where some families were getting 70, 80, even 90,000 pounds of housing benefits for one house. think how many people watching this program were going out working hard, paying taxes to keep that family in the house, a house they could never afford to live in. we have got to go on reforming welfare. let's go on doing what we have done the last five years, which is get 2 million more people back to work. most important thing we can do helping people off of welfare and into work. that is the sort of country i want to build. [applause] mr. dimbleby: you said you did not want to put to bed the rumors that you were to cut the child tax credit. mr. cameron: we have increased the child tax credit. i was determined that while we had to take difficult decisions
and we have, we were left a nightmare situation to clear up i wanted to make sure that the child poverty continued to fall. mr. dimbleby: so that is a guarantee. does anyone want to come in on this? >> you are quoting pounds of benefits and how many families were claiming that amount of money? mr. cameron: it is a huge number. everyone was being paid for by dozens of people going out to work and paying taxes. if you believe we should go on reforming welfare, making sure the workers are paid, helping people back into work, and keeping working people's taxes down that is my program. if you want unlimited welfare and higher taxes for welfare that is ed miliband's program. vote for him. >> i think you are either deceiving the british public or
you know exactly what you are going to do but you are refusing to give specifics. how could i possibly vote for you on that basis? mr. cameron: in the last parliament, we saved 20 billion pounds of welfare. we have saved something like half that in this parliament. if we do not save the money on welfare, other parties want to do that. they are going to make the cuts to things like the national health service and i do not want to do that. i am going to increase spending for the national health service every year in the next parliament just like i did in the last parliament. but we can reduce welfare. if we get 2 million people back to work, that will cut the welfare. another difficult choice we need to make, we should say to young people in this country, the idea that you can leave school and sign on to jobseekers allowance i do not think that should be an option anymore. what we should do is say to
young people, we want you to have a great future. you should be earning or learning. we will make available apprenticeships, university places the training places but say you cannot start your life on benefits. that is not the way we should work. [applause] >> that is all very well, but what about those 18 to 21-year-olds who do not have a support network, a family to turn to. is it policy for them to -- is that policy going to result in more homeless young people on the streets? [applause] mr. cameron: anyone who clearly cannot stay at home, who has to live independently because of abuse or what have you, we have to special provisions for them. the situation today, where you can age 18, leave school, sign on, rather than work, i do not
think that is right. other countries in europe have a most abolished newfound employment because they have taken this approach. say germany or holland. i think we should do the same thing. we have created 2 million jobs in the last five years. youth unemployment has come from any down. if we stick to the plan, we can continue to get unemployment down and give young people the opportunity of an apprenticeship or a university place and the chance for a great career. starting a life on benefits is no life at all. [applause] mr. dimbleby: what about the question that the man here asked? i think you do not know what you want to do or you do know and you are hiding it. two years ago, massive cuts in child benefits. mr. cameron: these were some proposals that i rejected then -- mr. dimbleby: you asked for them. mr. cameron: i did not ask for
them. step back for a second-rate i became prime minister at a time when there was no money left. i bring this with me everywhere the note that the treasury minister left. there it is, "dear chief secretary, i am afraid there is no money." that is a situation i inherited. we have had to make difficult decisions. not everyone of the decisions has been easy for me. five years on, the deficit is housed -- halved, 2 million people are back in work, the economy is growing. do we build on this foundation and build a really strong country where you can get a job you can keep all of your own money to spend as you choose, you get an apprenticeship, build houses for people to buy or do we go right back to the start with ed miliband and even more borrowing, spending, debt, the
same thing that landed us in that mess in the first place? i never want us to go back there again. [applause] mr. dimbleby: clearly, there are some people who are worried that you have a plan to cut child tax credits. are you saying absolutely, as a guarantee -- mr. cameron: first of all, the child tax credit be increased -- child benefit to me, is one of the most important benefits there is. it goes directly to the family normally to the mother. it is the key part of a family's budget this country. that is not what we need to change. what we need to change is, again, what did i inherit? a system where if you work an extra hour or an extra shift you sometimes find that you lose money. the universal credit that is coming in now means every hour that you work, you keep more of
the money that you learn. we will introduce that across the country. that will save money. mr. dimbleby: let me bring a couple more people in. >> if things are so fantastic and we have more money to spend, why or more people using food banks and why are more people and more children in poverty than ever before estimate [applause] mr. cameron: you ask a key question. i am not saying everything is perfect. that is why i am so keen to do another five years of continuing to get the country back to work, to build a strong economy and pay down our debts to hand on a good country to our children. this is what this is about. i am not saying we have fixed it. it takes a long time to fix the mess that i was left. i would say we are about halfway through the building job. you can keep the team building a stronger economy or going back to the team that designed the
building that fell down in the first place. mr. dimbleby: i will come to you and then we will go on. >> you talk about the kind of country to hand onto our children. i do not want to hand on a country to my child where people have been hit with really punitive benefit sanctions. people have died from the bedroom tax. a woman received a demand for bedroom tax for the spare room that her daughter left behind. that is not a country i want to hand onto my child. [applause] mr. cameron: first of all, let me say i do not want anyone to have to rely on food banks in our country. it is important that they are there, but i do not want anyone to have to rely on them. >> what they do. mr. cameron: the most important thing we can do is get more people into work. that is the best road from poverty. have we finished the job?
