>> negotiations continued at the white house today with congressional leaders on raising the debt ceiling and making budget cuts. yesterday, the house passed a package of spending cuts, which the president said he would veto if it made it to his desk. the president did praise the bipartisan deficit plan offered by a group of six senators and said congressional leaders should use it as a blueprint. senate later, on c-span, david cameron takes questions of the house of commons on the phone hacking investigation. >> what would that have been like to have met these people when you did not know the ending? >> in the garden of the peace, erik larsen follows the rise of adolf hitler and the third reich.

i stumbled upon the first ambassador to eastern germany. >> sunday night on c-span q&a. >> yesterday, the house passed a republican measure to cut $100 million from next year's budget. next, senate democrats discussed their concerns about the plan to cut spending. this is 25 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you all for coming. today is a special day. it is senator mikulski's

birthday. i am glad to have them be part of this event. last night, the house passed on a virtual party-line vote it plan the void of substance and truffle a political pandering to ensure minority. we have approximately 12 days left before our nation defaults on its debt for the first time in history. to many republicans are moving further away from compromise. we do not have any time to waste. we need to get back to reality and work together to prevent a catastrophic the fold. let me make this as simple as i can. the republican scheme to cap, cup, and kill medicare is dead on arrival in the senate. their "plan" which passed the house last night on a virtual party-line vote would wreak havoc on our country's seniors,

the middle class, military preparedness, and our standing in the world. their plan to cut cap and kill medicare is the ryan plan on steroids. instead of being chastened by the public's overwhelming revierebuke, the republicans are standing down. to start with 10 years, it could have seen is paying two thousand 500 more per year for medicare then even the controversial ryan plan would require. again, $2,500 more in costs. i guarantee that the 74% of seniors that oppose the ryan phan did not dislike it because it caught medicare too little. it would also get social security, cutting up to $3,000 from the average recipient benefits within 10 years and

forcing deeper cuts down the road. it would make these drastic cuts while providing constitutional protection for tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires', and special interests. even ending a single tax loophole, yacht owners or corporate jets, there would require a two-thirds vote in both houses. in other words, it would require the same number of votes in congress to close a single tax loophole as it would to eliminate the freedom of speech clause from our constitution. if legislation is an expression of a party priority, the republicans are saying it with a loud and clear voice -- we would rather cut benefits for seniors and then close a single tax loophole. we would rather pick the pockets of the middle class instead of ending tax breaks for singla sie millionaire or billionaire picked it is simple. the president has threatened to veto it. the american people are opposed

to this scheme and the senate democrats will oppose this scheme and will ensure that it does not come close to passing the senate. it is time for republicans in the house and the senate to end the political shenanigans, to drop their d.o.a. plan to cap, cut, and kill medicare and begin working with democrats to solve the fiscal crisis. the clock is ticking. all eyes are on us. we need to act responsibly. >> thank you. with good reason, they're calling this the cut, cap, and kill the bill. the cut is not just in it. it is more like an amputation, cutting the legs out from underneath of the government. the cap is not just a small cap. it is more of a decapitation, taking the head out of the

federal government's resources. this legislation is so extreme it would require the dismantling of medicare as we note, along with significant cuts for social security, medicaid command of the programs. the sad reality is that american a longer has a two- party system. one of our two parties has morphed into a kind of cold, driven by a singular fixation -- cult, driven by a similar fixation. there would permanently locked in the benefits of special tax breaks to the wealthy as well as the outrageous 15% tax rate for hedge fund billionaires'. some millionaires and billionaires get royal treatment. the middle class will be devastated by the cut, cap, and kill medicare bill.

did the republicans come up with this number of capping spending at 80%? this is not an arbitrary number. it is -- at 18%? this is not an arbitrary number. the last time it was at that number was at 1966 before medicare took hold. they want to roll it back to kill medicare. it is the most elementary -- in a supplementary budget arithmetic dictates you cannot do that and continue to sustain medicare, unless you want to cut the federal budget by 50%. this new assault on medicare comes hard on the heels of the ryan budget. what was the centerpiece of that? it was to dismantle medicare, replace it with a private voucher program, with seniors pay two-thirds of the cost of

their private health care coverage. republicans have no opened a two-front assault on medicare. the republican budget takes a direct approach and dismantles medicare. now, the so-called cut, cap, until program takes an indirect approach to dismantling medicare. in future years, it would simply defund medicare. it would put the federal government in a fiscal straitjacket, allowing it to spend no more than in the 1960's for medicare. at the time when the belelderly population will be half of what it would of been. frankly, this kind of uncompromising, in ideological extremism should have no place in our democracy.

>> senator mikulski. >> this radical republican program -- i agree with president obama that this is a duck, dogs, and dismantle. it ducks the real issues that we have to raise the debt selling and put ourselves on a sustained path. it dodges the programs that we really need to target with tax break earmarks. and it will dismantle the social contract. once again, the radical right is more interested in protecting their next direction of protecting the greatest

generation or investing in the next generation. what a sham. what a scam. i would be tempted to blow off if it were not so cruel, stupid, and dangerous. it is cruel because it in bins new rules on how we will rate social security. it is stupid because it does not solve problems. and it is dangerous because it will bring down our economy. it could very well kill the future of our country. what are the plain facts? it cuts spending to 1965 levels. that was 46 years ago. that was 46 years ago when making $18,000 a year was a fantastic salary. would you like to go back and make $18,000 a year? i do not think so.

