the right legal framework. >> george williams. >> today, the council is meeting to determine the future of using checks and it is anticipated that they be phased out by 2018. many older people and small businesses, especially those without access to the internet continue to use checks and value their convenience. what steps will the government take to save the check so that small businesses can continue to use them. >> i think this is a peculiar point. the provision in the quality bill, which ensures that public authorities must take into account the interests of older people, they must not take steps that discriminate against older people, that is something that will have to take into account when they make these changes. future

but make sure that older people don't suffer as a result. >> will my right honorable friend join me in the local transport guide given the powers forces locally elected transport authorities to bring in quality contracts with the power to determine local bus routes, frequencies and fares? will she agree with me that any proposal to revoke these powers will make the right and be completely contrary to the local democratic accountability? >> i think these quality contracts have been an important step forward in transport and it would be folly for the local transport act powers to be revoked which is one of the things that the party opposite is threatening. it shouldn't happen. >> nigel evans. >> we have an administration run by tweedle d and tweedle dumb. if the prime minister really does want to give the people of this country a great new year

cheer, that he will announce a general election sooner rather than later? >> i don't think that turkey is going to fly. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i frequently receive representations from small businesses in my constituency about the costs of government regulation. would my right honorable friend agree with me that in these difficult times it is essential for the government to reduce the burden of regulation. and cano she tell me what the government is doing about it? >> well, we're making sure that we help government business both -- sorry. we're making sure that the government helps business both big and small. and one of the things that we've done is help businesses defer their tax under the time to pay scheme. and i think the most important thing that's been announced for small business over the last

weeks was the chancellor's announcement in the prebudget report that the time to pay scheme is going to be continued. we want to do everything we can to help small businesses. and one of the things that we won't be doing is abolishin -- >> order. >> the house of commons has now recessed for the holidays. live questions will resume on january 26. find links to the prime minister's website. >> tomorrow on washington journal, a formal presidential candidate steve forbes talks about his new book.

and then bruce fried. after that, a look at the attitudes of young americans with the harvard institute of politics. washington journal, live on c- span. >> this week, head of the motion pictures association of america dan glickman on efforts to reduce. >> up next, european parliament president joins the economy and economic future of the european union. this is just over an hour.

>> i hereby resign the meeting and i would like to welcome the president, but before we start the minutes of yesterday's meetings are already available. are there any objections or comments to the mets? >> since there are no objections, the minutes shall be adopted and we shall move on to the next item on the agenda . we will start with part 1. the question is one minute.

but will be a response that will last as 30 seconds as well. >> >> the expectations 2020 have been set very high. the citizens themselves expect progress and expect jobs to be created. a specific proposals for strength and small enterprises, the strategy would be much more stringent and a clear governance structure. the parliament does not want to just be informed about the solutions that the commission has, we want to be involved and

participate in framing the strategy. how are you going to make sure that this is the case? what is the time frame that you want to set? can you take the initiative, here? this being on the basis that this parliament is brought on board. can you tell us about the timetable that you're going to be looking towards and who is responsible for that? >> are you? -- and are you? >> this will be the central task for the next commission as i have presented to you. regarding the timing, we hope that formal communication would be ready for the supreme council but i think it would be better to have the formal conclusions on the june council. that would be my proposal.

i very much wish full participation and ownership by this parliament. at the european council level, there was discussion about the economy. in fact, i encouraged european council to take full initiative as well. and to enforce the mechanisms of government. there was a resistance of member states to follow recommendations. i think that this time there were conditions in the strategy. >> thank you very much. on behalf of the alliance, our next speaker. >> thank you president. the year 20009 is coming to an

end under derek -- under very difficult circumstances. high levels of unemployment, economic difficulties, budget problems and at the same time i years are coming to an end. will you carry over into your second five years when it comes to economic and social issues through this? i think we should work together, particularly when it comes to targets to set new priorities and goals. so, what consequences do you draw from your first five years and what do you want to do in the coming five years? >> first of all, i think that

they voted for a mandate from myself and there is support for action has been taken. these are issues that we have to change and improve. there is much more of a sense of social urgency than before. as i have said very often, most likely, we will face this for some time. we have not only to find new sources of growth, but we have to see what was wrong with the previous model of growth. it created artificial bubbles. it was not sustainable. that is the center of my strategy, the strategy i put forward to this parliament and i hope to develop with the next commission.

