>> give me a break. two hours? white house is trying to cooperate. republican after republican today said the white house has refused to give us anything? it's just not true. in my experience in congress, i've never seen a situation

where, on a bipartisan basis, when somebody asked for more time you didn't give them more time. we could have given them a little bit more time. it's clear we're getting the information. why is the white house still saying they don't want to comply with all the information that has been requested? because the information requested is so broad that it could be a violation of executive privilege. the white house has not claimed executive privilege, but if someone is discussing whether the president should go to solyndra's factory and then all these different people in the white house are involved with logistics and the president is invited to contact summit on the staff, that's just the information that is pertinent to our investigation. it becomes a fishing expedition. it intrudes on the prerogatives of the presidency. the presidency, not just this president.

so i just really think look at this question seriously. you don't need to have -- because the white house isn't giving mr. upton's written statement. they gave us everything but. they gave him a clear hallucination of what information they would provide to the committee. after that information has been provided we can see what else we need. do we need the information that was directed whether the president should enter the west side or the east side of the company headquarters? there's some things we don't need and there are somethings that are just inappropriate for us to ask. so i would urge opposition to this subpoena, and i would even urge the chairman of the full committee we think his position in light of what he just said. they didn't give you the information you want to buy the 4:30 meeting, and, therefore,

will go to the unprecedented steps that was never taken any chairman of this committee, or subcommittee chairman of this committee, to issue a subpoena to the white house. yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, the chairman strikes the last war and recognized himself in support of the resolution. my colleagues as chairman of the subcommittee, i feel compelled to offer this resolution. we have exercised restraint and patience during the course of this eight month, over eight month investigation. and the administration has resisted our effort every step of the way. earlier this year only be repeatedly failed to cooperate with our investigation and we agree, we agreed to put off a vote on that subpoena because we were assured that engaging in a dialogue with the administration and the minority would -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your attention. we were a sure indication with

the dialogue would result all of the problems without the need to resort to a subpoena. but that was just a stalling tactic. we are forced to issue a subpoena several lakes way to but the administration had one goal they were seeking the administration seems to think, seems to think that if they can just drag this investigation out that we will give up and simply go away. but we won't. we have a constitutional duty to investigate this matter, pursue a tour oversight and legislative functions. we have an obligation to the american people to find out what went wrong with this loan guarantee program. why have to of the first three companies that received these loan guarantees failed? why wasn't the taxpayers money subordinated the solyndra loan? why were so many warning signs and red flags simply ignored? my colleagues, this is a sleaze

investigation. half a billion dollars of taxpayers money appears to be lost. this is not a fishing expedition. we already have documents that show that the white house, the white house was involved in decisions that related to solyndra. we want answers, and so do the american taxpayers. it is unfortunate that it has come to this but we do not have any faith in the white house overtures that seem to simply want to delay and obstruct. i request members of the subcommittee join me in full support for this resolution to authorize the chairman of the full committee to issue subpoenas to the white house. is there any further discussion on the resolution? >> mr. chairman? thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to strike the last word. >> so ordered. >> mr. chairman, in my 35 years of congress i have presided over the issuance of only one

subpoena the time i served as a committee chairman. it, too, concern and environmental policy matter that began during the bush administration, but unlike the subpoena, sought every single internal white house e-mail relay to solyndra. the one i issued was issued on a bipartisan basis with my ranking member, republican member, jim sensenbrenner, fully supported my efforts to learn more about the bush administration's response global warming. it was a bipartisan effort because we exhausted all other avenues for obtaining the information from the bush administration first. and that has not happened here. the obama administration has been cooperating with the committee and has said it would continue to do so. the white house just yesterday offered to share internal white

house e-mails on all issues that are being debated about the solyndra loan guarantee. by contrast, what my subpoena requested was just to documents. one of these have been attached to a single e-mail the epa said but that the white house never even opened. the bush administration white house didn't just refuse to provide them voluntarily, they refused to comply with a subpoena at all until the select committee schedule and business meeting to consider a contempt motion. this committee should accept the accommodation offer the white house made. subpoenas should be the last resort used to obtain information when the subject of an inquiry has failed to fully cooperate. in stark contrast to today's zeal for issuing subpoenas to the white house, yesterday

republicans were singing a very different tune. over in the natural resources committee, 100 yards away, republicans voted unanimously against my motion to subpoena the ceos of bp, transocean, halliburton and cameron the refused, that's right, refused to appear at a hearing before our committee to testify as to what has happened since the bp oil spill. we were not asking for hundreds of thousands of pages of e-mails or documents. we just want the opportunity to question them about the environmental catastrophe that actually was the result of illegal activity in the gulf of mexico. while insisting on full disclosure and complete transparency from the white house on solyndra, republicans

have put the ceos from the companies responsible for the worst offshore oil spill in our history into a witness protection program where they are apparently going to be immune from any congressional or public scrutiny. when it comes to solar energy, republicans embrace the disinfecting power of some rights in disclosure. when it comes to oil, they seem to prefer to hide behind its murky sheen. this debate isn't about using our committee's subpoena power. this is about fossil fuel and nuclear fuel interests not wanting more americans using solar power. that's what it's all about. that's the bottom line of this debate.

you have to see this story in two parts. bp, oil, a crime, not a word. we don't want to meet these people. we are here with full cooperation coming from the white house. they insist on issuing subpoenas. that's all you really need to know. that's what this debate is all about. the fossil fuel and new gold -- nuclear energy trying to kill what is that the growing industry, 100,000 employees in the solar industry, he 5000 employees in the wind industry, 85,000 employees in the coal industry. that's what it's all about bottom line. they are growing too fast. their share of electrical generation is growing too fast. we've got to slow them down and put a cloud over their ability to raise funding in the private capital markets, and we are going to do it at the expense of all guides giving to all of those who come before this

committee. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked to strike the last word. >> thank your. >> i've listened to interest pressure with interest to my friend on the democratic side. they really are my friends. mr. green, mr. markey, ms. degette, mr. waxman, they are all people have great respect for and great affection for. and we know on this committee will we debate the issues we're going to have spirited debates. but i must say that i'm reminded of the old popeye cartoon character, when the. remember wendy, kind of a roly-poly good guy? everybody loves them. he was always trying to mooch hamburgers off people. he would gladly pay you tuesday. i will gladly pay you tuesday. ms. degette has offered a motion that their all for the investigation in two weeks.

in two weeks. they don't want to support it today but they will support supported on november 14. mr. waxman's all for the investigation, but it's premature. to subpoena documents from the white house. when he was chairman, ranking member over on the other committee offered all kinds of document requests to the bush white house energy task force, things of that sort. and mr. markey is upset because over in another committee that we don't, in fact, i would say most members of this committee are not big fans of the other committee he's the ranking member on, because they're chairman tried to take all our jurisdiction at the start of this congress. so i don't know how you can associate us with those guys. we are here today because half a

billion dollars of taxpayer money is gone. and the company that took the loan had been rejected by the bush administration in january, and then the obama administration comes in and of president expedites it, and even thought about doubling down on it, although they didn't, to their credit. we've been trying to get some documents and we've got a lot of documents, and minority has pointed out, department of energy, omb and the treasury department has provided documents on a voluntary basis, but the white house has not. if you read the letters that mr. upton sent and the letters at the white house responded to him, the bottom line is that the white house, it's not necessary. that's almost i think if her begum quote. so we want to get the facts and the only way to get the facts is to issue a subpoena. some have said that our subpoena request is too broad.

well, i was oversight chairman when republicans first came in to the majority back in 1995, and we took the language almost if not exactly verbatim from oversight request that mr. dingell had been using when he was full committee and subcommittee chairmen. [inaudible] >> i will at the appropriate time, as my good friend knows. so, we may have updated it because back in those days, e-mail wasn't a big thing and blackberries didn't exist, but our basic subpoena request, and document requests, is a standard format that democrats have used in republicans have used, this committee, literally for decades. and with all due respect, i understand my friends on the democratic side have to walk a fine line. they have to protect the president of their own party but they also have to try to be objective and support an

investigation. it's gratifying to know that they and the white house have magnanimously decided that this is a legitimate investigation. we appreciate that. we knew that although long. but if you really want to get the facts and the white house doesn't want to comply, doesn't want to cooperate, they just want to sandbag and drag their feet and gladly comply next tuesday, then we have to issued his subpoena. it has to be broad, and they we have to insist that it be, that it be complied with. so with all due respect, i would say that we should vote on this and then let's work together to get the documents and tend to suck them, review them, analyze them. then we can have a debate about what the conclusions are. and with that i would shield to mr. dingell, if you still -- >> i express my affection to the gentleman from texas, but i want to observe several things. first of all speak with a

gentleman suspend? he only has six seconds left? >> i ask unanimous consent for six additional minutes spent he said he had affection for me. let him continue. [laughter] >> all right. i recognize that chairman emeritus for full five minutes spent i don't want to be recognized for full five minutes. i just want to be recognized for what the gentleman said. i ask for additional six minutes spent i would -- >> i thank the gentleman. let me make one observation. one, i never served a subpoena on the white house. number two, the subpoenas were always discussed with the minority. we have a policy that we would always discuss them before we issue them. i did that with the gentleman from texas and i did it with every other ranking republican member when i was the chairman is of the subcommittee or the full committee. none of those things are being complied with it.