1 in 50 jobs is a zero hours contracted two thirds of the jobs we created our full-time jobs. if you take the job is not finished, i absolutely agree. that is why i am so passionate about completing our job. i do not want us to go on borrowing year after year racking up debt that we asked our children to pay because we did not have the courage to pay them ourselves. ed miliband will stand here in a few minutes time. he is saying go on with the budget deficit forever. i am saying, once the economy starts to grow you should be putting money aside for a rainy day. otherwise we will burden our children with too much debt and that is not right. >> deal with it directly instead of pointing fingers. [applause] mr. cameron: we debate in the
house of commons 146 times -- i think this is giving you the chance to ask questions directly. i think this is more powerful than a television debate. mr. dimbleby: let's go on to another subject. lorna jasper. >> is needing a law and acknowledgment that you were in the habits of lying in your pre-election promises? mr. cameron: the reason for making this pledge is i really want to be clear with people. over the last five years we make difficult decisions. we talked about some of that tonight. it has not been easy for many people in britain. i think it has been the right thing to do. i now know what is in the books. i know what needs to be done. i know we can finish the job without putting up people's taxes. my fear is this -- those people
who have opposed every step we have taken, i think they will make a cut of their own, which is to put up taxes, reached into your piggy bank and cut your pay. i do not want to do that. if you want a government that finds more efficiencies in government spending, goes on reforming welfare and does not put up taxes for working people that is me. if you want a government that goes on with on reformed welfare that does not find savings, that is the other guy. the question is -- mr. dimbleby: the question is why do you need a law? mr. cameron: i want hard-working people in our country who work every hour and want to have a better future for themselves and their families. i want to let them know that we are not going to put up vat or national insurance or income tax because we know we can make the savings without having to attack their wallet.
mr. dimbleby: your chancellor said no other chancellor in the law -- the long history of the office said no other chancellor felt the need to pass a law to implement his own budget. why do you suddenly need to pass a law? mr. cameron: that was at a time when the budget deficit was forecast to be bigger than the deficit increase. that is what we inherited. making that sort of promise than was meaningless. now, having spent five years as prime minister and knowing what needs to be done -- let me be clear about what needs to be done. we have to save one out of every 100 pounds the government spends for the next two years. then we can start to see about growing again to make sure that we go on putting money into our schools, hospitals, and all the important public hospitals. >> i was more or less going to say what you said -- mr. dimbleby: the woman there.