when you think about what the average social security benefit was at that time, which was about $1,200 a year, i do not think we want to go back to that. do we really want to go back to not having medicare? sure, we need to reform and refresh medicare. but should we and medicare? i do not think so. under the republican rules, they would substitute medicare as a guaranteed benefit when your 65 to a guaranteed target for insurance companies. it would eliminate social security and their care as we know it. but at the same time, in a constitutional amendment, they would protect tax earmarks for the pampered, the prosperous, and the billionaires. this is why we oppose it. let's talk about specifics. the average social security benefits is $15,000 a year. a $20,000 -- a 20% cut is $3,000

a year. that is not the way it ought to be. social security was always meant to be a guaranteed inflation-proof lifetime benefit. a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble. seniors are now facing the bear of the market. should they have to face the whole of these political shenanigans? we should be able to count on social security. you should be able to count on medicare. and you should be able to count on federal government and a congress that acts responsibly. we should not replace medicare and social carry as we know it. we should replace the shenanigans going on. >> senator boxer. >> i pay her rent when i use for

little step here. >[laughter] >> i want to make the point about the debt ceiling for a moment. if we do not raise the debt ceiling and the clock is ticking on this -- america will become a did the nation -- a deadbeat nation. we cannot afford that. we cannot allow america's credit rating to be lowered. congress has raised the debt ceiling 89 times since the 1930's. we cannot be the first congress to send america into default. i find myself these days quoting ronald reagan. and i will do it again. the full consequence of a default, he said, or even the serious prospect of a default by the united states are impossible to predict and awful to

contemplate. denigration of the full faith and credit of the united states would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in the exchange market. the nation can ill afford such a result. that was from ronald reagan. do we have the charts? it is ok. [laughter] >> i would never do that. i want to tell you why we're so strongly opposed to this outrageous plan passed by the house republicans yesterday. yes, they call it cutting tax. they are right to do that. because it would cut and cap the hopes and dreams of our seniors, of our children, of our middle class families, of all of

america. and why do they do this? why do they cut and cap our hopes and dreams? to protect tax breaks for the millionaires and the billionaire's. it is quite obvious. what do they call them? the job-treaters. but -- the job creators. i checked it out. the fact is that, if you look at the biggest job creation motor in this country, small business, only 1.4% of them earn more than $450,000. 3% of them earn more than $280,000. let's put that baby to rest. when john stuart, the comedian, starts making -- they came up with this slogan which will fall on its face.

cuts and caps the hopes and dreams of america. kills mature as we know it. making deep cuts in programs that forces seniors to pay thousands more out of their pockets. we already heard about medicare from senator schuman. $2,500 on top of the 6000 more out of but -- the $6,000 more out of pocket that the ryan program calls for. that is a $500 that the average senior on social security earnings -- that is $8,500 that the average senior in soon socil security burns. i wanted to show you a picture from the 1960's, just to bring us back. that was it.

[laughter] that is cute. but most people would not buy it because it got 12 miles to the gallon. it says it all. if i and another picture, i would tell it, in addition to this being the most popular car, the no. 1 song in the country was by the monkeys. how many of you were born after the monkeys made ♪ i'm a believer? [laughter] this is the most fun press conference you have never been to. [laughter] let's take that down. let me tell you, as we paint the picture of the 1960's -- why do

we talk about the 1960's? because they're going back to this formula of what we spent, the percentage of gdp. life expectancy was 70 years old. today, it is 79 years old. you want to go back to those times? you want to go back to those days? cost ofage person's health care was $5,800 a year now is $8,000. why would you go back to a budget that goes back to the last century? that does not make any sense. we needed plan to protect our families, not puts them at risk. we need a plan that reduces the deficit. i was proud and many of us were proud to work with president clinton.

nighwe not only balance the bud. we created surpluses. when i heard senator lindsay gramm saying the following -- it is not an exact quote -- he did not remember as balancing the budget. we did it, several times. you just have to do it appeared and we -- you just have to do it. we just have to do it. let's not have these fun and games of going back to the 1960's or back to the future. let's do things right and save medicare and the hopes and dreams of our families. >> i want to thank my colleagues for their eloquence and heartfelt discussion today. we are ready for your questions. have this shermaschuman, we

gang of six free market that is being circulated. will any of you be signing the letter? >> here is the bottom line -- and we have discussed this so i think i'm speaking for the four as -- any time the democrats and republicans can come together on something is a good thing. the fact that republicans are coming out for revenues is something of a breakthrough. they have not done that before. and we hope it shows that they're willing to compromise. of course, we are running out of time. we need to assure the world that we will not default on our debt. this afternoon, senator reid is meeting with leader warner to see what we can do with the gang of six and what can be incorporated into a deficit deal. i think we'll look for to hearing more after that meeting. >> one of the key things is that we see the cost of living increases for social security.

>> we will look into any of the specifics. leader reid is meeting with senator warner. we will wait for that meeting before getting into any of the specifics of the gang of six. >> do you think that the mcconnell plan -- >> senators reid and mcconnell are working together at the same time. i think both seem to realize that the august 2 deadline is looming and to default would be a disaster. as i said, senators reid and warner are meeting today to figure out if anything can be done with the work of the gang of six. we do know that we have that august 2 deadline and we have to meet it. we have to meet it. >> given the opposition, especially on the house republican side, to you think it would make sense for either

chamber to do the vote on a weekend so the market cannot react? >> i think most of us are making plans to be here this weekend. it is not because of the markets. it is because this is a huge and complicated deal. two weeks from today is august 2. remember how the senate works. anybody can hold up the bill for a number of days. remember how long it took them to score on health care? we do not have much time. >> i want to speak to someone who worked on wall street as a stockbroker a long time ago, in the 1960's, ironically.

the well one to answer your question is this. incase everything feels, you say, you do not want it to affect the markets. look, the markets are affected whether we stay here on weekend or not. if we do not do the right thing here, it does not matter if we are here on the weekend or not, we have to solve the problem. the market to understand this, whether we do this on a saturday or sunday. but your premise was, given the way the house is looking at a compromise, i do not write off the fact that, after they see that their plan is not going anywhere -- and i assume we will vote on their plan -- >> we are. >> we will see where the chips will fall on that. then they will look to see how they get out of this nightmare scenario. so i am more hopeful. the fact is, again, all they have to do is look at their icon ronald reagan and understand

that you do not play with fire when it comes to the full faith and credit of the united states of america. >> implicit in a lot of questions that i get is that, somehow, we reached this point because there is a debate and a fight between democrats and republicans. that is not true. that is absolutely not true. i know of no democrat in the house or in the senate that is willing to let this country defaults. i know of no democrat. however, on the republican side, you have staunch republicans who say let the country default. need i remind you michele bock when saying that she would not vote to raise the debt -- michelle bachman saying this to that vote to raise the debt limit no matter what? the debate and the fight is between democrats and

republicans. it is between republicans and other republicans. to raise the debt ceiling is not for future barring, but to pay the debts we have in the past. this debt was racked up by a republican house and republican senate and the republican president of the last eight years and they're not willing to pay the bills. this is not a fight between democrats and republicans. you 0.1 out to me, not one democrat -- i defy you to find one. but there are all kinds of republicans were willing to let this country go down the tubes on there is illogical believes. >> and the american people are learning about this. -- on their ideological beliefs.