this is a fast fishing expedition. we are asking for everything from the president scheduled to his travel plans, to where he was going to meet on any matter related to this investigation. this is a fishing expedition and there's no way of getting around that. >> does the gentle yield back? >> yield back. >> anyone else? >> mr. chairman? spent the gentleman from georgia spirit i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, quite honestly what we're dealing with here, we are the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. we have a responsibility to the american people, to the taxpayers. this loan program for renewable energy, plus to up by the stimulus bill is some $36 billion worth of taxpayer

money. now, there's an article, i believe it is in politico today, talking about 100, 100 criminal investigations that have already been initiated by the inspector general in the department of energy. now, i don't know about you folks but to me that sounds like a heck of a lot in a program, a bill that just passed in february of 2009, and we already have 100 criminal investigations. now, you think back to the time when the community reinvestment act was passed back in the '70s and then, of course, in the '90s, yet the efforts of organizations like acorn pushing banks to get out these no money down loans, all kind of red flags were raised, number of years, and it was ignored until finally we got this country into

one hell of a hassle. so for us to sit here and drag our feet on something like this and say, that it is nothing but a fishing expedition, and they which are, and all political, that is clearly not the case. my good friend from massachusetts talk about, i think he put it, a murky sheen. well plug, we need to get a clear view of these related documents from the executive office of the white house. and what they are doing is putting up a murky sheen. let me just say in conclusion, as i yield back, it's time for us to get out the windex spent with windex spent would the gentleman yield? >> i yield back. >> deal to me for a question? >> yes. >> you said 100 criminal investigations by the ig. i don't believe that's an accurate statement.

ig may look at whether things were done properly or not, but every time they look at a matter doesn't become a criminal investigation. the only investigation i know is the fbi of the solyndra medic if you have further information on the 100 criminal investigations could you give that to us? >> i will be happy to get that to you, and i will refer you to an article this morning in politico. if there's any inaccuracies of what i say, i will certainly be willing to retract those. these investigations, 100 investigations, they may not have all been criminal. i may be mistaken on that, but 100 investigations have been initiated by the inspector general of the department of energy over this loan program for renewable startups. and that's the fact that i read this morning in this article on political. i will refer you to that. >> is the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? >> he does. >> does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes spent i asked to strike the word. i have questions to drag to the chief counsel of subcommittee, easy here? -- is he here speak what he is not in the real. >> to ask the clock not to begin to run on intel i have a mayor to run questions. >> he is presently in the room now spent if you will come down to the witness table and if the chair will start the five minutes when he gets there i will be delighted speak your five minutes it starts also. i don't think we will quibble about 15, 22nd. >> these are yes or no questions. council, have you include the minority staff in any and all meetings with numbers of d.o.e., omb and white house, yes or no? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> have you include minority staff in any and all meetings with members of d.o.e., omb and

white house, yes or no? doesn't require a lot of thought. yes or no? >> yes, sir. >> have you shared any and all details of your meetings with the minority? >> i think my previous response, they been involved in all of those -- >> just yes or no spent i believe yes spent have you requested documents from solyndra? >> knows her. >> -- knows her and have you requested documents from omb? >> yes, sir spent have you received all dr. bush requested from omb? >> knows or spent would you put into record what those are, if you please? have you requested documents from the white house? >> yes, sir spent have you received those documents. >> no spent would you submit

what were the dates for the request were made in each instance? >> short spin have all these doctors been shared with the minority staff when they received? >> yes. >> did you share with the minority staff of all documents being requested at the initial designation of the document request, as set forth in the resolution in the subpoena, yes or no? >> can you repeat that? >> have you shared with the minority in the list of documents which are being considered for received under the subpoena, the resolution that we have before us? >> yes, we gave a copy of the schedule. >> all right. have you received documents are showing that the white house directed d.o.e. to approve the loan to solyndra?

>> i'm sorry, can you repeat that? >> have you received documents showing that the white house directed d.o.e. to approve the loan to solyndra? >> we don't have all the documents and that sort of a matter of interpretation. >> all right. has the minority counsel seen the documents that you have requested from the white house and directed, that directed d.o.e. to approve the loan through solyndra? >> we don't have the full production, but everything we have gotten we have directed and are instructed to drag the targets of our document request to send copies directed to the minority. my understanding is that they receive them at the same time we have, every bit. >> my staff did not receive a copy of the subpoena until 10 p.m. last night. so i just only read it recently. is there a clarification on the

subpoena resolution or anywhere that the majority justifies the need for the subpoena? and if so, where? yes or no. >> i'm not sure what you mean by is their clarification. we send copies of this been up until the time -- >> but have you defined what the documents are that you are requesting? so they know what it is you are requesting? the subpoena and the resolution are literally without lives. i'm trying to find out what are the limits, what are the documents requested in the subpoena so we know what we are voting for spent i disagree this is without limits. >> you may agree or disagree but the answer to the question is yes or no. >> that i would say the answer is no, i disagree with that. >> now, in blue of -- the subpoena asked for specific documents that majority knows the white house has not turned

over, yes or no? >> subpoena does not ask for particular documents spent that's precisely the point i make. in the subpoena asked for damn near anything they have down there. now, in lieu of issuing a subpoena had held discussions with the white house to find out whether a compromise could be arranged with the white house, either to turn over the documents or to allow majority or minority staff to review the documents in the presence of white house counsel, yes or no? >> we have repeatedly requested to have discussions with the white house and open up a dialogue with the white house. >> have they said yes to that or no? >> that didn't happen until yesterday after we noticed, we let them know last week's -- >> would the gentleman yield? i would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from michigan have been an additional minute. i would ask if the gentleman will yield the question for me or a statement for me? >> i will yield for a question and. >> i would just note that the

mr. stearns authorizes the chairman, that would be me, in essence to authorize, upon adoption the chairman of the committee on energy and commerce may authorize and issue a subpoena. doesn't indicate specifically what the request will be. but as i said in my opening statement, and i quote, we fully intend to take last night proposal into consideration as we refine the scope of the subpoena and work with the white house on this document production. >> that's mighty comforting -- [talking over each other] we got this feeling, i got last night. i don't know when the white house got. and i don't know what it is you are asking in the subpoena. that's what i'm trying to find

out so that i know what the minority has been included in this, whether the committee hasn't understand or what has constituted in this documents you've given us which gives you a story. i it approximates that. what i've been told here is -- >> is the gentleman will yield, as i said in my opening statement, we intend to take last night's small step up cooperation here -- step up cooperation here, if the vote to approve is -- >> i will support that, i will support the gentleman in getting the books and papers and the records if he wants in proper and traditional way. and for that reason i move at this time the committee adjourned. >> the gentleman makes a motion that this committee adjourned.

is that what i understand the gentleman's motion is? all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. it appears to me the no's have it. we will move with any further discussion on the resolution before the vote occurs. if not -- >> mr. chairman, i would like to strike the last word. >> sure spent i just want to respond to what the chairman said very briefly, which is that he would use the discussions that happened last night as the parameters of the subpoena. yesterday in the meeting that we'll have to, i asked committee staff to give me the draft subpoena which is the subpoena mr. dingell is referring to that he and and mr. waxman received at 10 p.m. last night. and i guess i would ask mr. chairman, because your staff gave us the subpoena, and the subpoena -- >> if the gentle lady -- >> let me finish my sentence.