>> you say will -- you know what needs to be done. why are you announcing the benefits -- mr. cameron: what we are saying is we need to make another 30 billion of savings. 5 billion of that should come from the tax invaders and -- evaders and avoiders. we need to go on making savings in government departments for efficiencies and then the welfare savings i have talked about. that is my plan and that gets us to a budget surplus. it means we are paying down the debt, passing down a better country to our children. usually, we are not putting up taxes. if i wanted to cut people's taxes -- the biggest element of the cost of living is the tax you pay at the end of the month. i say you should be able to earn 12,500 pounds a year before you start paying income tax. minimum wage, 30 hours a week
out of tax altogether. we should stop taxing poor people in this country away we do today. >> that was not my question. mr. dimbleby: let's have another question. >> why do you think your voters do not trust your party with nhs? mr. cameron: all i can say is what i think and what i believe. i went to the nhs night after night, i went to different hospitals, different places. i got the most fantastic care, support, and i would say love from those people in the nhs for my family and for my son. it was always there for me. i will always make sure it is therefore other families in our country. i showed you the note about not having any money. when we got that note, we made a very big decision, which is, yes, we have to make cuts in some areas of government spending, but the nhs will get
full money every year i have been prime minister. and it has had more money. that is why there are 9000 more doctors, 7000 more nurses. we are carrying out millions more operations every year. do i think it is perfect? no, i do not. i have a big ambition for the next five years, which is to deliver a seven-day a week nhs. i know we can do that because we are already delivering it to about 8 million people in our country. if you elect me as prime minister, i will finish the job and make sure we have seven-day openings for surgeries across our country to help working people access the nhs. [applause] >> why spend 3 billion on what was described as damaging and distracting we organizations? mr. cameron: the changes we are making are saving money in the nhs. because we got rid of 20,000
administrators and bureaucrats in the nhs, that is one of the ways we have been able to fund the extra doctors and nurses. when i became prime minister, the growth in the number of bureaucrats was going up four times faster -- it has been a recovery job. that is the point. the nhs is stronger today than it was five years ago. >> good evening, mr. cameron. an extra 8 billion for the health service is very welcome. anyone with half a brain can see that the nhs is not sustainable in its present form, just pouring more money into it. what are your thoughts on that? you just keep pouring more and more money. mr. cameron: i do not agree with you, sir. >> well, you are wrong. [laughter] [applause]
mr. cameron: if you look at our health system and compare it with others in the world, it comes out very strongly on how cost-effective it is. as we become a wealthier country, we should put more money in the nhs so it is always there for us. there is a lot we can do to take pressure off the nhs. we can do better in terms of public health, health education. there are all sorts of things about diabetes and smoking and other things where public health issues can take the pressure off the nhs. i am a profound believer that our model is the right one. as long as i am prime minister it would be available to all on the basis of need and we would go on putting the money we need into it he we have taken the difficult decisions elsewhere. >> good evening, mr. cameron. i would like to ask is it so difficult to achieve the emergency waiting times? it seems that every week in the
media we are far from our targets. are we moving forward? mr. cameron: the local hospital here does meet the target of seeing 95% of people within four hours. we have that target because we want to know that we are getting the best out of our nhs. the problem we have had recently is the growth of the population has put a lot of pressure on the nhs. i think my solution of having the seven-day opening to make sure gp surgeries are easier to access, i think that will take pressure off the nhs. i also think making sure social care works together better with the nhs will make sure we can get elderly people out of hospital beds when they could be looked after at home. those things will keep the pressure off. it is always going to be hard work to make sure we deliver these targets. mr. dimbleby: do you have an answer to the target -- the question which is why don't
people trust conservatives with the nhs? mr. cameron: to me, it is my life's work. i profoundly believe the nha's -- the nhs grows with a conservative government. i have 70 days left to prove to people that the nhs -- let me make this point. you only have a strong nhs if you have a strong economy. we have that strong economy now. do not put that at risk. do you know where they cut the nhs? portugal, terrible economy. greece, catastrophic economy. it is in those economies that you cannot support the health service that we need. >> sorry for those of you who have your hands up. >> if we remain in the eu, how will you and how can you control immigration? mr. cameron: very important
question. we can control immigration from outside the eu in the way we do now, by closing down these bogus colleges. we can do it by having a cap -- >> how can you get that done? mr. cameron: inside the eu, the key changes i will make if you reelect me, anyone coming from an eu country cannot claim unemployment benefits while looking for a job. if they are here after six months and have not gotten a job, they have to go home. you have to work here for four years paying into the system before you get tax credits and other benefits out of the system. if you are living here and have family back at home, you will no longer be able to send a child benefit back to your family. those are big changes and will make a real difference in helping us control immigration. if i am prime minister, that is what you will get. [applause] mr. dimbleby: a couple of points. first of all, we looked at the figures of this.