>> and the american people are learning about this. >> when will you get rid of the cut, cap, and balance bill? >> we are looking to see if they can move up the time table is loaded. you have some republicans who want to spend as much time on -- putting it kindly, it is wasted time. they are trying to move it up. but the way the senate works, a handful of people can hold it up. >> about belt-tightening, what specific cuts or discretionary caps are you or the other

senators willing to live with? >> you have seen the democratic packet we have put out that has cut we do not like. the large majority of democrats voted back in june to make cuts we do not like. we have shown that we're willing to do things that pain as very much. our republican colleagues, until today, have not shown a thing. thank you. >> thank you. >> next, we will hear from two former house members. >> thank you very much.

in the house of representatives. i'm pleased with the outcome of cut, cap and balance. i think we have a serious responsibility here in the united states congress to see that we address the economic circumstances we find ourselves in, and certainly the way we do that is important. i'm one who believes that it would be irresponsible not to address the debt ceiling. but i also believe it would be irresponsible only to address the debt ceiling without adequately taking into account the economic circumstances we're in and the tremendous debt that our country faces. there is no way that we can continue down the path that we are on. and while it's easy for us to make accusations, the reality is this country through its congress and through various administrations have overspent year after year after year.

the fact that 42 cents of every dollar that we spend is now borrowed tells us that we cannot continue down that path. one of my town hall meetings this weekend, this past weekend back in kansas, the suggestion was we're willing to take a cut in what benefits we get from government, but let's do this in a fair way and let's do an across-the-board reduction in federal spending. and the suggestion by the constituent was, well, maybe if we all just took 5% off of what we receive, we'd be fine. well, i appreciate that attitude, but it fails to recognize the magnitude of the problem. reducing federal spending by 5% across the board will not get us out of the financial circumstances that we're in, will not restore fiscal sanity to our nation. and so, while we are about between now and august 2 seeing what we can do to raise the debt ceiling, in my view, we have to come together with a plan that

addresses the long-term financial condition of our federal government. i am a supporter of cut, cap and balance and was pleased by the broad support that legislation received in the house. it's my understanding that we will now consider that legislation here in the senate this week, but i already read the press reports and the political pundits who say that legislation is dead on arrival in the senate. well, i would encourage my colleagues not to reach that conclusion. it may be the one and only path we have to succeed in getting accomplished what we need to accomplish in the next two weeks. and it may be that this is one of the, if not the only one, very few measures that would pass the house of representatives. we have now received in the senate a message that says this is something that we are willing to do. and for a long time i've been told as a senator there is nothing that will pass the house of representatives that raises the debt ceiling, and yet we saw last night that wasn't the case.

so let's not be so quick to say that the senate will not address and seriously consider and potentially pass legislation based upon cut, cap and balance. in some circles this, concept of cut, cap and balance is considered radical, extreme. cutting spending is not extreme. that's what every kansas family does when the budget gets too tight, when we've overspent, when the credit cards are maxed. we reduce our spending. and, you know, it is unlikely that we could go out and say i need a raise to solve our problems. our employers are not that sympathetic. we ought not be so quick to say we need a raise. we ought to say what can we find within government that we can reduce, that we can cut. the idea of capping is certainly not radical. for the last 60 years, our country has averaged 18% of the gross national product in spending by the federal

government. in the last couple of years that average has increased to 24%, 25%. it would not be radical to move us back to the days in which we were living with 18%, which seems to me to be a significant percentage if we would go back to the days in which only 18% of our gross national product was spent by the federal government. and finally, balancing the budget that,'s not a radical idea. amending the united states constitution, in my view, ought to be done rarely and with great regard for this divinely inspired document. but the constitution allows for an amendment process, and in fact it's been utilized to solve many of our country's problems and challenges over the time of history. and it's not radical 49 states have provisions that require them to have a balanced budget in some form or another at the end of the year. and so amending the united states constitution to say we're not ever going to get back in the mess that we're in today

certainly is worth pursuing. i think perhaps of the cut, cap and balance provisions, perhaps it's the constitutional amendment that's the most controversial among my colleagues. and i certainly would express an interest to work with others to find the right constitutional amendment, the right language and amendment to the united states constitution that met their concerns. so this cut, cap and balance seems to me to be the path forward, and the senate should pass a version of cut, cap and balance to not only allow the debt ceiling to be raised, but to allow the debt ceiling to be raised only if we become responsible stewards of american taxpayer dollars. i actually have a fourth component of cut, cap and balance. i would say it's cut, cap, balance and grow. the last time our fiscal house was in solvency, was solvent was back at the end of president

clinton's administration. and in part, republicans and democrats couldn't get along well enough in those days to spend more money on big programs. there was legislation that was passed that supported in a bipartisan way by president clinton and republicans in congress to limit spending. so there was some spending restraint. but the reality is the last time we had our fiscal house in order and were spending less money than we were taking in was a time in which the economy was growing. if we really want to address the issue of balancing our budget, we should focus much more attention than we have on growing the economy, putting people to work and allowing as they work that the taxes will be collected. the greatest opportunity we have to improve people's lives is to create an environment in which jobs are created, in which employers feel comfortable in investing in the future and buying plant and equipment and putting people to work. and so while it's cut, cap and