the subpoena says all documents in the possession of the executive office of the president relating to the $535 million loan guarantee issued to solyndra by the department of energy, including but not limited to notes, analyses, reports, memoranda, and all drafts of such documents. so this is the subpoena that the committee staff has advised us that it intends to serve upon the white house. and i would ask that that be included in the record. and i would just ask the chairman, is it not true that that's the subpoena you intend to serve upon then? >> are you giving time to mr. of the? >> yes, i will yield to the chairman to answer spent i didn't hear the very end of your statement. i said this resolution that we are voting on today authorizes chairman of the energy and commerce, and me, to issue a subpoena. that subpoena, you have seen subtracting which is not done yet. that was done, that draft language was written long before

we received -- >> actually -- >> last night. and it's not done. as i said and i opening statement, we are going to use what the white house presented to us last night. spent reclaiming my time. >> have a response to? actually, the subpoena was provided to us after the white house made its statement. >> would the gentlelady yield to me? i would like to see the subpoena. i would like to vote for that subpoena if it really does take into consideration all the information you're going to receive. but what we're being asked to do is to vote for a subpoena we were shown one subpoena, now we are told were just authorizing to make up a subpoena later. come in and asked for a subpoena when you are ready to issue a. not ask us now to give you the power to issue subpoenas. that doesn't strike me as, that's putting the cart before the horse.

yield back. >> and i will yield back to the chairman if you'd like to clarify what it is he intends to do. now it makes me even more concerning about what this resolution is actually asking for. >> this resolution, the gentlelady will yield. this resolution authorizes the chairman of this energy and commerce, to authorize and issue a subpoena. a subpoena we've looked at a number of different things. you've seen the draft, draft is a trap. it's not done and how it is done. we're going to take as i said in my opening statement, last night proposal into consideration as we look at a final document, should this committee vote to authorize me to send a subpoena. we will take this discussion of what the white house provided last night, probably add a few things, not sure exactly what that will be yet but we will also have a timeframe, something that the white house did not offer last night as they begin to come forward with some of the

communication that they may provide. >> so, reclaiming my time. what the chairman is saying is, if we vote for this extremely open-ended resolution, then we're just giving carte blanche to the chairman to ask the white house for anything he wants to ask them for with any timeframe he wants to, without consulting with anybody. and i think that that is even more cause for concern at this committee, because this committee has a long-standing tradition of working together on documents that should be produced. i will just say one last thing. i'm going to put these proposed subpoenas which were received from the majority late last night after the white house had already made their offer, and the subpoenas don't say draft or potential or anything. they simply reflect the very, very broad language spinet are you asking unanimous consent? >> yes im. >> i would like to put these white house letters from myself

and mr. upton, the two letters as well as -- >> i don't have any objection and i yield to mr. waxman. >> might understand it has always been the tradition of this committee to vote on specific language of a subpoena. that is the full force and effect of the subpoena. now we are not being asked to vote on the language of a subpoena. but to authorize the chairman when he gets around to figure out what he wants to ask for to go ahead and issue the subpoena. suppose the chairman asked very arbitrarily and says he wants the president personal blackberry. well, we won't even have a chance to debate that in committee because we have given him that power. this is an unprecedented power to the chairman of the committee in this committee. to get this kind of subpoena power that we're not voting for a subpoena. we are voting for authorization for the chairman to issue it and i reject that. >> the gentlelady time has expired and i think there's a

further discussion on the resolution. the vote occurs on the resolution to all those and favors should signify by saying i ago. those opposed no. the ayes have the. spent i request a roll call vote. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> mr. chairman, on that boat there were 14 day goes, nine nays. >> with that, the resolution is agreed to, the foreign been present, but this is being of the subcommittee is hereby adjourned to.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> next, british prime minister david cameron takes questions on last weeks g20 summit in france and the ongoing financial challenges in the eurozone. members of the house of commons asked about the g20 pledged to boost the international monetary fund to help the eurozone. from london, this is about an hour. >> statement, the prime

minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> with permission, mr speaker,n i would like to make a statement on last week's g20 summit. key mr speaker, there were three kep aspects to this summit.th first, agreement on an actionfie plan for growth andnt jobs withn specific countries agreeing toh do specific things in order to spec maximise overall growth in theno world economy.ximize second, the g20 continued withhe its work to identify and removec some of the key obstacles to growth. imbalances between surplus and deficit, improving global governance, and protecting the world's poorest from the current economic problems. third, there was the main issue of instability in the eurozone. first, the action plan for growth and jobs but it includes many things britain is already doing from fiscal consolidation and monetary action to removing the barriers in the wake of business and job creation. the g-20 recognized yet again the importance of implementing "clear, credible, and specific

measures." it is clearly identified a group of countries to have the space to borrow for additional discretionary measures. i have to tell any members of the house who want to see the u.k. borrow more, no one was proposing u.k. should be in this group of countries. [laughter] with ourermined to do debt. and the need to press on with our plan for consolidation has been recognized by the g-20 as well as the imf o and theecd. the imbalances which did so much damage in the run-up to 2008 are growing again. this matters because it's clear to maximize global growth and avoid some of the spigot of baubles of the past, countries with a trade surplus need to increase the best in sure they keep their markets open. those with the trade deficit have to understand -- undertake structural form to improve competitiveness. russia is making changes to its foreign exchange regime. china agreed to increase its

exchange rate flexibility. both are reflected in the communique could more needs to be done. the greatest mistake the global economy could do is a slide toward protectionism. the report sets out of the protectionist measures that have been taken in g-20 countries over the last year. these are a cause for concern. the g-20 reaffirmed its pledge not to take protectionist action, committed to roll back any protectionist measures that may have arisen, and reaffirmed his determination to refrain from competitive devaluation of currency. we welcome that russia is set to become a member of the wto by the end of the year. i have said it is time to working with groups of countries to drive new trade deals. together with five other g-20 leaders, i wrote to president sarkozy ahead of the summit to call for new approaches to trade liberalization. that was agreed.

on improving global governance, i presented the report i am replacing -- i am placing library today which secured a group of the key proposals. the g-20 should continue as a flexible gathering rather than a reordering. what is the it is not new institutions but political will. we should make the now establish financial stability board a separate legal body to give it the authority and ability that it needs. worshippers -- which should strengthen the wto's role. further progress was made on cracking down on tax havens, tax evasion, and a proper regulatory system for banks to make up for the woeful system that existed in summit countries including hours over the last decade. on development, bill gates cover presentation suggesting was a mobilizing resources to help the world's poorest. it included helping some developing countries help themselves through proper systems for collecting taxes and

transparent ravenous for natural resources. he gave strong support to the uk's on record on the development agenda. on the financial transactions tax, we are not opposed in principle to such a tax if one can be agreed of the global level. but we will not unilaterally introduce a new financial transaction tax in the u.k. neither will we support the introduction in the european union unless it is part of a global move. britain has introduced a bank levee and we are meeting our global agreement on overseas aid. if other countries want to introduce new financial taxes at home including to raise revenue for development, that is for them to decide. what they should not do is try to hide behind proposals for an eu tax as an excuse or political inaction and meeting targets whether that is for spending on developments or climate change. mr. speaker, the current proposals for financial transactions tax in europe are

so deeply confused the different european countries and institutions have talked about spending and revenues of such a tax in five different ways. development, climate change, social policy, resolving the banking crisis, and the best way to supplement the eu budget. i would say that would be a stretch, even for robin hood. [laughter] let me turn to the problems in eurozone. it is clearly in our national interest for the eurozone to sort out its problems. the biggest single boost to the british economy this autumn of the lasting resolution to the eurozone crisis. that is why britain has been pressing to act not just at the g-20, but for many months. the deal and brussels 10 days ago was welcome progress. it reflected the three essential elements of britain has been calling for. first, reinforcing the bailout fund by eurozone countries to create a proper fire wall

against contagion. second, recapitalization of weak european banks. third, a decisive resolution to the unsustainable position of greece paused debt. the euro area countries need to do what is possible to implement the agreement urgently. the rest of the world can play a supporting role. in the end, the work has to be done by the eurozone countries themselves. no one else can do it for them. britain will not contribute to the eurozone bailout fund whether that is the efsf or special purpose vehicle. while the imf may administer funds, it will not contribute to it. the imf does have a vital role to play in supporting countries but across the world that are in serious economic distress. 53 countries currently being supported by the imf of which only three, greece, ireland, and portugal, are in the eurozone. it is essential that the imf

have the resources that it needs. at the g-20, britain, the u.s., china, and all the other countries around the table made clear we are willing in principle to see an increase in imf resources to boost global confidence. there is agreement about the timing, extent, or exact method for this to be done. britain stands ready to contribute the limits agreed by this house. those who propose we walk away from the imf or who even oppose the increase in imf resources agreed by the last government, are not acting responsibly or in the best interests of britain. it is in our national interest that countries across the world that are in distress are supported in their efforts to recover. the collapse of our trading partners, whether in the eurozone or not, would have a serious impact on our economy. businesses would not invest. jobs will be lost. families would be poorer. through the imf, we can help other countries in a way that does not affect our own public finances.