under 6% of eu nationals living in this country lane benefits of any kind. under 6%. you are saying stopping that is going to -- mr. cameron: let me answer that one first of all. mr. dimbleby:someone coming from and eu country is essentially getting 8000 pounds. i'm not saying they shouldn't be able to work here. british people should be able to work in other countries, but we have a benefit system that skews it. that needs to change. you need a prime minister prepared to get change in europe. >> how much do you want to get the net migration down to? >> i want to see it under 100,000. back in the 1990's we were
members of the eu, but before labor got in and open the doors, we had net migration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. >> you made similar promises in 2010. you lied. how can we believe you? prime minister cameron: we have created more jobs than the rest of the eu together. i need to negotiate with europe. record of that. i cut the european budget. first prime minister ever to do it. i vetoed the european treaty because it wasn't in our national interest. i've kept britain out of the euro. i can deliver these things in europe, but i need your mandate, sir, in seven days' time to get
out there and win a deal for britain, controls immigration gets us a better position in europe and with me, you'll get that. in our referendum, you the british people deciding before the end of 2017. >> lady here. [ applause ] >> good evening, mr. cameron. >> good evening. >> i work in housing. i deal a lot with the homeless that live in bradford. a lot of those come from eastern european countries who are not able to access those types of benefits that we're talking about. what can the community do in relation to dealing with that? because it just causes problems related to crime and drug substance abuse. >> i think we need to go back to a system much more where, of course, you are free to travel around europe to work in a different european country. but you're not free simply to travel around europe in order to claim benefits. freedom of movement was always meant to be about the freedom to go and take a job. it was not freedom to go and claim benefits. so those rules need to be tougher. that's not what our benefit system is there for.
>> all right. you, sir there. >> yes mr. cameron. all these questions you're being asked have a moral dimension and you keep answering them in terms of economics. i'd like you to engage a little bit more with the moral die dimensions that these questions are asking. [ applause ] >> to me helping someone to get a job has a moral dimension. it gives them the dignity and pride that comes with work. helping someone to get an apprenticeship, that has a moral dimension. it gives someone the chance of a career and success. building a house for the young can afford to buy and own that has a moral dimension. it gives them a stake in the country they want to live in. the plans i have for the next five years is about taking the economic foundation we've built the last five year all the shared sacrifice we've been to but not putting that to waste saying let's now turn that into jobs, into pay into houses, into good school places.
yes, also, into that sense at the end of your life that this is a country where if you work hard, save, do the right thing, you should get that dignity and security in retirement that's the right of everyone who lives in our country. >> matthew, with a question, please. >> hi, david. >> hi. hi. >> if you're in a situation where you have to team up with another party, what policy would you be willing to compromise? >> i'm going to be really -- it's -- [ applause ] i'm going to disappoint you because we've got seven days to go, and i'm gong to fight everything i've got those next seven days to get an overall majority. and the reason why i think that's right is look i think a strong decisive -- a more accountability government where you're not trading away -- that's the trouble with coalition. you've got a great manifesto you don't quite win the election, you go into some dark room with nick clag or someone else and start giving away some of the things in your program. i don't want to do that.
i have a great program about building these houses creating these jobs funding these apprenticeships, helping people with pensions and crucially this european referendum which i've said absolutely that is a red line. i don't want to give any of these things away, so i'm going o to spend the next seven days for victory and if enough people are watching this program back at home backing me, we can have the whole of the manifesto rather that bartered away in a darkened ed room. >> wa you said five years ago, we must sort things out as quickly as foblpossible for the good of the country. i want to make a big offer for the -- now it's getting closer to a dark room with -- [ applause ] >> what i'm saying, the last election wasn't decisive. i believe i did the right thing by forming a coalition and having a decisive government to deal with the mess that we left. i'm saying this time i think we can go one better. i'm saying let's have a decisive outcome and these things don't
have to be compromised on and can have a really decisive government, more accountable government for you as a citizen. >> all right. you, sir? >> sorry. >> sir? >> winning by a mile is a good hope, but say you don't, then what if you have to be in a coalition with somebody else. that question -- >> let me give one specific example, something i've been very clear about. >> i think the british people really do deserve a referendum on whether to stay in a reformed european union or leave. i've been very clear that i will not lead a government that does not deliver that pledge. so i couldn't be clearer about that red line. i think people frankly, have been let down too many times about this issue. and i want everyone holding that stubby pencil in their hands in the voting booth in a week's time to know if you get me as prime minister, you get that chance to have that in a referendum. >> so if you couldn't glompb