balance today, we need to make certain we don't forget, in my view, that fourth component: grow the economy. and in my view, that means a tax code that is certain and fair, that doesn't change, that is something that a businessperson, a family can rely upon, and it's also a regulatory environment that allows businesses to have the opportunity to grow their business. the most common conversation i have with a business owner in kansas walking through a manufacturing plant, some small business that manufactures a piece of agriculture equipment that's pretty common in our state. the most common conversation i have is, senator, what next is government going to do that puts me out of business? if that's the mind-set, how do we ever expect that businessperson to reach the conclusion that they have the faith and the future to invest in their plant and equipment and in hiring new employees? we need to make certain our financial institutions, particularly our community

banks, are not hamstrung by significant regulations that discourage them from making loans and create uncertainty about the ability to do that. so a tax regulatory and access to credit environment that says now is the time to invest in america and to put people to work. so, mr. president, i'm here to urge my colleagues to seriously consider, not dismiss cut, cap and balance. and upon its passage, for us to immediately return to the progrowth agenda that allows for people to have the faith in -- t the future of their country is back and we return to an american that the next generation of americans can understand the american dream can still be lived. i thank the floor for consideration in speaking on the senate floor today and i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i appreciate the good words of my colleague from kansas.

he comes from a state where they understand that the role of the government should be limited. they understand the importance of living within your means, of not spending money that you don't have. and i suspect that the senator from kansas has had a long and distinguished career in public life, but before coming to washington, d.c. to serve in congress, also was a state legislator. my guess is that when he was a member of the state legislature in kansas that they had to balance their budget every year. i would ask my colleague, mr. president, if he could perhaps shed some light on what his state of kansas does year in and year out in order to get their budget balanced, to make sure that they're not spending more than they take in. i think that's, as he pointed out, something that most families in kansas, i would say most families in my state of south dakota, those are decisions they have to grapple with all the time. you don't always have the luxury of being able to just borrow more. most states don't allow that. my state of south dakota doesn't allow that. also certainly not in our

states, probably very conducive to saying we're just going to raise taxes on people and on small businesses, which requires then that we've got to make hard decisions about spending. i would just through the chair ask my colleague from kansas if perhaps that might have been the way they went about dealing with their fiscal crisis in the past? mr. moran: mr. president, i thank the gentleman from south dakota and would indicate that, yes, kansas is one of those states, one of those 49 states, in our constitution we are prohibited in almost always living beyond our means. and it's been something that kansas legislature and governor has lived with you throughout the history of our state. the solution to the problem in kansas is not a cry for more revenue. it's a recognition that spending

in difficult times has to be reduced. it's the restraint that we desperately need in washington, d.c. that's so common in state capitals and families and businesses across the country. and so, while i've always indicateed to kansans, while we have this debate every year about how to balance the revenues with expenditures and it's not an enjoyable debate, we are fortunate in kansas that we have to reach that conclusion, and it's something that we need in washington, d.c. for a long time the politics, the political talk in washington is that we're too likely to spend and tax. well, there's also a problem with spending and borrowing. and we are now suffering the consequence, and we are not immune from what we see in greece and italy and portugal and ireland. if we do not solve this problem that we face today in a responsible way, it will be solved for us by the markets, by those who we borrow money from determining we are no longer credit worthy. we don't have to worry so much

about that in kansas because we have a constitutional provision that requires our legislature and governor to reach the right conclusion. and it's why i thought the debt ceiling was the opportunity for us to force ourselves, this debate on the debt ceiling was the opportunity for us to force ourselves to do the things that politicians don't always like to do. thank you, mr. president. mr. thune: mr. president, just to the point that the senator from kansas was making, he talked about higher interest rates and the impact of not dealing with the fiscal circumstance the country finds itself in. and you look at what's happening in europe. a three-year government bond interest rates are around 19.4% for portugal, 28.9% for greece and 12.9% for ireland. think about the impact in this country if we had interest rates go back to what is even a 20-year average, we would see an additional $5 trillion -- just about $5 trillion in additional borrowing costs in the next decade alone. that's if we went back to the

20-year historical average for this country. not to mention going to what they're looking at in countries like europe, at these 19%, 20% interest rates. think about auto loans, think about home loans, think about about student loans, think about about business loans, all those things that we rely on in our economy and that families across this country rely on in order to carry on their daily lives. if you were looking at those kinds of interest rates, that's the type of interest rate sensitivity that we have. and if we don't get our fiscal house in order, we could very well end up like many of these countries, and that would be devastating for our economy. the most important thing that we can be doing right now, mr. president -- and the senator from kansas pointed this out -- we need to put policies in place that actually grow the economy and create jobs. i also will support the cut, cap and balance proposal that's before the senate today because i think it does important things. it cuts spending today immediately. it caps spending in the near term and puts in place a process by which we balance the budget

in the long term, a balanced budget amendment. it's interesting to note, if you go back historically, i want to read something for you, mr. president, that president ronald reagan said 29 years ago this week. he led a rally of thousands of people on the capitol steps calling for a balanced budget amendment. this is what he said -- and i quote -- "crisis is a much-abused word today, but can we deny we face a crisis?" end quote. that's 29 years ago at a time, mr. president, when the federal debt was $1 trillion. we face a debt 14 times as high, $14 trillion, and under the president's budget, would literally double in the next decade. we have got to get our fiscal house and our spending in order. the senator from kansas also mentioned the size of government as a percentage of our entire economy. if you go back to 1800, the formation, the early years of our country, 2% is what we spent on the federal government.