>> thank you very much. if i may, we reached the decision that portfolios did not correspond to that objective and we make proposals to change this. are you, in principle, prepared to enter into a discussion and to make changes or is that something you would reject are you prepared to consider? >> it is clearly stated that the internal organization is the responsibility of the commission. i am always ready to listen to your suggestions and to your comments.

we are following some debate. but i count on your support for the competence of the commission as i will always respect the competence of the parliament. i am always open to listen to your suggestions, but i think that we should concentrate more on matters of policy, and of substance and organization of the commission. i believe that after five years of everyday work, this is what can be the best way. >> thank you, very much. an additional question and response should last for 30 seconds. >> president, i am going to

concentrate on the situation in greece. the situation is very worrying. if you look at the figures, we have a government at 7% and a debt of more than 130%. this is the situation that i saw when i was a young minister for finances in 1985 in belgium. i could never forget those figures. 12.7% deficit at the state level. it is obvious that the greeks will have to do a great deal. they will have to carry out reforms. we can do things as well. we can make sure that the cost of the debt can be reduced at the state level. whereby we can cover more of the debt. hundreds of millions of euros is

not covered by government debt. it is not covered because we do not have this obligation. i want to know if your to take the initiative and make sure that the bond market be put in place. the greeks have to do something. i am not disputing that. >> be reassured by yesterday's comment to cut the public deficit through permit expenditure, we believe the current budget for 2010 is being discussed in the greek parliament. they are steps in the right direction. this is the question of public finances. we were impressed by the trended representation -- decanted

representation greece will submit to the commission in january. i trust that this program will include concrete measures to ensure lasting cooperation. having said this, i do not consider it proper to put forward this scenario. we should support greece in the enforcement of those measures. >> president, maybe i could come back to what i saying. the problem with the market is that it could help greece, but it does not mean that they don't

need to carry out their reforms. it may provide assistance to all the other member states of the european union. it would mean that the debt that is put there will be covered by a much lower interest. you could compare the interest that needs to be done in germany and the u.s.. the u.s. is paying a far lower level, even though the finances are in much better shape. this is an urgent reason why we should be doing this. >> we are not contemplating, at this stage of the measures we have been suggesting and i personally believe it is not proper to link these proposals to a specific situation. it could send the wrong signal. let's be honest about it. greece has a specific

obligation when it comes to implementing the conditions. it is very important for them. it is also important for the others. at this moment, raising this issue, suggesting that there could be a solution outside the efforts of greece is not the best way to help our great friends to do this. >> think you very much. -- thank you very much. on the structure of the upcoming commission, a question. we think that the approach you have taken is very presidential and basically, you are powerful with this new setup.

we think that the working groups have delivered a lot in the last time frame. we do not understand the splintering between them. how you were going to do with it is a puzzle for you. there seems to be some kind of home when security office that will be benched and climate change apart, that is fine, but if we are going to have a climate commissioner, then we need to make sure that behind this climate commissioner, there is real power and that they get access to energy transport, environment and agriculture. >> that is two different questions, one involving [unintelligible] and security, and the other on climate. regarding the justice and

security, many have a specific portfolio. if she needs your approval, she will be equal for citizenship. this is basically what happens in most if not all member states in europe where there is a minister for the interior and the minister for justice. i believe it is much more efficient so that they can work with their colleagues in respective councils and it will also be much better in terms of the amount of work because we have approved the stockholm program. it is a very impressive program. it justifies fully to have two different commissions. it is not because of the role of the president.

it has to do with the needs to have some kind of division of labor and, of course, i want the commission to have concerns in their hand and i want the commission of security to do it. >> than to come up very much. >> just a supplementary question, how are you going to ensure that the climate change commissioner is going to do this if it is not covered in the structure? another issue, in detail, we think it does not make any sense white and green tea technology, when you advocate that this is in health and not in agriculture, surely will have to explain that, too.

>> i am happy to see that you are happy with the creation of the climate change. she will have a lot to do because you see this will not be the end of the road. there will be a lot to do after copenhagen. there is almost no policy that does not have impact on climate. that is the task. so, i want the commission to have instruments to pursue a policy, but she has to do it in cooperation with the other commissioners. but also, the other commissioners. this is an important policy.

>> think you very much. on behalf of the conservatives -- >> chairman, i would like to ask you about the summit that took place about two weeks ago. the european union ukraine summit. when i was in [unintelligible] i had heard that the european side refused to enter the statement concerning the identity into the declaration and i am greatly concerned about that because i believe this is not a matter that could be questioned. furthermore, i learned that the eu delegation refused to lay a wreath on the monument to the victims which is currently customary and this worries me greatly. >> i think it was a successful

meeting in the ukraine. to be frank with you, they have to do more if they want us to help the more. i want to tell you very frankly that i have been spending more time working on ukrainian issues than most of the member states. to show the attention that we give the notion that we want to be closer. this is the most advanced status we give to a company -- to a country. there was, in fact, some discussions, but if you look at the final conclusions, it is clearly reaffirmed that ukraine is a european country. ukraine is bound by the same european values and that we want to be closer to ukraine and we want to help you be closer with us.