it is for the eurozone and the ecb, european central bank, to support the euro. global action cannot be a substitute for concrete action by the eurozone. the g-20 withheld specific imf commitment at this stage precisely because he wanted to see more concrete action from eurozone countries to make the fire wall credible and stand behind their currency. the world sent a clear message to eurozone at this summit -- sort yourselves out and then we will help, not the other way around. mr. speaker, these are difficult times for the global economy. the government is focused on one objective -- help britain weather the storm and safeguard our economy. because of the tough situations with taken to get to grips with deficit, britain has awarded the -- avoided the worst at this stage of the global debt crisis. in 2008, u.k. bond yields were about the same as those increase. today, although we of the second highest deficit in the eu behind

ireland, are bond yields are almost the same as in germany and around the lowest they have been since world war ii. this is because we have a credible plan to deal with our debt and a resolve to see it through. the situation in italy further emphasizes the need for a credible plan to deal with debt. the eurozone must do what is necessary and see through the agreement reached in brussels 10 days ago. britain and all are g-20 partners will continue to press for this to happen. i commend this statement to the house. >> mr. speaker, can ithank the prime minister? i have to say, what a complete in a statement from and out of touch, nestor. anybody listening to him would think the g-20 summit had been a great success, but it was not, mr. speaker.

a me ask him about the three areas where the summit should have made progress. the eurozone, reforming our banking system, and economic growth. on the eurozone, the chancellor in its september, the resin has six weeks to resolve this political crisis. the six weeks is up. mr. speaker, there is no clear solution on financing. how much, from whom, and what circumstances. none of those questions are being answered. the crisis in greece is spreading to italy and no plan for jobs and growth, just more austerity. can the prime minister tell us, why european and g-20 leaders failed to get this solution on the eurozone customer the chancellor told us from france he in the prime minister word " right at the heart of the discussion." progress that was made in the summit, and always with his

prime minister, failure has nothing to do with him. [laughter] mr. speaker, does he not regret he did not try harder and earlier to engage in the discussion and push for an agreement rather than standing aside income in britain was a safe haven? mr. speaker, can he say what responsibility he takes for the failure on ? given the importance this has for britain, can he tell us specifically what he plans to do in the coming days to get an agreement? let me turn to the funding for the imf. the prime minister said on friday and again today, you cannot ask the imf or other countries to substitute for action that needs to be taken within the eurozone itself. we agree with that. it should not be done to make up for inadequate eurozone actions.

the prime minister has said he would not support the direct use of imf resources to top off the europeans financial stability fund. but can he categorically ruled out imf resources being used in directly and parallel to make up for insufficient funding from the efsf? can he square his position with the commitment to the imf within agreed resources with the comments of the managing director of the imf that there's no cap, no ceiling on imf resources? let me turn to banking reform, specifically the global financial transaction act which we support and believed to be implemented if we can reach agreement and all the major financial centers. it was on the agenda in france, but no real progress was made but i have to say, i cannot tell from his statement was the prime minister supporting it and not opposed in principle, hardly a ringing endorsement mr. speaker,

i do not think we should be surprised if it a week before the summit negotiations even started, the chancellor was running the business leaders, casting doubt on whether any such mechanism and a sufficient way to raise revenue. can the prime minister tell us if he argued for a global financial transaction tax at the summit? can he tell us what steps he will be taking in the weeks and months ahead to advance his cause? let me turn to growth. the first paragraph of the communique says "since our last meeting, global recovery has weakened particularly in advanced countries living unemployment and unacceptable levels." that is certainly true in this country, mr. speaker, where growth has flat line and unemployment is at a 17-year high. does the prime minister understand why people are so disappointed by the failure of this summit? the prime minister talks about

trade and imbalances. mr. speaker, action on trade imbalances will take years to the employment. he also mentioned undertaking by various countries to take action. but it is an important point in the communique that these will only be implemented if "global economic conditions materially worsen." people around the country will be wondering, how much worse does it need to get? he says, by the way, nobody is arguing for britain to take a course but the imf last month said if the british community under shoots, the chancellor should continue. the prime minister said after the april 20,009 g-20 summit, the glens and glamour of this week must keep remote to the small businessman who still trying to secure credit or a

mother worrying if she can keep a roof over her children's heads. mr. speaker, the 2009 g-20 summit succeeded and this one failed. for the young person unemployed, for the business with goods disappearing, for people leaving the high street, this summit achieved precisely nothing. that is why the prime minister looks so out of touch when he climbs the some admitted difference on growth. but isn't the real problem is, the prime minister does not really believe we need a global plan? he used to cram the austerity is an home. people wanted action from the summit and they did not get it. -- people. this is a to nothing summit from deeply complacent prime minister out of touch with the

real needs of our economy. >> i do not know who writes his rubbish. i like 20 quoted my response from the 2009 summit. if the 2009 summit was such a success, why did the labor party vote against one of its key conclusions in the house of commons to increase imf resources? he talks about regulating banks with no recognition of the field regulatory system that he oversaw for a decade. he talks about the eurozone with no recognition that they had a national changeover plan to get the whole of britain to adopt the euro. mr. speaker, above all, let us be clear if we listen to his advice, we would not have been in france talking about a greek bailout, but at the imf

discussing a british bailout. let me remind him of those figures. in 2008, greek bond yields and british bond yields for both 4.5%. in the u.k. since then, they have halved. in greece, they are up six times. that is because they did not have a credible policy for deficit-reduction and we do. mr. speaker, let me come back to the issue of the imf. what we're seeing is breathtakingly irresponsible. about theirar position on the imf and remember this is an organization founded by britain where we are a leading shareholder, rescued us from labor in the 1970's, and their position is first to vote against the increase in resources agreed by the g-20 under their own government.

they called it a triumph at the time, yet trip to the division office and a complete display of opportunism. it gets worse. now they are saying they do not want imf resources for any eurozone country are they saying they want to take money off ireland, off portugal? they would have turned up at the summit where every country was talking about increasing imf resources, and would have said on no account would britain support that he meant how ridiculous. they are saying to eurozone countries who contribute to the imf, you're never allowed to seek its assistance. i thought if they meant this, i would take it seriously. this is all about politics. they are putting the politics ahead of the economics. we know that is the case with the chancellor. he only thinks about the politics. the question for the liver of the labor party, are you a better politician than that? i am afraid the answer is no.

>> did chancellor merkel to my hon. friend wants the european central bank is not fully discharging its duties -- its duty as the euro's lender of last resort not providing massive quantitative easing, not moving toward near zero interest rates, not urging president sarkozy to read nationalize the leading french banks before the credit crunch closes on france? because chancellor merkel knows very well bid was ninth inflation, but high unemployment dollar-it was not inflation, but high

unemployment. >> my friend speaks powerfully about this issue. he is right we must not allow or permit the imf to substitute for what the european central bank and the other institution of the european union need to do. that is vital. that was one of the reasons why in the end, all the countries of the world that were prepared to see an increase in imf resources wanted to see more done by the eurozone and the ecb. i have discussed this with the chancellor. the huge hole back there is in germany about what the central bank is and what it should do. i believe as it says in the communique, you've got to have the institutions of the eurozone fully behind the currency in order to save it. >> understandably the prime minister is putting on a brave face of what happens last week.

with regard to growth, with regard to the prison crisis which is as bad now as it was a few days ago. icn on reports the g-20 is planning to meet again perhaps as early as the remaining part of this year or the beginning of next year. is that right? with the prime minister be reminded no summit is better than a failure of the g-20 may be not perfect, but cannot afford another meeting where a singularly fails to come up with the answer. >> i think he is right could meetings that do not have a proper conclusion cannot add to the problem rather than solve the problem read what is required is the political will for eurozone countries to act. i was very clear after the g-20 meeting, it had not achieved a breakthrough on the euro. some progress has been made in terms of establishing the three elements that need to be put in place. but much more has to be done.