with the liberal democrats on those grounds, you wouldn't -- >> you correctly interpreted what i've said. >> what happens to the government of the country? >> i'm say if i'm to form a government, and i hope to win the election in seven days' time, we're 23 seats short of an overall majority. so i hope to govern the country as a majority. but if i don't, for whatever reason, i've been very clear i would not lead a government that did not contain that pledge. >> all right. >> couldn't be clearer. >> briefly, you, sir? >> more likely to actually win that overall majority if you treated voters with the intelligence they have and answer their questions in terms of what if or what might happen if there was a coalition that needed -- treat people with their intelligence. >> i think that it's fair in the last seven days to do everything you can to try and win. i want to use the limited time i've got including the 28 minutes tonight to explain why a conservative majority government would be good for britain. i think we'd go further and faster in clearing the deficit,
in building thoses homes and providing those pensions. that's what i want to do. >> you've had your -- >> let me take this point. people know with me if we fall short, i'll do the right thing for the country. i did last time. i would again. i would still plead with people with seven dayses to go particularly particularly when you're faced with an alternative of a labor government. people don't want our country to succeed or even exist. when that's your alternative, put your trust in 23 more seats for the can rveonservatives and we'll have a strong government. >> david cameron. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> so our next -- our next party leader is from the labor party. would you welcome ed miliband, please? [ applause ]
>> thank you very much. thank you. >> the first question is from elizabeth moody, please. elizabeth moody. >> good evening, mr. miliband. >> hello, elizabeth. >> five years ago the outgoing labor treasury minister left a message, there's no money left. how can we trust the labor party with the uk economy? >> we just saw it by the way, because -- >> david cameron had it in his pocket. >> it's his regular prop. let me directly address you, elizabeth. there was a global financial crisis. there was a high def sit. that deficit hasn't been cleared. it will be the mission of my government to cut the deficit every year and balance the books. let me tell you how i'm going to do it. first of all, we'll have fair taxes. we'll reverse david cam ro's tax cut for the richest in our society, millionaires. i can't justify a 43,000 pound tax cut for every millionaire in
britain. secondly, we'll protect key areas like health and education but outside those key areas there will be falls in spending because we have to get the deficit down. the final thing concerns your living standard. we see living standards fall over this parliament. as a result, lower living standards means lower tax revenues for government and that's why the deficit hasn't been cleared. so it's a three-part plan to make sure we balance the books. >> but if you look back, and the question was looking back, why should we trust labor in the light of what happened before? so, six years before the crash, you increased borrowing year on year on year on year on year. why should people believe that you're going to get it done? >> the debt and the deficit were both lower before the financial crisis. >> of course they were, but you were increasing the deficit. >> let me address directly the issue about the financial crisis. we got it wrong on bank regulation. the mistake we made, and i absolutely say this to this audience was the banks weren't properly regulated. we made that mistake. now the question you've got to consider for the future is who's going to get it right for the
future? now, we've learned that lesson. david cameron is saying there should be less bank regulation at the time. leave that to one side. we learned that lesson for the future. i'm the first labor leader david, going into an election saying spending in key area is actually going to fall. that's because i'm so determined, back to elizabeth, that we live within our means. >> all right. the lady -- yes? >> and just going back to your letter for a moment, the letter mr. cameron, you call is a prop. i run a business here. the last five years has been really hard work. we have a plan and the economy is improving. for me back in as a chancellor and he called that letter a joke. let me tell you, running a business the last few years is anything but a joke, and if that's the way your party wants to treat the economy, how can we trust you? [ applause ]
>> what does your business do? >> i employ 76 people here in the city. >> let me tell you very specifically what i think we need to do for businesses like yours and this does go to the big choice of this election. there will be some people who tell you that the way we succeed as a country as long as a few people at the top do well in large corporations, that will power the economy. i've got a different view, and that's your choice for the next five years. i think it's when working people, every person in our country succeeds in britain -- now for your business, we make a different choice from mr. cameron. he wants to cut taxes further for the largest businesses. i would cut your business rates if i was prime minister. that's important, i hope, for your business, but i think it tells a bigger story about how britain succeeds. as i say, i think it succeeds not just with a few successful corporations but with millions of businesses and millions of working people. >> does that satisfy you? >> no. that wasn't the question i asked you. i asked why i should trust the chancellor who thinks the leter
was a joke. if he worked in the corporate world, he would have been fired and not be allowed back to do that job. you're telling me -- [ applause ] >> let me tell you, i can tell you, i take incredibly seriously the need to get the deficit down. it was on the front fajpage of our manifesto. that's why he's going into this election telling our colleagues in departments that spending is going to fall. you have to make your decision but we are absolutely deadly serious about getting the deficit down and balancing the books. >> i also think mr. miliband you talk about big businesses. i was today with the biggest private employer in the uk. they talked about behaving their way, the problems they've made. i think that's something politicians have got to think about, too. >> all right. >> we need strong big business in the country. >> we do. one thing -- can i just comment on that? >> yes y ees. >> the one thing business needs this is a difference of view, we need to stay within the european union. it would be a disaster for our businesses. give david cameron credit. he believes in staying in the