2% of our total economy. this year we're area over 24%, in that 24%-25% range. if you look at the historical average, it is about 26%, what we have spent as a percent of our entire commitment of it means we're spend spending more at the federal level and the private commie economy is shrink. we want to see an expansion of the private economy, where we put policies in place that enable our job creators to create jobs and we get the federal government smaller, not larger. when you are looking at a debt crisis like we are, you don't grow and expand the size of government, you make government smawmple you get the private economy growing and expanding and creating jobs much that is how you ultimately get out of the situation. well, we've got policies in place right now that are making it more difficult and more expensive for our small businesses to create jobs. anywhere you go in the country -- in my state of south dakota, elsewhere -- you talk to small

business owners, you talk to farmers and ranchers, what they will tell you is the policies, regulations, taxes coming out of washington, d.c., make it more expensive and difficult for our job creators to create jobs. if you look at the data on that, it is pretty clear. since this president took office, we've got higher unemployment by about 18%. we've got more people unemployed than we did when he took office, we have a 35% higher debt, we saw spending go up in the last two years alone, up 24%. the number of people who are receiving food stamps is up by 40%. all the data, all the tools by which we can measure economic progress and growth, demonstrate that the policies that have been put in place by this administration has been a complete failure what. we need, mr. president, is a change in policies. and it starts by capping federal spending -- or, cutting federal spending, capping it in the near term and putting in place a long-term solution, a balanced budget amendment like so many states have in place, like the

senator from kansas mentioned that they have in his state of kansas, like we have in my state of south dakota, where our state governments have to live within our means. they can't spend money they do not v that is the problem we have in washington, d.c., today. in terms of our small businesses, there was a survey that was done by the chairman of commerce in which they found that 64% of the small businesses that responded to the survey satesaid that they're not goingo hire. 12% said they'll cut jobs. why? half of small businesses listed economic uncertainty as the main reason. they are concerned about what's going to cowment of washington, d.c., they don't know what the policies and regulations are that are going to be imposed on them and what it will do to their cost 6 doing business. as a consequence, they are hunkering down and trying to survive. we need to change that. we change that by getting federal spending under control. cut, cap, and balance is an important step that that process. i'm pleased that the house of representatives passed it, sent

it over here. i would argue to my cleelings -- i would toorg my colleagues that this is the best thing we can doing to get our fiscal house in order and get it on a more us sin stable path going forward but also help get our economy going forward again and get jobs created. you can't do it by making government larger. if that was true, the stimulus bill that was passed last year would have brought unemployment down. we are facing 9.2% unemployment today. we see an economy growing at a very slow rate. we need to unleash that economy. and the way that we w. we do that is by cutting spending in washington, d.c., making federal government smaller, not larger, getting that amount of spending as a percentage of our entire economy back into a more historical norm, working to ensure that taxes and regulations stay low on our job creators in this country.

that's why i fundamentally object to the -- what the president and many of his allies here in congress want to do with regard to the debt crisis, and that is increase revenues. you cannot -- you cannot create jobs in this country, you cannot grow the economy by increasing taxes on our job creators. i can't think of a single tax that you could on our economy that would actually create jobs t would make it more difficult to create jobs, more difficult for us to get out of this economic downturn. i hope my colleagues will support cut, cap, and balance understand that it will get a big vote in the senate and get this country back on a more sound fiscal setting and >> now we will get reaction from the white house on the so-called cut, cap, and balanced bill from mission bay. this is 10 minutes.

>> welcome, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i have a brief readout. last month, the president called senate majority leader of reed, congress member boehner, and mitch mcconnell. mitch mitchell, aside from being a wonderful guitarist, was also a great artist.

[laughter] let's motor on. i am working on it. the president spoke with senators reid and mcconnell, a leader pelosi and speaker boehner to discuss progress on negotiations to find the bones approach to the deficit reduction. the president will also hold a meeting of the white house today at 2:50 p.m. with house and senate democratic leadership. those are my announcements. i am sorry, house and senate democratic leaders. not the republicans. as we have other meetings to announce, i will announce them. but the 2:50 p.m. meeting today is with the house and senate leadership. we're still working on the manifest. let me get back to you on the

coverage. >> wire the republicans not involve then how did that conversation go? >> i will not comment on the individual comments, but there were useful and productive. we have been having conversations and meetings with the different groupings of leaders and rank-and-file members and we will continue to do that at the presidential and vice presidential and staff level. this meeting is the next one up. we will get back to you with announcements of other meetings as they happen. >> what does he want to accomplish? >> he will discuss the purchase for for the reduction, a balanced approach. obviously the role of the gang of six is adding to the momentum behind the principle that the best way to do this -- the only way to do it, really, to get

significant deficit-reduction, is to do so that we go after all the drivers, our long term debt, including non-defense spending, defense spending, entitlements spending, and tax code spending. to further those conversations, as the president said the issue, at the 11th hour, we need to meet, talk, counsel, and narrow down what our options are and figure out, in fairly short order, which train we're riding into the station. right now, there are multiple options being discussed, including the work as senator mcconnell is doing with senator reid and others. there is the gang of six proposal. there is framework and other proposals out there. through the course of these meetings, we have to find out what we will do to ensure that, at the very least, as we have talked about, the united states does not, for the first time in

u.s. history, default on its obligations. >> can you discuss of the president's challenge in swaying democratic leaders to go on with changes in entitlements? >> witlet's not leave it at democratic leaders. leaders in both the house and the senate, this is an important point that to raise. while we certainly have spoken a lot of and made clear that republicans need to compromise and except that they will market 100% with want -- they will not get 100% of what they want, this is a two-price system and requires compromise. the sinister for democrats. the point that the president has been making in -- the same is true for democrats.

the point that the president has been making is that we need to make some tough choices in order to ensure that we can reduce our deficit, get control of our debt, precisely because that is what is important for economy and allows us to make the absolutely necessary investments we need to make in education, in research in -- in research and development, infrastructure to allow the economy to grow. that is the case he has been making to democrats and he will continue. >> what about the debate about the real deadline, considering congress's timetable for legislation? when you run at a time to get something as big as a gang of six legislation through? are we not there? >> i was talking -- i was listening to the comments that the omb director made over the weekend. if everyone is seriously committed to making a big deal,

obviously, time is running short. in terms of the deadline we have talked about, august deadline is a real and fast deadline. we must take action to deal with our debt, raising the debt ceiling, before them. but there is still time to do something significant if all parties are willing to compromise. the parameters of what that might look like are well known, especially to the participants in the negotiations that the president oversaw last week. this is an estimate about what it takes to move something through congress. there it is this ineluctable modality of how congress works that you have to accept, that things can turn up and be voted on and reconciled all on one day. you have to guess and we have to