there may well may be a meeting of g-20 finance ministers. i agree, it is progress and his resolution of these issues that is required, rather than another meeting. >> given the intense interest in the same on the fact or to further statements to follow,-- >> implementation of the financial transaction tax would reduce gdp in the euro area of 1.8% of gdp. this would hit the u.k. disproportionately hard at a time when we need more growth, not less. does he not agree of all times now is not the proper moment to consider such a controversial measure? >> i think it is important for people to see the european report on the transaction tax which shows the figures he talks about, that it would cost jobs. if you can achieve global agreement for a tax of this

nature, there would be a case for it. it is very hard to see that happening. i think of focus on politicians in europe should meet the promises that are made about development rather than hide behind a financial transaction tax they know is very unlikely to come into being. >> can i say to the prime minister the frustration and impatience expressed on thursday and friday last it was extremely well merited and would be as well he came here and repeated the concern he had about the failure of leadership across europe at this final time a bank isn't a tragedy in that context when europe needs a voice for reform, for example, on budgetary policy, he has dealt himself on of the game with the focus on the repatriation of powers which frankly is not the issue, to make or break the economy? >> i do not agree with the gentleman on that issue for this reason. i have managed to assemble a

coalition for budgetary restraint in the european union. this year, britain, france, germany and others have all agreed to freeze the eu budget. i would like to go further proof a freeze in the budget in real terms is not something we have been able to achieve in recent years. i do not accept looking at rebalancing powers in europe and fighting for a deal on the budget you can do both. >> given the fact single markets including the city of london, a majority vote, how does the prime minister proposing to achieve a majority to protect our interests in the context of the fiscal union he is advocating? >> first of all, you need to disconnect the two issues for a first of all, the issue of the single market and the threat to the city of london and to britain's financial-services is a real threat. we have to work extremely hard to build alliances in the single market, in the european

council, the stock directives that are going to damage. it is one of the areas to want to make sure we can better safeguard in the future. i do not support a fiscal union in that i do not think britain should join in fiscal union. when you have a single currency that is frankly quite dysfunctional, one of the ways it could be made more functional is for a greater fiscal union. that is just a statement of fact rather than saying we wanted in new way to join in. we do not. we want to safeguard the interests of britain by making sure the single market works for us. >> is it really in the best long-term interest of this country for the government to consistently present the united kingdom as the neighbor from hell in regard to the european union? the issues the european union wish to spend money on are the

issues which his constituents and my citizens around the world wish to see spent on will he change his mind on this issue? >> the fact is, this government and the government she has supported has made and kept promises about things our constituents care about my development, like climate change. in terms of being a good neighbor, i have to say, one of the most and they're really ask you can take is when the whole world is looking at -- the un neighborly is to walk away and vote against it. summer public ashamed of, not only a good neighbor, but on a northern planet. >> -- but on another planet

pretty >>, economist to tell me what -- offering subsidized loans to head off the crisis in the market? >> because i to the question the father of the house ask which is about the actions of the ecb. the ecb has been intervening and markets and of borrowing bonds of countries that are under pressure. that is what makes this a difficult to understand why some in europe are so opposed to the ecb and more of a monetary activist, if i could put it that way. everyone to be careful about speculating about another country. but italy has got to demonstrate it has a credible fiscal path. it is not about the confidence of the markets said it will be a to pay its deficit, pay its debt. if it can do it, its interest rates will fall. >> exit from the arizona is clearly in view.

-- an exit from the eurozone is clearly in the print until the states can retrieve their own national currencies find appropriate characters, they will not recover? >> >> it is an issue the greeks have to decide themselves. they have been offered a deal which can write down their debt and state and a single currency. their decision to take that road or take another road for the only thing i would say to members of the house who are deeply skeptical about a single currency of which i am one is that which should be very careful and recognizing that country's leading a single currency can cause all sorts of defects and problems for other economies including our on. we should not see this as some sort of painless, easy option for a country to fall out of the euro. it would have very real consequences for other countries including our own. >> mr. simon hughes.

>> given the role of big banks played triggering the present financial crisis, can the prime minister tell us what progress he made with the countries in the g-20 to follow example set by the proposal we recommended to break up the bank that is too big to fail so no economy or the big financial institutions can hold a gun to the state and the taxpayer? >> obviously, many people will comment on the ultimate failure of the g-20 to resolve the crisis but the g-20 has made good steps forward in areas like trying to roll back protectionism and on the issue about globally significant financial institutions and the impact they can have and the recommendhe vicar's is totally in thune. >> does the prime minister realize that the british people listening to this that this

british prime minister is suggesting a growth plan for italy, spain, and portugal well here at home, he sticks rigidly to high inflation and massive unemployment. ? >> that probably sounded better and from the mayor then when he got into the chamber. [laughter] >> would you agree that one of the single biggest filips would be breaking the deadlock over the doha agreement? would this make progress on this issue under the mexican presidency? >> thank you for that question. the point about doha is it is not progressing in the way it was meant to. there is a gridlock among the

developing countries and countries like america that don't see enough. it seems to be the only way forward if we want to see more global trade deals that are good for all those participating is to have coalitions of the willing, countries that want to push ahead, and that as what -- is what has been sanctioned at the g20. >> greece, spain, and portugal are already insolvent within the european monetary unit. none of these countries are likely to regain their competitiveness. do you think it would be better for the imf [unintelligible] >> you make an important point but it is not necessarily fair to lump all of this country's together. some of them like italy have huge budget deficits in terms of debt to gdp ratio.

they have managed to compete within single currencies. i'm not sure you aware you group the country together is entirely fair. report role of the imf is not to support a currency system. it is not to support the euro zone. the imf has to be there for countries that are in distress. that is why everyone in this house supported the imf program that went into ireland. a win in as a partner oof countries. -- it went in as a partner of countries. it would be extraordinary to say to euros on countries that you are shareholders but you cannot get money when you are in distress. that would be an extraordinary position but one that seems to have the support of the labor front bench. >> it has been a policy for 300 years to avoid financial

conflict on the continent. the imf will have enormous powers over us and not have influence over their. >> we are suffering at the moment from a single currency that we are not a member of the spot that has some serious structural issues and faults. in our interests, those faults are resolved. one way of helping to resolve those faults would be to for a greater cooling of fiscal among the people who are members. i never supported the single currency. i don't think we can stick with the status quo where we have a single currency but it is having a chilling effect on our economy and not seeking a resolution. >> a few years ago, the president of yemen was invited to the g-20.

since then, it has the third highest malnutrition rate in the world. what additional help kenyon and be given as a result of the g-20 meeting. >> -- what additional help can yemen be given as a result of the g-20 meeting? >> we have not given any imf money yet. there was no agreement as to how much. the world stood ready to support the imf. the imf has supported countries like yemen in the past. we put in development aid to yemen. the biggest challenge in yemen is lack of effective governance. what bill gates was talking about is that proper assistance for raising taxes and proper systems for transparency in government revenues and revenues in terms of extracting industries and in minerals. those are the keys to helping countries like yemen. >> back in july, the hon. member told the members of this house that we have an agreement of 20

billion imf obligations. we hear is closer to $40 billion per accou. ministers have an obligation to be absolutely straight as to what they plan to do with other people's money. >> let me be absolutely clear about this -- there are two sorts of money that the u.k. provides to the imf. there is money through our quota, our shareholding, and money through loans and other arrangements for there have been three votes in the past three years all the elements of this imf money in this house. if it comes to extra support for the imf, we want to do that within realistic boundaries. >> aren't we really dealing with a sophisticated form of russian roulette? on the one hand, we are told by the prime minister that he does not think it is right for countries with in the urals and to have funding cut off from the

imf but on the other hand, he says at this stage there would be no additional money for the imf. when will this stage be right for the additional imf money? >> there are 53 i-map programs around the world. only three of them are enduros are in effect in it euro is done. the countries have to sort out the problems of the euro. they need that fire wall and europe has to provide it. they need that recapitalization. they need the demonstrable and clear right down and greet death. those are things they have responsibility for. we have responsibility as a shareholder to bulk up finances at the right moment. it is just very sensible economic policy. >> what advice have you received on failing to pay our

imf conscriptions? >> you make a very good point. i am not entirely sure what would have happened if we turned up at the g-20 having voted down the g20 deal from london about increasing the imf resources. therefore, we would not have implemented one of the key findings of the last g-20 and would have turned up and said we are not prepared to see an increase in our funding for anything else. britain would have been completely isolated and left out. the reason the opposition party talks about that is because it is all about the cost -- politics and not the economics. they know it. >> the prime minister said the u.k. would not fund the efsx. there are two new powers proposed for it to ensure newly issued sovereign debt and to spin out investment trusts to buy that desperate i don't

think the prime minister's government believes that power will be enough. >> i think there are still real difficulties with the esfs or send out of the year as a meeting 10 days ago. since then, we have not seen enough details about how exactly these funds would work, how they would be levered out because you need to have a bazooka to convince people you would not have to use it. that is what the euro zone needs to do and they have not yet completed that work. >> i now appeal to single short supplementary questions. dr. julian lewis -- >> why does the prime minister seemed to think the greeks will be anymore successful at staying in the euro then we were at

trying to remain in the ers? >> one of the few advantages of the ern was that we could get out of it and one issue with the euro is that there is not a mechanism legally for leaving the euro. if a country wanted to leave the europe, it could. this is an issue for the greeks. they have to decide if they accept the deal that is on the table and stay in the euro or do they take a different path. i have been making the point that they have to make up their minds for the rest of the world to move on. >> there is a discussion about the on countable power of the rating agencies to decide massive country's welfare. and in control of the banking system rather than battling down to it?