eu. i feel he's being dragged by his party to exit from the eu. begin, again, i've got to say to this audience, i think that would be a real problem for our country. >> all right. the woman up there at the back. yes, you. >> hi. if your party were in power the gaps between the richest and the poorest? >> what's your name? >> shirley. >> shirley. >> yeah. >> it's a great question shirley. let me answer it directly. yes. there's a rule shirley is referring to called the nondom rule. some may know that and some may not. you can live here/work here, be permanently settled here but not pay taxes here. been in place, believe it or not, for 200 years. that's 40 prime ministers. ss sministers. i'm going to it get rid of it. i believe in a country that has one rule for all. david cameron worked to defend that rule. i think he's wrong about that. we have to tackle tax avoidance
wherever we find it and make people at the top live up to their responsibilities. >> i hope we can -- [ applause ] i hope we can reach the man sitting right behind me here yes. >> a really simple question. do you accept that when was last in power they overspent? >> no, i don't. i know you may not agree with that, but let me -- let me just say very clearly -- >> even with all the borrowing year on year on year? >> no, i don't. let me tell you, because there are schools that have been rebuilt in our country, there are hospitals that were rebuilt, there were centers that were built which would not have happened. and so i don't agree with that. let me just explain to you the way i see it. there was a global financial kpri sis crisis which caused the deficit to rise. now, look, president obama isn't dealing with a high deficit because we built more schools and hospitals. this gentleman here spending's
got to fall. >> that's why we will reduce spending. >> all right. you, sir, there. >> what about the financial crisis? australia didn't suffer this. canada didn't suffer this. some other countries didn't suffer. this country suffered because -- how can you stand there and say you didn't overspend and end up bankrupting this country? that is absolutely ludicrous. you're frankly just lying. [ applause ] >> i guess i'm not going to convince you, but -- >> you're not going to convince because the facts speak for themselves. you stood there and said you didn't overspend. if i get to the end of the week and i can't afford to buy a pint i've overspent. it means i haven't got any money left. the government of 13 years and during that 13-year period, you spent, spent you sold gold when
it was low. if we sold the gold now, we'd be pretty much better off. you can't stand there and say -- >> the point you made, i think i'm not going to convince you. >> that's what happened under the last government. >> let me come back on this. you said something very important which is that some other countries didn't suffer from that. that's because they were less exposed to financial services. >> i'm sorry, financial services. financial services actually brought millions and millions and millions of pounds into this country. millions of pounds which you then spent and spent irresponsibly. >> i want to make this point, david. i want to make this point. i think what we didn't do enough of is build up other industries sure financial services are important including here. look, the reality is that we didn't do enough on apprenticeship. we didn't do enough on the modern industrial port and we aren't doing enough now. one industry. so my point is as you need a more diverse and more diverse
industrial base. that's also a stake in this election. >> i come to you. we're going to keep moving around the audience. i don't want two or three people to get all the -- >> if you can't accept that you overspent in the last government, then why on earth should we trust you not to do it again if you can't even realize that's what you did? they cut the deficit by half. why should we trust you not to do the same thing? if you can't accept that you overspent? >> you and other audience members, goes back to elizabeth's question, there are some parties in this election saying no cuts at all. i'm not saying that. mr. cameron, he didn't say this earlier, wants to double the cuts next year. not just the same cuts as in the last parliament, double the cuts. now, i think that would be incredible dangerous for our national health service. >> because you want to -- you're saying you don't want people from my age group to be in dealt, yet you're committed to borrowing even more. >> no, we're committing to a balanced plan which balancing -- not going much further and i try to set out what that balanced plan is. but, look you and others will have to make a judgment about
this because i think we can balance the books without sacrificing our public services. without sacrificing tax credits. jenny asked a question earlier, the very first question of this -- where's jenny who asked the question? i'm afraid david cameron might have sounded like e answerhe answered your question but he didn't. i'm going to give you that guarantee tonight. i'm not going to cut your tax credits. i'm note going to cut child benefit or means testing. i think that would be the wrong thing to do for our country the wrong thing to do for family finances and that's -- i've got to say, after mr. cameron's answers tonight tax credits and child benefits are on the ballot paper of this election because millions of families risk losing thousands of pounds because of a cuts plan that he has. yes, i do disagree with mr. cameron. i've got a different plan. >> i think we should move on to another subject. simon wilkinson, please? simon wilkinson. >> why is the labor party misleading the country about having to do a deal with the snp in the event minority labor doesn't -- [ applause ]