leave it to the leaders of congress to provide their best estimates, rather than us. >> will you have to do with the a, a plan or a short-term deal so you can take more time to negotiate a package? >> we are, as you know, supportive of the efforts by senators mcconnell and read to craft a full bath provision or solution to make sure that we take the necessary action on raising the debt ceiling. when i was talking about which train we would ride into the station, we are on multiple trains are now. we need to be sure that the failsafe option is there. even if we pursue aggressively the possibility of doing something bigger, the president has been clear that he will now support a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. there's no reason why we can not come together now and get

something significant done. what we mean by that is that we would not support a short-term extension. that is not exceptional. if both sides agree, we have to go over the details up. because we know what we're talking about here, if there is a willingness, and we believe there is a growing willingness on capitol hill, to do something significant and comprehensive and balanced, we can get that done within the timeframe and by the deadline of august 2. >> that was white house spokesman jay carney. you can see it in its and terry -- in its entirety on our website. the white house has signaled that it will support a short- term debt ceiling extension, but

only if democrats and republicans reach agreement on a larger deficit cutting deal and need additional time to get it through congress. >> british prime minister david cameron told a special session of parliament today -- he took questions on the phone hacking investigation. that is next on c-span. then we will talk with alex of the daily telegraph from london about the story. on tomorrow's "washington draw," we will get an update on a debt deficit. we will also talk about the so- called sunset gang of six plan. later, david clarke of reuters dodd-frankabout the de fran

regulation order. we will take you to the kennedy space center at cape canaveral, fla. for the shuttle landing. it is scheduled to return before 6:00 a.m. eastern time. live coverage gets underway at 5:30 a.m. eastern. >> one day after rupert murdoch testified on phone hacking allegations by his company news international, british prime minister david cameron addressed members in the house of commons. he spent most of his time talking about his decision to andyand the colson -- highere colson as his communications chief. he was recently arrested for phone hacking and bribery. >> order.

order. i have a short statement to make. i was very concerned at the incident in a culture, media, and sport hearing yesterday. it is wholly an acceptable for a member of the public's to treat and to be able to treat a witness in this way. it is all the more regrettable that such an incident should happen at a time when, particularly over the last few days, the worst of this house and its committees have enhanced the reputation of parliament. i have immediately set in hand an expert investigation into what took place, the reasons for the security failure, and --

order -- these lessons to be learned. this investigation will be entirely independent of the house authorities. statements -- the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission, i would like to make a statement. over the past two weeks, a torn revelations and allegations have engulfed some of this country's most important institutions. it has shaken people's trust in the media and the they will investigate media malpractice. they have the ability to get to grips with these issues. people desperately wanted to put a stop to the illegal practices to ensure the effectiveness of the police. above all, people suffered

dreadfully, including through murder and terrorism. they relived that agony. the public wanted to work together. that may give up the action. we have set up an individual inquiry. we establish what went wrong, why, and what we need to do to ensure it never happens again.

and the house of commons by speaking so clear they helped to cause the end of the news corp. bid for the rest. are light of day the house. first, the judicial inquiry and the experts. they will be the civil liberties campaigner.

the former chief constable scott believe. the former chairman, david curry. the political editor of channel 4 news. the former editor of the daily telegraph. these people have been chosen. there from the interested parties. i said last week that the inquiry will proceed in two parts. i have consulted with this. i talked to the family.

the others will be in the scope of the inquiry. we consider not just the relationship but their individual conduct, it ttoo. they should look at other media organizations including social media if there is any evidence they are involved in criminal activity. the panel will get to work immediately. he will aim to make a report on the first part. there should be no doubt. this is as robust as possible. it is fully independent. he will be able to summon witnesses. let me now turn to the

extraordinary ones we have seen over the past few days. on sunday, he resigned as commissioner of the metropolitan police. i want to thank him for the work. on monday, john f. gates also resigned. i want to express my gratitude for the work he has done. given the sudden departure of senior officers, the first concern is to insert the effective policing of our capital. i have asked the home secretary to ensure that the response ability will continue seamlessly. the current deputy commissioner stepped in and will shortly do a good job again. the counter-terrorism job will be taken on by the highly experienced president.

the responsibility of the deputy commission that involves oversight will not be done by someone from inside but instead by one that will join temporarily from her majesty's establishments. we are also looking to speed up the process. we cannot hope that a change in personnel is enough. the simple fact is that it raises huge issues about the ethics and practices of our police. this is beyond reproach. it serves the public with distinction. it is evident. i believe we can do more.

there is a lack of transparency for police transparency. these are precisely the two points that they address. we believe this crisis calls for us to stand back. there is a broad culture of policing in this country. at the moment, it is too close. there are too few and too similar candidates. everyone knows they're looking into police careers. i want to see a radical ways to bring in fresh leadership.

why should someone with a different skill set be able to join? why should someone who is a proven success overseas be able to help us here at home? we need a stronger governance. let me turn to these specific questions that i have been asked in recent days b. he did not take up the offer to be briefed on police investigations. i have said repeatedly that they should pursue the evidence where it leads. this is exactly what they have done. it shows my staff be paid entire

properly. they made clear that it would not be appropriate to give me or my staff and the privilege briefings. the reply that he sent was cleared in advance by my secretary. imagine if they had done the opposite. there would have been justified outrage. there would be a police investigation. it was understandably projected.

they put that judgment, too. there is question whether the code was broken and in regard to the merger with news international executive. they have rolled clearly that the code was the number again. not at least because i has to be entirely excluded. they have also employed neil wallace. all the candidates have been gone through. neither he nor his company has ever been employed by a contracted by the conservative party.

until sunday night. we will be entirely transparent about this issue. finally, there is the question whether everyone is taking responsibility in an appropriate manner. i want to address my own responsibilities very directly. it brings me to my decision. i have said very clearly that if it turns out he knew about the hacking he will not only have lied to me, but he would have lied to the police and perjured himself in a court of law. if that comes to pass, he could

face severe criminal charges. that would be a moment for a profound apology. i will not fall short. on the work he did, perhaps not for the last time, it has not been the subject of any serious complaints. he left months ago. i believe i have answered every question about this. it was my decision. i take responsibility. >> i apologize for interrupting. the house has come to order.

people will make judgments about it. i regret and and sorry about what this has caused. i would not have offered him the job. i accept -- expect he would not have taken it. you live and learn. i have learned. i have answered any and all questions about this issue. the greatest responsibility i have is to clear this mess. there are criminal accusations. they have to make a fresh start.

what they expect is not petty political point scoring. what they deserve is conservative action to rise to the level of events and solve this issue once and for all. it is in that spirit that i commend this. >> thank you for your statement. the most powerful institutions must show the irresponsibility

we expect. this is why a country wants this. those responsible can be held accounted. there are announcement for the scenes. i welcome the prime minister's agreement with us. i welcome the apology from rupert murdoch. we respect the decision of support to stand down. we're beginning to see answer is given. this is right.