i believe there was a productive meeting, but you cannot explain, every time there is a summit, to create a new status for the ukraine. we cannot now move to a new status. >> think you very much. on behalf of the group -- like >> i have a question. the turban tax is a meritorious proposal, but nobody has picked up one and produced it. everybody always says that if people do not bring it all across the border at the same time, it will not happen. maybe if the council has said -- decided on it, perhaps it should not be put out to graze

and that maybe we should see it introduced, now. >> bucs if there is an overall global tax, we should support it. in fact, i have personally supported this in discussions to the european council. the european council has asked me to come up with ideas on that. also, linked to the issue of financing, i personally believe that if you want to meet our obligations, it cannot be only with the money from our budgets. it is obvious that our budgets are under such pressure that we cannot have the resources from our national budgets in next year's. we have to think about financing. this seems to be a very good

idea and we're working on that area. i hope the new commissioner will come up with some proposals. >> we have recently had the this would be a closure of the [unintelligible] in northern england. this is due to a target reduction of 20%. thanks to the carbon credits, we can no longer afford to employ over 5000 steel workers including suppliers. we also have the british government in admitting that its hands are tied on this issue because of punitive law. this is to say that it would make this in its carbon allowances.

it will be worth up to 600 million pounds over the next three years. surprise, surprise, the head of the ap cc -- apcc, one must ask, the question i would like to ask, is that official policy -- let me finish. let me finish. >> the insinuation that you may, i cannot comment. if i was the person involved, i would put them in court. concerning the issue at stake,

and you said that the british government said this was the position of the european union. if there is a government that has been pushing the european union, it is precisely the government of your country whether you like it or not. in fact, it is a common agenda today, to reduce the global emissions and to -- this has consequences. we want industry to be kept in europe. what we want is another kind of industry that is less energy conservation and it is more friendly to the environment. >> thank you, very much. >> he did not answer my question. it the question was, is this policy? would you please answer the question?

>> can i come back one more time? >> i want a response to this. >> thank you, very much. the blue card is not working now because it is a discussion between two people. it is difficult to involve blue card. two of them are discussing. i am sorry about that, but during other discussions, it will be working. >> the european commission

issued a declaration as being ambiguous. they may be tempted to make similar decisions in that there is a need to respect of the battle rights such as freedom of religion. this would require clarification from you, especially given the opinion polls reveal that all european peoples would have voted in large majorities have they been given a chance to do so. at european union countries the right to put a referendum that is the same as that on the 29th of november? yes or no, with the commission oppose a sovereign decision taken by the swiss? we see them as being more totalitarian and democratic candy is high time that we own up to that. -- democratic and it is high time that we own up to that.

>> the states should make decisions based on their constitutions to decide if they want to hold a referendum or not. i don't want to make declarations on hypothetical referendum. what i can say is that it is up to a member state -- i do not wish to anticipate any potential referendum being held in a country or what the outcome of that referendum might be. the commission has competence when it comes to very fine measures or decisions taken by member states when it comes to the implementation of european legislation. . .

>> it is a hypothetical question. perhaps my french is not as good as yours, if you use the word if, that is all hypothetical. you said if. that is all hypothetical statement. and i do not want to answer a hypothetical question. reality is enough. the commission is against any form of discrimination. that includes discrimination against religion. that is a very clear position.

it is not simply the commission's position but all the democratic member states of the european union. i will not comment on a hypothetical record -- referendum. >> we have concluded the round of general questions. thank you very much for the questions and responses given by mr. barroso. we shall go on to questions about europe 2020. here we shall follow procedures similar to the one applied previously. you have one minute to ask a question. >> thank you, president. i wanted to ask a question.

we have a question on the hearings, the commissioners hearings. from the socialist group, i hope that there are no political or games to change nominations. we have no games to change the portfolios. we had valid persons that were chosen from our political group, from the liberals, and from the socialist group, and we should not have the ability to change portfolios now from the proposed commissioners. this is not the topic, i know, but i had to ask this question. >> it was not a question so i do not have to answer. but i will say the following. the principle of loyalty between the different institutions is

important. now that we have a new treaty, we need to respect the confidence of each institution. i said to you how important it is to have a special relationship between the commission and the parliament. and i will work for that. this means that the respect of the competence is of each institution in a jones' field according to the treaties. -- in each ow own field according to the treaties. >> commissioner, president, he referred to to the earlier models and what is wrong with them. what is wrong is the fact that the commission has a good program but the member states do

what they please. we do not have states and high enough so that we could direct the member states behavior. i notice that on the paper on 2020 does not include thinking on how the member states should be directed. i like to ask if the commission intends to use the article 21 of the lisbon treaty and the sanctions if a member state does not abide or does not want to do some -- does not abide by the 2020 plan. >> thank you for the question and for the intention behind year-end question. i proposed -- we have a new occasion. it was not appeared several times before. a recent interview of one of my predecessors when he said since