>> there were concerns expressed about the role of the rating agencies and the way they are regulated. sometimes it comes from politicians who have had a particularly rough time with the ratings agency and it is important use organizations like fsb to make sure we get these answers are right. >> we must have contingency plans. if the euros on principle. do you agree that parliament must be given an early opportunity to scrutinize the adequacy of these contingency plans? >> i think it is quite a difficult task. there is important work going on on contingency plans but the more we discuss and speculate about the nature of another country's currency and economy, the more we could be damaging

their own interests. i think it may be difficult to air some of these issues in public. >> the imf currently gets 32.4 billion sdr, pounds to the euro zone to prop it up. how can you justify giving more british taxpayers' money to the imf when there are people starving in africa and people cannot pay their heating bills in england. >> no country has ever lost money and lending it to the imf. the imf is a vital institution in a globalized world to support countries that get into deep economic distress. if we were to walk away and see trading partners weather in the euro zone or not collapse, that would mean british jobs lost. it might give you a five-second sound bite on the news to give you a political advantage but it

would be completely useless. >> the matter of greece remaining in the tourism -- remaining in the euro zone is a great decision. will you take time to read the paper that point said that europe as a whole and the united kingdom, our economy will be growing faster in two years' time if the breaks up that if we try to keep it going? >> i have seen reports and perhaps i will have time this evening to read it at greater leisure. you can look at the economic experts and what they say but there is quite a strong consensus that in a single currency zone, when you have very interrelated banks and businesses, that the consequences of the country falling out of that is very serious for all members concerned. if that happens, we will have contingency plans in place and manage them as best we can. i don't think anyone however

sceptical they are about the euro should think there is an easy way for a country to lose. >> now that critz will have a new government that will ratify -- now that the greeks will have a new government to ratify the agreement and a group of 20 is informal, would it not be appropriate whether this agreement will allow them to get together and put together a fire wall under the nicolas sarkozy presidency? >> it may be necessary for the g-20 finance ministers to meet again. that should only be the case if actually a new set of arrangements are being put in place. part of the problem we have in europe is often meetings are scheduled but without a proper amount of thought about what is going to be the outcome and what will be the achievement. that has been one thing that has caused a huge amount of market

turbulence over recent months. >> the e.u productivity is falling at a faster rate since 2009. the only big economy to record an expansion per worker -- per worker is the u.k.. why do think the united kingdom can sustain a 5% interest rates? >> in terms of actually getting a greater competitiveness across europe, this is the most important thing that europe could be doing right now, completing a single market, complete -- competing in the market in energy and services. the point you make about the bond market is vital. if you don't have credibility, you cannot borrow money at this rate edit you don't have credibility, interest rates go up and that would be the worst thing to hit your economy. >> the prime minister has

argued to support the european union which is not a prefer this country. in order to bring stability to europe and the world. how many more failures will it take and how many more summits before he argues for what is really right for europe, for those countries to return to their original currencies? >> i have sympathy with your points. they could go in that direction but if you talk to other european prime ministers or finance ministers or people in the countries, they don't want to leave the euro. they want to make the euro work. i think it is right that we are affected by what is happening in the europe zone. it is in our interest that they get back together and make that currency work. you could argue for the opposite but the fact is, that is what most european countries want and i think they will try to achieve. >> maybe the prime minister will

remember september 16, 1992 when the united kingdom started our economic recovery why is the political elite of europe did not increase in other europe countries the same method to improve their economy while withdrawing from the euro and re-establishing their national currency? >> i learned an important lesson which is never fixed your interest rates in a way like that that when you need a change in your economy without applying elsewhere. that is why i am so completely opposed to britain ever joining the european i could not be clearer about that. we've got to allow other countries to make their own choices. the choice of people in greece

seems to be that they want to stay in the euro. i would not necessarily make that choice but that is the choice they seem to make and have to support them in the choice they make. >> mr. speaker, a new report came out that shows that 32,000 jobs in the public sector were lost in the northeast last year while the number of private- sector jobs went down as well. why should they? in in the euro destroy the regions of this country? >> of course, there has to be a rebalancing in our economy in terms of public sector jobs and private sector jobs. there are difficult circumstances faced by different parts of the country. in the northeast, we have seen the expansion and we have the new train going into the northeast.

we need to become more competitive to start manufacturing and making things again which would benefit all regions of our country. >> wouldn't countries like france do more to help developing countries if france met its own u.n. target for international relations rather than absorbing the un targets to sign up for a financial transaction tactics? >> some other countries in europe are using the cover of a financial transaction tax to get away from the fact they have not met their target for overseas development assistance. all the figures about the financial transactions, 80% of it would be raised from businesses in the united kingdom. i'm sometimes tempted to ask the french if they want a cheese tax. [laughter] >> the european central bank is

been told to sit on its hands by the germans. it was the marshall plan [unintelligible] >> the european central bank is independent. no one is able to tell it what to do. obviously, i think there is a very strong case for euros and institutions that need to do more to stand behind the currency. we have to understand why it is the germans feel as strongly as they do. it is partly based upon the history and what they feel went wrong in the 1920's and 1930's. the argument that the ecb and institutions need to make is right. >> do you agree that if we were to listen to the party opposite ease up but our deficit reduction strategy, our interest

rates would soar toward levels of its elite? italy? what is that likely to cost and increase to payments? >> it is not just the extra interest payments that the government would have to pay although that would be pretty kraepelin, it you would see those higher interest rates affect business investments and affect the mortgages that people pay. you could see a bad effect on households and businesses as well as on the government finance, tiberi of >too. >> when will we produce a jobs for plan and growth? >> it is worth while and why the g20 process is worthwhile is different countries are committed to do different things at the same time to maximize global growth. it is clear that britain needs to get on top of its debt and deficit and export more.

it is also clear that china needs to grow its consumption and grow its middle-class and import more. it would do these things at the same time, we can maximize global growth and increase employment levels, too. >> i agree that the u.k. should not be contributing to any further euros own bailout fund. how can you pay taxpayers be certain that our contributions to the imf will not be used for such a purpose when the u.k. has only 4.29% of the votes in the governing body? >> the imf has the extremely tough and clear rules about when it can and cannot lend money. that is why it cannot nor would we support putting money into a bureau bailout fund. that is not the role of the imf. that must be the role of esfs/ .

the imf can lend money and all countries in distress but no country has ever lost money on the landing to the imf. >> the prime minister keeps talking about rebalancing the economy. we have seen a 25% reduction in the value of the pound which should have made it competitive yet the private sector is simply not taking up the slack and not doing so because there is no confidence out there. don't we need something else to build confidence? >> the worst thing we can do for competency is abandon the plan to deal with our debt and deficit. you can see what is happening in countries like italy that don't have a proper plan. that have higher interest rates at all the problems that brings. you are right to say we have had a depreciation in our currency that should lead us to be more competitive. if you'll look at our export figures, we are seeing a good

increase in exports. tomy constituents don't want pay taxes to bail out the euro. can the prime minister remind us who got this country into the permanent europe sss ander got us out of it? >> none of our constituents want to pay taxes to bail out the euro is on. that is not what our taxes should go toward. there was the european financial stability mechanism which we were part of and i got us out of that. we are still at risk of that because of a bad decision agreed to buy the last government. >> if continues to fail to deal with the crisis, what will the prime minister do to be set the uk? >> we have to put in contingency plans for any of these countries

leaving the bureau's own. for obvious reasons, if you start describing exactly what you can do, you would set off chain reactions. if you want to discuss with a treasury minister probably the elements of any plan, i'd say you are at liberty to do so. >> the understanding that greece or italy or anyone else leading the bureau's own would require a treaty change. >> i believe you are right. there is nothing in the treaty that allows a member to leave the bureau's own. my sense is or that to happen, some sort allowance would be made. it would involve, at some stage, a treaty change to make sure it was legal. >> the prime minister suggested he is in favor of a global financial transaction tax. that will only happen on a global basis of people take that

seriously what action steps the prime minister to look at cannes summit to promote this? >> i spoke on this at the sessions. i said we supported it at a global level. sitting around that table are other european countries and european institutions including the european commission who have spent this money several times over. women talk about the european budget, is a great way to raise -- when we talk about the european budget, it is great to talk about that. climate change talk seems to cover all the climate change changes and that is not really the case. >> it is likely that the chinese conditions for buying into euros then -- into yours and debt which would be directly against national interests in defense.

given that requires the unanimous decision by all eu member states, could the prime minister confirm that should that be required that the u.k. government would veto that request? >> we don't support the lifting of the arms embargo. in the discussions at the g-20, there was no sort of shopping list from the chinese. clearly, it is in the interest of china as it is in ours, that the bureau's own crisis it dealt with. china has a huge export market in europe and china on huge amounts of european debt. this is the reason why china, like britain, subscribes to the imf and will support an increase in its resources. >> the prime minister said the actions on jobs include many things that broadness it is already doing.