>> let me be plain. we're not going to do a deal with the scottish national party. we're not going to have a coalition. we're not going to have a deal. let me just say this to you simon. in it meant -- if it meant we weren't going to be in government, not doing a dole coalition, not having a deal, so be it. i'm not going to sacrifice the unity of our country i'm. i'm not going to give into snp demands around trident or deficit or anything like that. i want to repeat this point to you. i'm not going to have a labor government if it means deals for coalitions with a scottish national party. i want to say this to folks in scotland, david. there's no easy route here to vote snp and get a labor government. if you want a labor government, you need to vote labor. >> we know the members of the shadow cabinet say they're open to deals. you disagree with that? >> i do. i'm the leader. we wouldn't have deals. >> you wouldn't support the -- you wouldn't go to the queen and
have them accept an invitation -- >> we want the labor queen's speech. i want a labor majority government. it would be for the party in the house of commons to vote for it. you asked me about deals, coalitions. they're not going to happen. i couldn't be clearer with you. >> you said something rather interesting. you said you'd rather not have a labor government than have a labor government supported by the snp? >> a labor government with a coalition or a deal. look, the -- >> what's a deal in your terms? in your language. >> lots of different kind of deals. coalition, where they're called -- >> coalitionministers in your cabinet. what is a deal? >> confidence in supply, they said, where you sort of have an arrangement. i'm not doing that. i'm not doing that. and i want to explain why i'm not doing it. >> sorry, so you'd rather lose office, so to speak? you'd rather not have a labor government to do that? >> if the price of having a labor government with a coalition or deal with the scottish national party, not doing to happen. >> okay. >> yes you, sir? let's have people who haven't spoken already.
yes? >> in that case, does that rule out a future labor government? because you're not going to win the most seats in the uk. >> no. look first of all, i don't want to sound like the previous bloat blote, mr. cameron. look, i'm going to fight as hard as i can for as many seats as i can. i want to make this point about the snp. the reason why i reject the snp, they're, by the way, fighting us in scotland. the reason i reject it is because they want to break up the country. not only that, they used to say that the referendum was a once in a lifetime experience. that's what they said before the last referendum. now nicholas sturgeon isopening the door to another coalition. >> the problem is you do sound a
lot like the other guy because both of you seem to not entertain the possibility that you might not get a majority which is absolutely ridiculous. >> sure. >> you really need to be honest with voters about what you might do in the event that you do. >> what was your name? i'm sorry. >> rebecca. >> rebecca, let me try and do better than the other guy on this one. you know, he was saying at the end, david cameron that if you didn't get a majority, it meant this business of going into a darkened room with nick clage. i don't like the sound of that at all for a whole range of reasons. but i don't like it for one -- for one particular reason. i'm not going to start bartering away my manifesto whatever the outcome of the election, right? even if i don't win a majority i've got a manifesto. you know, some of you may have read it. not that many people. some people may have read it. but itst's out there. if i'm the prime minister i'm going to do everything i can to get my manifesto, not start trading for anyone else's
manifesto manifesto. we're in a new world in britain. it was the first coalition obviously this coal list for a long time. it's not about saying going to a darkened room with somebody and start taking off parts of your manifesto. it's not going to happen if i'm prime minister. >> we'll go to another subject. alicia, please? >> what makes your view more important than the british people when its s it comes to an in and out -- >> sure. >> it's actually alicia. >> it's about leadership what i want to achieve as prime minister. when i look at the country what do i think the biggest problems in the country are? i think five years of wages falling behind bills and the threat is going to happen again. i think five years of young people thinking they're going to have a worse life than their parents. five years of an nhs in crisis. if i'm prime minister in seven or eight days' time, i want to
spend all of my energy on those issues. not on deciding whether we want to exit the european union which i think frankly will be a disaster for the country. >> suppose she wants -- >> your view is more important than mine and everybody else here? >> i do -- i do respect that point of view but i don't agree with it because i'm putting my view forward. i think one of the things -- >> will you put ours forward? >> you do at the general election. one thing about leadership, you don't always do what the poll tell you to do. you do what you think is the right thing for the country. i've got to level with you and level with the country that i don't think the right thing for our country to do now is plunge ourselves into two years of debating whether to leave the eu when i've got to tell you that for jobs and the millions of jobs that depend on it for businesses and for families, it will be a disaster. now, there's one thing i will say to you which is any further transfer of powers from britain to the european union, we would have a referendum. unlikely to happen, though. in a way you have to make your
own judgment about what is the most important issue to you. for me, it isn't trying to get out of the eu. >> okay. [ applause ] >> so you don't want a referendum, the debate that brings. a second election because you won't form a majority government? >> i don't want -- >> if you don't go majority you're not going to go the snp? >> i want to govern. i want to govern and change the country. and i think -- i just got to say to you, the stakes are incredibly high. you know you get this choice once every five years. do you want a country run for the richest and most powerful the nondoms the lady talked about at the top? for jenny, her tax credits aren't safe. that's the choice of this election. that is a choice facing the british people. >> couple more people. the woman there then i'll come to you and we'll move on. yes? >> yes, hello good evening. the conservative party has made cuts to education. how would you propose to endure the damage cuts to education.