1993, the proposal on social matters, it was refused by the member states. i wanted to see what i had said then. i was one of those talking about cooperation between member states. when there with the revision of the lisbon strategy, it was based on the difficult report and it was refused by member states. after this crisis, there's much more awareness of the need to have a real coordination and the response to the crisis. and i am going to fight for that. but we need the support of the member states to achieve this. we need them, because some of those policies are at national level, some are at the community level, and i am encouraged by the change of use in the european council. in fact, the new president of the council already announced

about formal exchanges. i hope it will be a way of having more commitment of the european council for the strengthening of governance of the european union 2020 strategy. >> thank you very much. if i could just as the services -- asked the services are not a bad -- to give us and not at the head when the recognizes. this is providing some athletic activity. mr. barroso 2020, we've seen the lisbon procedure has not really made us the leading economy. it is a bit of a mirage, isn't it? it seems like an oasis of

stability for the citizens of europe. reading in your memo, that you're going to present, that you talk about internationalizing sme's, driving job growth in the you, don't you think the urgent issue is to stabilize in reassure? can you commit to date to the commission opposing any regulation frenzy when it comes to these areas of policy, so that the principle of small things first be applied? >> thank you. this is one of the priorities of my commission. i am sure will be a priority for the forthcoming commission as well. we created the small business act with exactly that idea in mind. think small purse. first -- think small first.

we put the very top of our priorities achieving the single market, because there is a potential there that can be drawn on. the international dimension is crucial, too, because our small and medium-sized enterprises still encounter many difficulties when they try to work in other markets. so i think this is one of the priorities of the new strategy, of the 2020 strategy. it is the strategy to focus more on the international dimension. today globalization is making its effects felt, and only that complete approach will allow us to win the battle. >> all like to explain that it is important -- an important question by mrs. reese. we started to prepare the list of speakers at 3:00. when we started our discussion. i have a list in the order, as you killed your blue card -- as

you lift your blue card, about 30 people. we can get other speakers, but it is impossible to talk during this meeting. if you wish, you can keep your cards, now, and we will take the next speaker, who will have one minute. we will try to put on a list the rest of the people who would like to speak. i can tell you very honestly, it is impossible to have so many speakers. i can have about 30. the beginning was 3:00. we started to deal with the list. i am sorry. you are the next one. if anyone would like to add his name, please let now during the one minute. >> thank you, president. president of the commission, i

have a question. in the 2020 strategy and particular looking at the reinforced governance system, whether you going to do about lobbyists? when we look at 2020, there will be lobbying across the board. we see lobbying of the commission, the parliament, the council. and you would be aware as well that there is an institutional debate on what to do about what is. we took the lead in less commission. i wonder who in the commission will be responsible for four lobbies, which commissioner, and what will his mandate they? what i would like to see -- a mandatory registration system. i hit -- i think that helps transparency and it is that citizens will understand better how decisions are taken at the european level, whether in the council, commission, or the parliament. >> yes, absolutely, that is a

very important problem -- lobbying. during the commission and period and are -- in office, i think we have made progress. together with the former commissioner, we have work to make progress. to my mind, we have to recognize that the best way to deal with this problem is with transparency, by not hiding information. that is a normal way of proceeding and in an open society, we hear different opinions expressed. sometimes they are contradictory. it is along those lines that the commission intends to carry out its transaction. more transparency with different representatives. we're representing different interests, be they lobbyists, be they trade unions, be they on specific points. the person responsible, if you give him your support, is the vice president. he will be responsible for the

administration. that will be his task as well. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. president, i welcome your physician for 2020. he showed that even in the dark days of recession, you can dream of utopia. i'd to welcome your comments on european research areas. i represent cambridge, a leading research cluster. this is already seen great successes in high-tech green tech, biotech. and if we are to turn your dreams into anything like reality, we can do it listening and learning from the cambridge experience. research needs funding. businesses need funding, and world class innovation need world-class funding for it last may -- last week i met the wellcome trust, the u.k.'s largest charity. last year they keep three-

quarters of the bill in euros to medical research. -- they gave three-quarters of 1 billion bureaus to medical research. please do not say one thing and do another. >> thank you very much. please keep your time, because we would like to give the floor to more people. >> congratulations to cambridge. i think cambridge is one of the british universities in europe and the world. and it is precisely because we do not have so many cambridges in europe, that they are looking to have a real research cambridge is a very important university in europe. there were international and able to attract important funding. but some of the poorest countries, they do not have that kind of resource. that is why we need, not only

private funding like the one at cambridge, and we certainly welcome all the work of the foundations like the ones you have mentioned, but we also need public funding from the states and from the european union budget. that will be one of the points that i intend to put in the next european union budget. investment managers -- i really did not see the need. i think we should not put these things together. it is important to have a sensible regulation for the products on the financial markets, considering what happened, including in what -- in your country, what happened. in your country, we had the highest ever case of state aid in the eastern european union, precisely because of problems and the financial markets. >> thank you. >> thank you, president.

a lot like to tell you that when talking about the ambitions of the 2020 strategy, there are countries such as greece that are entering into the strategy with significant economic difficulties with a very high level of unemployment it is today the prime minister announced measures to reduce our deficits, an increase we are awaiting the actions from the markets with some trepidation. i had a response to question the and i also read the comments, and all like to ask the following question. apart from the follow up by the commission on what is happening with greece, what can the commission do to help greece with 2020? how can we take account of national peculiarities to ensure that such problems do not reoccur?