-- that britain is already doing. how many minutes were spent talking about these? >> a great deal of the first day was spent talking about the condition of the world economy and particularly the fact that economies in the developed world are seeing very low rates of growth. i also had a meeting with his leader of thetuc and other trade unionist to discuss specifically the issue of growth and jobs and how we can. -- prevent youth unemployment rising. i don't know of my predecessors found time for these meetings but i was delighted to have one. >> the prime minister, did you see any evidence that the g-20 that it is a fanciful notion to expect china to bail out europe? >> i would not underestimate the huge pressure that the bureau's

own leaders are under to come up with a solution to the crisis in the euro is shown very clearly, there are huge ideological differences. completely outs of the question the other countries like china or saudi arabia might want to contribute to the euro zone fund. the rest would be taken by the bureau's own money and not by the chinese or other money. in the end, there is no substitute for the year rose an acting first to sort out its difficulties. >> who were the country's persuaded by the prime minister that they had to borrow for further discretionary measures? >> there is a list and the action plan for growth and jobs and that says which countries could borrow more. there are countries such as canada and china and others.

>> will the prime minister reassure the house that he will not take the advice of the hon. gentleman opposite to increase the deficit to artificially boost growth because the consequent rise in interest rates and inflation would cause enormous damage to small businesses and families right across this country? >> you are absolutely right. we went to the g20 summit arguing for a $20 billion a pound increase this year, at the same time, we would say that we would get out of the imf, they would conclude that we are completely barky. >> wouldn't it be better for us to help the greeks to default now rather than later? >> we have argued very

consistently that part of any solution has to be a very decisive writing down agreed to death. they cannot afford the debt they currently have. that is the plan they offered some have said that is not even enough. unless you write down the debt significantly, you may not have a proper solution. >> you have rightly argued that fixing the euro zone is good for euros own countries. you have announced that we are making contingency plans because of that failure? >> it is difficult to say more about it in the house. i will discuss this with the treasury minister whether we can say more. these plans would have to be very wide ranging and cover all

sorts of different eventualities. >> does the prime minister have an asset -- an estimate the great britain would occur from the fund that was supported by the last labor government? >> we have managed to keep out of the european elements of the great bellsouth. that has said two iterations and we were not involved in the first we were not involved in the second. -- idea ofc of i'd using a efsm was announced by britain. >> one of the key issues is bureaus and knees to recapitalize a number of banks that are quite weak. can you talk about the relative strength of u.k. banks? >> on the current plan for the

recapitalization, british banks would not require any additional capital. they are already quite capitalized. there is a concern that as the europeans moved to recapitalize their bags, it is important that they don't do that purely by shrinking bank balance sheets but to make sure that landing does not decrease in the european union. >> we know the danger of ignoring the political reality of the current situation. setting the euro at any cost is in the long term interest of journey but not necessarily that of the taxpayers of the united kingdom. surely, the ecb must be the lender of last resort. >> i think the point about the future of the bureau, we should take a very hard view of this. all the evidence is that a discipline to break up of the

year would have very bad effects on all the economies within europe and would have bad effects on britain. you could make longer-term arguments about what it might mean but in the short run, there is no doubt that when we try to secure growth and jobs in this country, a disorderly breakup of the european zone would not be good for britain. >> i would like to thank the prime minister for the thoughtful and constructive leadership he offered at the g- 20. the debate has been quite narrow around greece over in recent weeks. what is the prime minister's interpretation of the situation in italy? >> we should be careful not to speculate on other countries. we see the requirements that those that are lending money to italy want to see a clear and consistent plan with getting on top of their deficits and when they see that, interest rates will come back down again. it is a lesson to any country that if you don't have

credibility in the market, york interest rates could go up. >> do you agree that the u.k. already has a financial package? >pact? >> one point that bill gates made to me is that if other european countries introduced their own shares, they might find that they can get to the 9.7% of gdp. having it -- without >> the executive chairman of news international will appear before a british house of commons committee later this week to take questions on the phone hacking investigation. he testified before the same committee last june. he's expected to be asked about his earlier testimony when he said he had limited knowledge about the use of phone hacking by newspapers owned by news international.

live coverage from the british house of commons begins thursday at 6 a.m. eastern time here on c-span2. >> cbs news chief or foreign correspondent lara logan was assaulted in egypt earlier this year while covering the political protests that were part of the arab spring. she spoke last night at george washington university. that's next on c-span2. the senate is back this morning and will work on legislation to repeal a withholding tax on contractors. live senate coverage at 10 eastern. >> extremism, in the defense of liberty, is no right. [cheers and applause] and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. [cheers and applause] >> he lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson, but

barry goldwater's ideas and candor galvanized the conservative movement. the five-term senator from arizona is featured this week on c-span's series, "the contenders ," from the goldwater institute in phoenix. now, cbs news chief upon fon correspondent lara logan, part of a continuing series of interviews hosted by george washington university, harvard and the national press club. ms. hogan has received numerous honors for her reporting including an emmy award. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. ♪ >> from the national press club washington, d.c., this is the kalb report with marvin kalb. [applause] >> hello. and welcome to the national press club and to another

edition of the kalb report. i'm marvin kalb, and our guest tonight is lara logan, who is cbs news chief foreign affairs correspondent and a "request 60 minutes" correspondent as well. to state mere hi that lara logan has enjoyed a meteoric career is to understate the obvious. after working for a few newspapers in south africa where she was worn, she joined reuters television, then britain's i-tv before freelancing for fox and cnn. then in 2002 after reporting for cbs radio news, she joined the network itself, cbs news, and her career since then has skyrocketed. first, reporting on the war in iraq for the cbs evening news and "60 minutes ii," and then in 2006, only four years later, chef named foreign correspondent

for cbs and a regular contributor to "60 minutes." during the egyptian revolution in early 2001, she was brutally assaulted and beaten while covering this tumultuous story, but she bounced right back and, along the way, winning many prizes and the admiration and respect of her colleagues. lara logan, welcome to "the kalb report." it's a pleasure to have you here. >> thank you very much. >> tell us about the beginning of the lara logan story. your parents, how did it all fit together? >> well, i think the first thing that i was filled with, i mean, even before i really understood what was going on around me was a great sense of the injustice of apartheid, and that was probably instilled in me at home because we were taught to treat people with respect at home no matter who they were. and, um -- >> we ought to point out, apartheid was the official policy of the south african government -- >> segregation.