how would you propose to endure the damage done by the -- >> education which we may come to. i want to stick to the subject of the eu if you don't mind while we're on it. yes. >> mr. miliband. >>ly. >> you know when people ask you a question about forming a coalition, you say no, i want the majority mr. cameron said the same. do you comprehend how much respect you would get from the audience if you were truly honest. >> sir, i'm saying to you -- [ applause ] i'm absolutely not saying to you i'm guaranteed the majority. i'm working for it. and i guess you'll respect me saying that. but i tried to answer the lady on the end who asked a question about the circumstances of not getting a majority. and i tried to outline my approach. as i said, my approach is not to start to barter away different bits of the manifesto. the reason i say that is because i think trust in politics, which is a pretty fragile thing anyway, is incredibly low. so the idea that nick clegg says i'm breaking my tuition fees promise and david cameron says i'm breaking my vat promise and
they blame each other and the coalition, that's not going to be my approach. whatever the circumstances. if i'm prime minister, i'm going to seek to implement all of my manifesto. >> i'm going to get back to the lady there. just one brief question on this and an answer if you would. >> the conservative party have made up to 20% cuts in education. how do you propose to undo the damage done by the savage cuts to adult education made by this government? >> have you had experience of this? >> yes we have. i work in f.e. >> what we've said for the future, i can't guarantee to reverse what's already been done but what we've said for the future is we will protect education spending. so it will be protected at least against inflation. now, the reason why we've made that choice, which we haven't made in other government departments, is because i think investing in education investing in the future is essential not just for our society but our economy as well. i think it's a false economy to start cutting back on education spending. i can't promise to immediately reverse the damage and i'm not going to make a false promise to
you. >> but adults in further education -- >> yes indeed. >> ufrlts or pliermrimary -- >> yes. we have made that promise. >> amy green. >> mr. miliband -- the welfare bill skyrocket. i'm over here. >> hi. sorry. [ laughter ] >> it's okay. it's a vote for yourself. the welfare bill skyrocket. >> no. let me explain why. i believe in a welfare system with responsibility. responsibility means that if you can work you should work. we're the only party at this election putting forward a proposal saying if you're a young person unemployed more than a year we'll guarantee you a job working with the private sector but if you don't take the job you'll lose benefits. because i think that actually responsibility is a foundation of the welfare system. but let me just say one more thing to you, amy because it's important for keeping control of the welfare bill. take the issue of housing benefit. you may not be obvious but the housing benefit bill's gone up a
lot in the last five years for those in work. the reason for that is we have an economy based on low pay and we're not building up enough homes in our country. that's why we have an eight-pound minimum wage and that's why we'll build homes again in britain. dealing with the welfare bill is about responsibility but it's also about tackling the underlying factors that are driving the welfare bill up. like our low pay economy that doesn't work for working people. and this is all connected. because our economy doesn't work for most people and works for the richest in our society in my view, if means that the welfare bill's higher. it means that people are having a harder life and working all the hours. we'll keep it under control. >> the benefits of a legitimate lifestyle choice. >> no. >> i think they do. you say about raising minimum wage and you're going to guarantee jobs. i work in recruitment. where are those jobs going to come from? >> they're going to come from working with the private sector to help create those jobs. apprenticeships for our young people so actually they're the skilled people that the private sector needs. a proper industrial policy
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive The Chin Grimes TV News Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on