>> the strategy of 2020, our idea is to have national programs but horizontal, the european community-wide programs. that ask every member state to put specific objectives, simply defined objectives, taking in account the difference situation. greece has a specific situation to date. and we're very attentive to that. greece will go on benefiting from commercial funds, because greece is one of the countries benefited from those funds. and this is apart from the european union strategy. but it is important to understand why people and countries like greece have to correct it deficit and their excessive debt. the interest the country's paper that is money that they cannot put in their hospitals are in their schools for the future. it is not because we are are rigid macro economic discipline,

it is also because we are thinking about the social expenditure and addressing the concerns of people that we recommend member states not to keep very high debts and not to keep very high deficits. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, president. mr. barroso, question about the car industry, one of the key sectors after 2020 even. as you know, some of our factories are being outsourced to china. that is not very positive. i hope that we will be able to reverse that trend sen. u.s. commission president need to make sure -- you as commission president be to make sure that we step up and focus more or indeed on the car sector -- more research and

development on the car sector. that is the only way to ensure that in the future we can reduce our crude oil dependency. we need to switch to a new dependency, if you like, a new dependency on electric. my question is whether you and your commission are planning to take a short-term coordination route so that we have a clear stance and have a green technology and cars? >> in the case of opal, it is not the commissions are -- the commissioners are holding anything back. regarding the issue of the automobile industry, there is the problem of overcapacity. in europe and in the world. the future is precisely as your question suggests to find new ways and new technologies to develop cleaner cars. we have good support in this

area, not only the ideas but because of funding. the u.k. investment with our full support has created this. this is one of the priorities for the next mandate. without greater automobile industries in europe, this is the way we can keep a leading position in the automobile industry in the world. >> mr. hughes. >> thank you, president. president barroso, the poverty network has describe your consultation document for 2020 as a step backward to strengthen the social network. you should know that on this side of the house, we cannot accept the strategies to avoid a social content. should you not make the fight

against poverty and exclusion this centerpiece of the 2020 strategy? and recognizing that a third of all jobs created since the year 2000 in the european union are in the health, social, and foreign services, making i double contribution to reducing poverty and creating employment -- should in the 2020 strategy set targets for the provision of high quality social services? >> bank. please do not give two questions during one minute. it is very difficult for mr. president to answer during one- minute two questions. which question do you prefer, the first one of the second one? it is very important. >> i gave three points. 3 yeses would do. >> thank you very much for your understand.

i will try to choose the best question. the honor -- be honest answer is the falling. this is not yet the strategy. let me tell you my personal feeling. yes, we have to do more about poverty and social and exclusion. i can tell that several times i propose concrete measures and are received a very loud no. social matters is for us, not for you in europe, so that is interesting way. legacy of we agree on that. as you know, social exclusion and poverty, we need some instruments at the european level that complement the instruments at the national level. i am telling you what -- how you defended, i hope that all the members of the you will be ready to support this. -- of the eu will be ready to

support this. >> mr. commissioner, the implementation of your list and strategy is not very strong. how'd you intend to amend the strategy for the year 2020 in order to achieve this? are you going to draft a document which will be high guideline on the strategy of step-by-step activities which need to be implemented in order to implement the whole strategy? i think this would be worthwhile. then we could monitor the implementation of the strategy. and i want to comment. we have a deadline of the 15th of january for social consultations. this deadline is too short. we should treat our social partners seriously. they need more time. >> this deadline is for the consultation based on this document. but there will be other occasions to and console. there been consultations on the future since 2008 at the least.

they have prepared -- several committees to prepare reports. we're ready to have a special debate, not just a discretionary one-hour question time, but a discretionary debate on this, because it is very important. it is extremely important to have the ownership of this parliament, and to assist the national parliament to this future. this will be the centerpiece of the strategy. the regarding the issue of the mechanisms of governance, what they are now preparing, and there are some ideas. one idea that we have for now is the ways of measuring progress, the month of the progress, according to some, at -- some communications in some areas. this is what we're preparing.