>> i have a number of questions for the prime minister. he said a few moments ago that the remainder should be heard in silence. i say the same to members that are now heckling. think about what the public thinks about the behavior order and stop it without delay. >> the prime minister said that he was excluded from the decision making process. it is not quite answer the questions he has been asked. last friday he revealed that since taking office he had met

representatives including rebekah brooks and james murdock on 26 separate locations. my question is whether he can assure the house that the bid was not raised at any of those meetings. was there at any time he discussed the bid iwith officias of the culture? >> 10 days ago, the prime minister said i was not given any specific information that would lead you to change my mind. it would have made every effort to uncover the information.

they made every effort for the facts. did would surely have led him to change his mind about mr. coulson. all would decline. he was accused of making payments to police. the prime minister did nothing with the information. in may of 2010, he warned the prime minister of bringing him into downing street. he did nothing.

on september the fourth 2010, the new york times published an investigation " in most civil -- quoting multiple sources. we know that article is not enough to open their increase. we know it triggers the termination of the metropolitan police. that led to the author. he said it is right that it does not taken up. the question is why. the prime minister was compromised by his relationship. therefore, he cannot be told anything at all about his

investigation concerning a member of his own staff. he was struck by conflict of interest. the prime minister should not have had to rely on briefings from his chief of staff. here was a major investigation published by global newspaper about the director of communications. he was not mentioned in the article. what did the prime minister do? he did nothing. the public will rightly have expected very loud alarm bells to ring. in october, he was approached again by the guardians about the

behavior. once more, nothing was done. grosscannot be put down to gro incompetence. it was hiding it. >> member should not be shouting out. they should call themselves. -- they should kama themselves. there is the discrepancies between their standards, he made the wrong choice. can he now explain why he failed

to act on clear informations and why those around him build a wall of silence? the conflict of interest have real effect. the metropolitan police commissioner resigned on sunday. the house must talk about it. he was strapped. he was not being told about the situation. in doing so would have compromised the prime minister. why did he think this tax his own deputy said the prime minister should be told nothing. this error of judgment directly

contributed to this. his conflict of interest was the police commissioner. there are three questions. there were warnings that were consistently ignored. these and many other questions will have to be answered. there was one other question that matters now. he says in hindsight he made a mistake by hiring him. he said if he lied to him he would apologize. that is not good enough.

it is not about hindsight. it is about all the information and warnings that the prime minister ignores. why doesn't he do more? what does indeed provide the full apology now for hiring him and bring him in? >> what i would say is stop hunting feeble conspiracy theories. most of that was this. let me thank him for what he says.

i have to samos' of the other questions i think he wrote them before he heard them. he asked about the issue of this. he said there is no breach. you heard the evidence yesterday. they said there is not one single inappropriate conversation. when it comes to meetings, i set out every single meeting. he published a list. he does not go back to the selection. when we going to see the transparency from tony blair?

secondly, there are questions. >> we want to listen to what the prime minister has to say. >> no one has raised a single question about his questions. there is only one party leader with a new executive. the questions he raises, is he honestly saying that the leader of the opposition suggesting that he knows better that the cabinet secretary worked

diligently? i think the issue is a staggering lack of judgment. it is inconvenient. he set out the reasons for his resignation. he explained how this was so different from the situation. most of the questions he had already answered. let's be clear about what we heard yesterday. rupert murdoch said the politician i was closest to was gordon brown. let's remember who was invited

1/4 brown was the chancellor. let us remember who was there when he was the chancellor? let us remember reports of the information commissioner. if you like, there is the slumber party. everyone can see exactly what he is doing. he can blame it for narrow party advances. they have been taking place. the problem is for both our main parties.

>> order. >> under the previous government, he was arrested by the metropolitan police. the prime minister was not notified of the details. they were not told. is it not there? he did exactly what they should not do. >> he makes a very big point. when you see what he said, he saw that it was cleared in advance. we do not live in a country or the prime minister's ordering

who should be arrested. >> he made a statement on monday. there were two words that were not mentioned. we were not in a situation where his best buddy was working for us. did he know that neil wallace was giving advice? >> no. . i did not know that. i was unaware of that. i think this is important. one of the issues is the transparency and information that there was. there was no hiding the fact that they had this.

>> i want to thank you for the announcement. he has said that all governments have been far too close to the media giants. that means no more back door living to no. 10. there are cabinet papers. there are recommendations for it to be implemented. >> i accept the plea make about transparency. there are of official business meetings with media executives. with relation, the fact is not whether he came in through the

back or front door, but was it declared in the proper way? in the old days the only day whether you found out was waiting for this. we have been very transparent about this. it goes back to the election. i think we need to go further in this regard. i think this should be the new standard. he has published information to when he became leader. what can reduce why can we not see back to the stacks >> when he raises the extensive investigation, what was his reaction to that? >> my question is whether there is the information that he knew about hacking into "news of the

world" o if he knew, he would have lied to the police. he would have lied to me. i made the decision because of the assurances he gave me. there's no information that leads me to change my mind. if it turns out that he knew about it, that would be a matter of huge regret and apology. it is something that would be subject is of prosecution. >> what people really care about is the appalling situation. there's the public anger about

it. it is expressly fell by thousands of dedicated and courageous police officers. for that reason it is essential that they make it possible. a judicial inquiry should get under way. you can give absolute assurance that it will be given the priority that they should have been given a long time ago. >> they are entirely right. you've got to keep the victims of the scandal. they have suffered appallingly. the key is the scale of the query. -- inquiry. it has been talked about. in now be under way. i want to get here as rapidly as

possible. >> i must challenge the prime minister. he said nobody raised a new concept. i did this on the fourth of october. there are new allegations that he listened to. i said this caps out on his statement. i'm still waiting for a reply. >> let me pay tribute to what he has done. the point i am making is this. the time he spent, the work he did for the government, no one has made. that does seem to me important. i gave him a second chance.