>> -- separating whites from blacks. >> treating black people as second class citizens, if citizens at all, in their own country. and i remember as a very young child stand anything the grocery store with some candy, my dad would take us every weekend to get 20 cents of candy. and there was an old black man standing with a loaf of bread, and everyone kept going past me. and when we got to the front, my father wouldn't let us pay for the candy until the shopkeeper served this gentleman. and it was that kind of thing around me that thought me something very wrong, but i think it was values instilled in me as a young tield -- child m at 17 no one would send me into the townships. i did all the silly stories. i asked the photographers to take me with them at night or on the weekends, and when most of the kids at school were at the beach, i was at the newspaper.

and really it was -- i went into -- [inaudible] not long after that because i knew there was a whole world the south african government wouldn't allow us to see. the kind of in the way i ended up in afghanistan on the front lines. people noticed me then b because no one else was reporting from the front line, and i waslying with the afghan soldiers and no one else was doing that. i'd spent months in angola living with, you know, the resistance there with nothing, literally nothing. we would dig in the ground for food. >> you've been associated in the public mind with being a war correspondent. >> yes. >> and i'm wonder anything your mind, how would you define being a war correspondent? is there something different? what are the qualities that you need? >> i think there's something true to all people who do the kind of work that i do, all journalists who choose to do that kind of work. i think that the story is bigger than you. that's what you're really motivated by.

if you're motivated by being on television or seeing your byline, then you're not there on the sharp edge, on the razor's edge of the true side of the war. not just the hundreds of people that flocked into baghdad the day the city fell, i'm talking about the 100 journalists that stayed when the city was under attack. i think we're motivated by the same thing, a passion and a belief in being an observer, a witness to history, a witness to our times. and one of the most fundamental tenets of any democracy, how can your government go to war, do anything in your name if you're not there to at least first witness it and then to decide where you stand? >> so you feel that you're there as a sit-in for the people of the united states in this case? >> if you imagine that there are things that happen out there and if no one is there to witness it, they never happened. i would spend time with the

people in the war in angola. no one carried about that war. reuters would go in once every few months, that would be the time anyone ever reported on the war, and people were being tortured and massacred and slaughtered. i cared. i never did it because that was the thing that was going to make me famous. i did it because i believed in it. >> was there ever, in your mind, people you looked up to as a war correspondent? >> i never wanted to be somebody else. i always wanted to be my own person. and i didn't grow up within, you know, i didn't grow up in the arm os -- arms of the american media. i respected what christiane amanpour did in beijing, but i i think the people that i, that i really respected most were the ones in the trenches with me who taught me everything that i know.

>> the reporters that were there with you or the soldiers? >> the people just side by side, the reporters. you know, in south africa, you know, in the fight against apartheid, it wasn't like the media is in a lot of other places. people cared about the story. people were there because they believed apartheid was wrong and that if we could bring, you know, if you could expose what was happening, that that it woud change. there was something truly noble in what all of us did, and great corps responsibilities, great journalists would come there to work. that's who taught me my craft. even down to, you know, the young black guy who didn't have an education or a license but could find a way to get your tape in and out of that township and would risk everything. we would hide tapes in our mattresses. you know, there was a bond of something great and noble that we were doing, and we all believed in it. >> as the chief foreign affairs correspondent for cbs, you will, of course, and you have been called upon to cover stories

that not only mean war, but summitry or diplomacy or state didn't gobbledygook. >> that's a good word for it. [laughter] i like learner's politics. >> do you find yourself more comfortable doing the war than the summit? >> yes, without yet. and more invested in it. you know, it requires more of you, it asks more of you. it asks you to find out who you are, and it asks you what's truly important. i would, you know, i would give up a toilet and a hot meal and a bed any day for a story that's real. i can't, i can't stand to dabble in things that are not real. they don't mean anything. politics is critically important be, but it doesn't, um, it doesn't burn that fire in you the way, um, the way it does to be out there in the most impossible situation doing something that is truly the difference between life and death. >> be couldn't it be argued that the president of this country

and the president of that sitting there making a decision about war and peace are doing something that's quite a burning issue as well? >> oh, absolutely. there's no question about that. it just burn in me the same way. will[laughter] it's painfully boring. so much diplomatic speak that you just spend hours trying to work out what the hell they just told you. i prefer people that are straight talking. >> you think the military people when they talk to you are straight talkers? >> not always. not always, but i've become very adept at sorting out the talking points from what's real. and over the years i've aqierd a reputation for having some depth of knowledge, so they're a little more nervous about, you know, serving me up a plate of -- >> yes. >> this is recorded, right? [laughter] and also i have to be quite honest with you, when you're dealing with those kind of people, they sort of don't really mind when you call them out on it, you know?

they kind of expect it. but when you call a politician on it, they don't appreciate it. >> no, they don't. >> no, they don't. >> let's talk a little bit about embedded journalism, and you yourself has been embedded with american forces any number of times, and you've spoken about, quote, the unwritten rules of embedded journalism. >> of all journalism really, to be honest with you. i don't think that implies just to embedded journalism. >> we were i'm just quoting you. [laughter] >> yeah. because it was that context. but i'm expanding my quote. >> okay. >> okay. >> you've embedded many times. i'd like to ask you what you think are those unwritten rules of embedded journal i feel. >> i think they're the same rules that apply to anything, they're rules of integrity. that's really what i'm talking about. >> okay. >> if you are a crime reporter, if you're a justice reporter, i mean, there are certain, there are certain -- there's a certain amount of trust that develops in any of those situations. if, you know, if a lawyer or policeman says to you, can you

not report on this right now because you're really going to jeopardize the case, i mean, very often reporters make those judgment calls. and i think that what i meant when e was talking about that is i think that, you know, when i spend weeks on end with soldiers, when they're talking about, you know, very personal things, i don't think they think that i'm going to go and put that in the media. i think there's a bond of trust that develops with you over time where there are certain things that are understood. and i don't mean that in a sense that you ever compromise your journalistic integrity. i really and truly don't. but if i give my word that i'm not going to report something or if i give my word that this is the reason that i'm here, i need a very compelling reason to shift that. i think your word is your bond, and the story's never been more important to me than who i am. i have to be able to live with myself before anything else. i have never encountered a story that was more porn -- more important than my integrity.

>> good, good. a blogger, you probably know this already, and i'm not -- >> i don't know. i don't read many blogs. >> there is a blogger who referred to you as the pentagon's favorite journalist, and i don't think he meant it as a compliment. >> i don't think he did, no. >> but why do you think he said it? >> you know, i think he probably said it because when general stanley mcchrystal was relieved after the rolling stone article, i came out and said something stinks here, i don't get it. i didn't want fall into line with everybody else and say, oh, this is horrendous, and that's partly because i know the man that stanley mcchrystal is. i've never met him. i didn't have anything invested in se what i said, but i know when something feels wrong, and it felt wrong. i don't believe that that was a true report, i don't believe that it was truly accurate of the situation. i don't think what was described was presented in the right context. and it didn't add up. michael hastings said, i e-mailed them, and they just invited me to paris to come into

with these pubs and see them in the most, you know, open situation. and, um, i think if general stanley mcchrystal has you at an event in which it's his wedding anniversary where he hasn't seen his wife for something on a year, that's an incredibly personal environment, and i'm quite sure, you know, there was never any mention that stanley mcchrystal was drinking, but the impression you were left with if you read the article was that it was, you know, it was a free-for-all, a big drinking party. so i think there was a distinct -- i think there was something dishonest about that article, and i'll say it again and again, and i don't care what the blogs say, i don't want care what rolling stone magazine says, and if we with respect on television, i'd tell them what they could go do with themselves. >> i think we get the spirit of that. [laughter] >> be i just like to be very clear. >> i gather that you think journalists ought to share their perm opinions with the public -- personal opinions with the public. >> you know -- >> hang on. >> okay. >> 2009 you're quoted as saying

every true journalist at heart wants to change the world. i think it's game playing to say, oh, reporters shouldn't give their informed opinions. that's been a function of journalism forever. now, i could argue that point with you, but i don't think i'll do that now. but do you give your opinions in news reporting? >> i think what you're talking about was in reaction to, i was on an internet show, and i was asked for my opinion. and analysis. i wasn't asked, i wasn't reporting. i was there as a guest to offer my opinion. and so what i was trying to say when i say that journal is have always given their opinion, i was talking about the editorial pages of the newspaper that from the time newspapers existed, there was an op-ed page where analysis were given. i don't think those things should be confused. i think they are very distinct, and it's very important those lines remain forever drawn. i think my job on cbs news is to be a true journalist and reporter and stay true to the

facts. but i think when you're asking for your opinion, you should be entitled to give it and not be vilified for giving it. >> you have a reputation -- >> i mean, you're asking me for my opinion on this show, right? >> no. but i'm going to ask you for your opinion right now. you have a reputation for being outspoken, you've demonstrated that. [laughter] what's your opinion about the quality of american television coverage of the wars in iraq and afghanistan? >> i think it varies wildly. i think it's very hard to, you know, to just paint it all with one brush. i don't like hearing academics and analysts who have, um, who are talking from washington, d.c., for example, and have spent be very little time on the ground in those countries and who clearly have had a very controlled experience when they have gone out there. they go for a week, and they're flown in, and thai shepherded from meeting to meeting. if you vice president had time to taste the -- haven't had time to taste the dirt of