hopefully also the agreement of our member states. >> thank you very much, president. i would like to say something on the climate strategy for 2020 in the context of the question that has been as. president, it is correct -- if it is correct that the conditions trading system allows the biggest polluters 90 million tons of co2 emissions, cannot be that the largest -- can it be that a large estate producers has 1 billion pounds by 2012 and will earn that through emissions because they have obtained too much from lobbying the you? >> i don't know exactly what you are referring to. if you speak about the emissions

of europe, let's be honest about it. our missions the mature -- our e missions, generally speaking, are going down. there are big economies coming up that per capita -- per- capita, we are bunch about some of those economies. let's be fair about it. we also have some historic responsibility. the americans have a much more greenhouse gas amasses per capita than we have, but we have much more than china. and much, much more for china, for instance. so this is indeed a problem that we have to address in the spirit of fairness. if we want to solve the problem, if we believe there is a threat to our planet that is climate change. in these cooperative efforts on all sides. and yes we are having more a

stringent conditions then some other parts of the world. that is why we are continuing this source of opportunity to develop new technologies so that we can meet our targets without putting at risk are companies, because we do not want to lose the support of our companies and our jobs. >> thank you. >> colleagues, during session, the questions to mr. barroso, please do not give additional questions. a lot of people are waiting for the first question. i am sorry. i prefer to keep the fresh question. >> i would do this in english. interest rates, as you mentioned, are affected by the

state of the economy prepare reflected confidence in a particular economy. the international economic community is affected by them -- i am sorry. mr. president, i cannot make a question when the president is being interrupted. can i have my time so that i can ask a question? interest rates it affected by the confidence the community has for particular economy, and the confidence in turns is affected many times by the statements of the confidence that the european commission shows the measures taken to member states. in that sense, speculators as well try to speculate on a bad economic situation and sometimes make it worse. are you prepared to day in this room to state your support for the members announced yesterday by the greek government to reverse the economic situation in greece? does the commission believed

they are in their right direction, and could they changed the financial situation that you have indicated been problematic in the past? >> i have already said that was happy here yester day the greek prime minister commit to cutting public debt through expenditure cuts. the 2010 budget currently in discussion in the greek parliament are steps in the right direction. naturally the commission will continue to monitor closely the macro economic and fiscal situation and the implementation of the measures. but it is very clear, my statement of support to the measures announced. i believe this is the best way that we can now -- we have now will help increase. it is a very difficult situation that greece is facing in terms of budget.

i trust those measures will have some important results. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, i normally welcome the chance to place a question to question -- to president barroso, because the confidence has been moved forward by an era. they're able to be here for the first time. i want to ask him about a policy to help frame work conditions for research and innovation. i was unhappy to not see this make it in the first draft for 2020 and that is to harness the huge potential of public procurement throughout the european union to stimulate social services. i want to ask him today it would take up the recommendations endorsed almost unanimously by

this parliament in my report last november, which showed how this could be done, and just to give him an idea and to share with colleagues, if one% of european public procurement was secured for it innovated productive services, it would raise the investment or innovation across europe by no less than 15 billion euros. >> thank you. thank you very much for your report. there is a working document for consultation. we are not yet at the point of presenting the draft. all of your comments are much welcome. do not expect me to reply make a answer to such a question that you put forth. i'm aware of your report an interesting proposal that you have made.

and yes, it is also my intention and the broad client -- guidelines that i have submitted, i reference the need to deepen the commitments in terms of more market-friendly, more innovative, and more procurement tools in europe. that would be part of our strategy. but i cannot commit at the stage. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, president. one of the biggest failures with the lisbon strategy, which i think it's a good thing apart from this, as of -- is a partial failure to give member states to contribute and achieve the goals that are set out in the strategy. i colleague from finland earlier as the president how we can get the member states on board to

contribute in this way. it is interesting to know what sort of a mouse that the member states should be investing in research and development. are there any ambitions and the commission to set similar sorts of targets for the member states to invest in research and technology in terms of gdp? >> we are now making an assessment by the goals and targets were not attained. as for your proposal, we will make assessments and we will make honest objectives about what went right and what went wrong with the list and strategy. i cannot commit at this stage to what we're going to propose. we are precisely at this moment thinking about the very sort of future and that is why i want to work with you in these real

discussions that i want to have with you treat your interest is very important. i personally think that overall targets for all the member states probably is the real stars -- probably not realistic. in the next phase, the 2020 strategy will have to be more refined and sophisticated, adding specific targets for member states but for different situations. this is my personal thinking about it. we have not yet come to a position of presenting to you. i want a new commission. the full proposal that is good to come to you. we will present after the list and strategy. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you very much, mr. president by next year, britain's net contribution will have doubled from what it was in 2008. in 2020, bell will be four to

seven new member states at least three on the current economic performance, each one of the new member states will be receiving cohesion funds, subsidies by another name. from the date that they become members right the way through until 2020. can there for the british taxpayer anticipate a further doubling and britain's net contribution to the european union by 220? and if not, why not? >> thank you very much. a discussion of financial perspectives, i cannot anticipate what will be the contribution of britain. i understand the concern that you are expressing, because just now the british taxpayers are paying most important contributions because of what happened in the financial sector in britain.

there was no other case of so important state aid but the ones of the we have seen in the european countries. we believe it is important to set the priorities for the future, to see what we have to spend it national levels, and what we have to spend at european levels. and then to have a discussion about a fair way of sharing this investment. particularly if in some cases and makes more cases to spend a euro at the european level rather than at the national level. we will come to the discussion and i hope that by the end we will come to an agreement. >> thank you very much. president barroso, it was the third meeting for question time. thank you very much, colleagues,

for giving your questions. there were slightly more people in comparison with the beginning. i'm very sorry about that. we prefer to have a lot of you being here. thank you once again, mr. president heard now we're going to another point. a point of order, i guess, okay. it will be point of order. >> thank you, mr. president. there are many people here to date that have not had a chance to ask mr. barroso a question. given the salary that he is on, cannot give us another 30 minutes. the first 30 minutes was with the other group leaders. seven of the 50 members in this place is ridiculous can we not have a hour and a half? can we have 90 minutes and not 60? the boilers mr. barroso is

smiling very politely but we will not decide that. thank you for giving this. thank you again, mr. president. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," steve forbes talks about his book "how capitalism will save us." bruce freed on his book on how much corp. spent on political activities. after that, a look at the attitude of young americans in politics and public service, with john della volpe. "washington journal" live every morning at 7 a.m. best -- 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this week on the communicators, the head of the motion pictures of association dan glickman on reducing movie piracy. monday night on c-span2. >> special representative for afghanistan and pakistan richard

holbrooke talking about the so- called civilian surge in the u.s. policies toward afghanistan at an event hosted by the council on foreign relations. this is about an hour. council of foreign relations meeting this evening, and this is an interesting event because we not only have the audience here, but we have the council of foreign relations members participating from around the nation. it is also being televised on c- span. it is a multi dimensional even with lots of participants. as you know, many of these events are done off the record.

this is done on the record, with ambassador holbrooke, and i am going to say a few words about him and also point out an interesting feature about this event. i think he is well known to this community. i first encountered him when i was a somewhat younger person and he was the youngest assistant secretary of state' fr asian affairs, and he went on. he was a key architect of the talks that helped end the fighting in bosnia, which was a major contribution of stability in that area. he@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

the issues grappling with pakistan with the understanding they are interrelated, and an interesting feature of this evening coffee event is he has brought a good portion of this team here -- this evening's

event is he has brought a good portion of his team here. basically, if he gets any difficult questions he does not feel they can answer, he is going to have one of his aides stand up and take the heat. since his afghanistan policy has been rolled out five president obama, there has been enormous emphasis on the military side of the equation, which is what our focus on, how many forces will be sent, and less so on the civilian side. what is interesting to me about the policy is if you really go by three years to 2006, we had a

debate about when the iraq surged work, and i think it is generally conceded the iraq surge had an important of five on reducing the violence there and even encouraging political progress, and on the surface there are a lot of similarities. the goal is to partner with indigenous forces and help them take on the fight. we talked about creating a political space and time for the government to stand up. we have some of the same commanders, and the name of the surge was unconsciously endorsed by the obama administration

which called it a new way forward, but there are also enormous differences. afghanistan you do not have a centralized government. it is a very for and i think that makes the afghan situation much more complicated and problematic. to open up the discussion, all like to ask ambassador holbrooke -- we know that we are in this fight because of al qaeda. in order to take on al qaeda, it is important to stabilize afghanistan, and in order to stabilize afghanistan, we're sending 30,000 troops. how does the effort you are coordinating, the civilian side of the equation, contribute to this and how was this suppose to work in concert with the military effort?

>> michael, thank you, first of all, for hosting this. and think so many of you friends in the room for coming today. you all know that afghanistan is entering its ninth year of the war. you for posting this and for coming. the question i run into is why are we in afghanistan. i think most of you know the answer, but i want to state clearly from the outside -- the outset that we are in afghanistan because it was from afghanistan we were attacked in 2001. it is true the people who did the attack were driven east into pakistan, and that is why we talk about afghanistan and pakistan as a related situation, and i would say it right up front that successful in one country requires success in both. we would not able to succeed in

afghanistan unless our pakistan policy is successful. while our troops are in afghanistan, the hard core of our enemy are next door kerrigan why are we in afghanistan? we have examined and looked closely at the policy review, and i would note that in all the policy review i have been part of way back to the vietnam policy when i work for some of the people i can see in the room and with others, this has been the most narrow, the most detailed, the most methodical review i have ever participated in korean president obama himself shared numerous meetings, and we had meetings with the principles and death duties common and we're going to have another one -- with the

principles and duties, and we're going to have another one. the consensus of this discussion over and over again was that you could not separate taliban from outside--- al qaeda. if it weren't just another group with certain for the view we do not agree with, it would be a serious problem, but it would not justify our commitment of what will ultimately be 100,000 american troops and a good number of allied troops numbering in the 34,002 35,000 at least. the separation of the taliban from al qaeda is not currently

on the horizon. the leaders are deeply international, as are certain other groups, which are critically important, so if the taliban succeeds in afghanistan, they will bring back with them to afghanistan. out keitel will have a larger to rain, and they will have the largest victory imaginable to inspire more of the kinds of people that threaten our homeland. that was before russia now, and from that came the core gold soon -- that was the rationale, and from that came the score goals -- core goal.

we are not going to abandon afghanistan has started to happen in 2004 end 2005.td we worked very closely together and david petreaus is a good friend of mine. i have an enormous amount of respect for him. we have a relationship between

our ambassador eikenberry and general mcchrystal, but one important caveat that you should focus on. stan mcchrystal, a deal haft. -- a dual hat. brussels, so it is a little more complicated, but the relationship is there. >> let me ask a question of this point. you give a good explication of the reason you see it for the involvement, but in terms of how we execute this strategy, a number of important questions of ras, but of a one is the issue of sanctuary in pakistan -- a number of important questions arise, but one of the issues is

pakistan. we did not have insurgent leaders across the border with significant numbers of fighters moving back-and-forth more or less of will. it seems the pakistani have taken on the pakistani taliban, but according to recent comments from general petraeus, they have not relate stepped up for the afghan taliban what will they do to take this action because it is hard to imagine the united states making the progress they would need to make by july, 2011. >> i agree with your comment. i would say this is a matter of the highest concern. we have had more high-level visitors than any other country in the world since january 20.

we feel pakistan did not get the attention is required, and the attention it got was focused in the wrong areas. we have to look at pakistan in its entirety. it is the second largest muslim country in the world. this true in the western areas are extremely dangerous people who ultimately threaten the united states, some of whom are recruiting people for international terrorism and some of whom cross the border to fight allied forces syrian -- forces. at the same time, we need to broaden our approach. secretary clinton went over there. edward muller was there. general petraeus was there kerrigan i look forward to going back next month. i was with the pakistani

ambassador this afternoon at some length going over this, and we want to broaden our attention against pakistan's so we are increasing our civilian aid substantially. it was a great imbalance between military and civilian aid, but we are also increasing our civilian aid. i was just to introduce my team so people would get a sense, but in every case would cover issues involving pakistan. they passed of the ill that was $7.5 billion over five years for of pakistan's civilian aid. that was a true landmark phil, somewhat misunderstood, -- a

true landmark bill, somewhat misunderstood, but it was designed to bring water and education and held to the people. @@@@@@@@i @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four hours of electricity a day during the summer. this is creating an end -- and economic spiral. there were demonstrations in the street. this is creating instability, a lot of political problems. and in the west, meanwhile, the situation you described in the west. we wanted an integrated approach to pakistan on its own merits. and my personal view is that we increase aid to pakistan. with regard to the sanctuaries, i believe and general petreaus also shares this view -- in fact

i think he said it today publicly to journalists -- i believe that the pakistani have made considerable progress this year. they took on the terrorists s andwat and disperse them. they moved into south waziristan, and the fighting there is continuing. there are all sorts of activities to stand up to the taliban in the west. is it enough? well, obviously we want them to do as much as they will do. going to demand of a sovereign country what they have to do. they know what they should do in terms of their own interest and ours. we are engaged in a most intense dialogue under the most complicated c@bbumstances. all of you who suffered south asia -- who served south asia

understand that the interaction creates complicated dynamics and the history between pakistan and afghanistan since 1947 has been exceedingly complicated, and let us not forget the origins of what we're dealing with go back to the 1975 and 1985, and they are direct lines all the way through, and all of them are inherited, but i want to stress how central pakistan is to stability in the region by virtue of history, geography, ethnicity, and destiny, and our commitment to work with the pakistani is as close friends and allies is undiminished. a lot of what you read is stirred up by the media, but

that is the fact. with your permission, i would love to let these people introduce themselves. >> let me ask a few more questions. >> fear getting agitated. >> let me squeeze in a few questions, and then we will introduce the team. not to worry. >> you will get your chance. >> i want to continue on this theme of what needs to be done. clearly, an important concept is the desire to not have to fight the taliban and reintegrate or reconcile important elements of them. the question i have is ferris some of this going, maybe not that successfully -- there is

some of this going on, maybe not successfully, but in terms of your efforts, have you been doing anything specifically in terms of reconciliation with taliban leadership? have you been reaching out directly or indirectly with an eye towards creating a political contract? >> this is an interesting issue, and i think we need to be honest here. honest here. we check the mission statement said i south -- isaf, and the mission statement was to defeat the taliban, and there were an equal number of non-u.s. troops.