after he resigns, because of what happens, no one has raised any of his contact with me. >> thank you. the prime minister has said the context of the media will be published in the general election. i do not think that is good enough. we need to know the context they have held. >> this is specifically looking at the relationship between politicians and the media. there is the conduct of both. that can go back as far as it wants to go back. we all need to be clear.

this has been very great. we did spend too much time trying to get on. as a result, we have put on the back burner to often the issues of how to regulate the mission. it is not just this. it is also about the work we tried to do with the bbc or the guardian. let's be frank about this. we can learn our lessons and news this. we can sort out their relationship. >> i am not sure if the prime minister was awakened at 4:00 this morning. i'm glad to hear it. they published a unanimous report. there is a serious judgment.

they had deliberately ported it. he will not have had a chance. he said he took five minutes to look at the file and realize there is criminality. he said anyone you had information should handed over immediately and explain why it has been withheld. >> i would listen doubt that message. a thank you for the work. i not been able to study all of the evidence. i think the work that the committee is doing is drilling down into the conduct is extremely valuable. the police investigation is indeed needs to get to the truth.

then they can lead the inquiry get under way. i think it played a very good role. >> does the prime minister share my concern that this is a involved in a very important discussion? most people are concerned about what is going on. there's the impact that it might have on their jobs. the leader is so narrowly focused. >> the public wants us to sort this out. the reason they want us to do it is that they want us to get on with the other issues. everyone has to recognize the threat and the problems that we face. it would affect as write-in in

the situation. >> was there any mention of the bid? >> there is never a conversation that could have been held in front of the committee. he asked me to answer the question. perhaps he could be transparent about all of the contacts he has had. i have set out the clearest possible situation. it is up to others to do the same thing. >> in light of the revelations,

does the prime minister agree to be so reluctant? there's a judicial inquiry. >> people should not shout. he's making a very valid point. this is not reflect very well. there were a lot of warnings about what was going wrong. warnings and the commissioner. warnings from the others. we should not be pointing fingers. we need to work on this to get it right and respond to these reports. >> this was sent off of the

legal firm. there is obvious evidence the police of listeners were paid for information. they are still refusing this to be fully considered. i'm insisting on client confidentiality. isn't this clear evidence that news international are still refusing to cooperate? >> that information needs to be given. what we need to happen now is for the police to go in pursuit of the truth. if people have been paying

police officers, the police officers need to be prosecuted. it is as simple as that. >> after hearing the evidence, can i warmly welcome what they said today about the attention they would give? it includes a wide variety. is he aware that the evidence will take a considerable rate of time for all of those victims to be informed of? of their cases are now properly investigated. >> that is a good point. you have the current rate of progress. ticket take too long to get this done. i know there will be conversations to make sure adequate resources are put it

there. they make sure that they get to the bottom of that. >> i will welcome the position to widen this not just to the press but too broad for dick to broadcasters. can i ensure that it will include other accounts? in the interest of the victims, there is the extent of their relationship. >> i have been totally transparent. on the issue of what the terms of reference mentioned, of course this can look at all the information crimes that have been documented.

if you mentioned some of but not others you're given additional priority. he can go with the evidence leads. >> after the extraordinary events of the last few days, at the last thing the general public wants to see is cheap partisanship. >> the focus on coulson comes ill. >> i think she makes a big point. i think she showed commendable clout.

>> in the course of the past the minutes, the prime minister has been asked a simple question twice and refuse to answer its. as prime minister, did he ever discuss the question of the bid with news international? >> i never had one inappropriate conversation. let me be clear. i completely took myself out of any decision making about to this bid. i had no role in it. with the honorable gentleman makes signals like that, i have to say. >> the house needs to come down. the question was properly heard.

>> i've answered the question. unlike the party he has been supporting, this set out on his contacts and meetings. >> judging the mood of the chamber, this might be an unpopular thing to say. i get the impression that they have had their fill on this subject. they want answers about the relationship between the press and the media. this is where the answers come. she is placed on hold. there other matters.

>> we said that the biggest possible inquiry that was double held under the 13 years of the government. we have to find the answers to all of the questions. it looks at the police. it looks at media. it looks at the concept of politicians. it is able to ask all of these questions. we should be able to get on fairly. >> its seems to have shifted. they still have not fully revealed few knew what and when. rupert murdoch said the exact same situation was unsoldereand flattered. >> he said to tell it to the truth. >> does the prime

minister agree with me that they ignored the ipo warnings and having failed the victims in 2009, they missed evidence in their own position and that we should not fail them now by simply giving blame? what we need is real reform. >> you're absolutely right. it can go back over the warnings. we should use this information. it is a chance to get regulation rights. >> this is about confidence. >> does the prime minister really feel that the prime minister should inspire confidence?

doesn't he realize how he has acted in the last few years? >> yes. which government has set up a judicial inquiry? which has made sure there is a full investigation? which government is being totally transparent about his contacts with the media? that is what this government has done. he had all these opportunities and failed to do it. >> in the past when it has been faced with big issues, they have a tendency for knee-jerk overreaction. would you agree that they have

good in this country? they want criminality weeded out of the media. there is the free speech. >> i think he is entirely right about this. there is a debate to show an element of restraint in the media. there's always a danger that the pendulum swings too far the other way. we start to question a strong and independent media. when we uncover some scandals, it has been the press that has done it and not the regulators. it is vital we remain here. >> rebekah brooks described the prime minister as a friend. we heard about conversations.

>> this is the mother of parliaments where we have free speech. this question will be heard. >> given the review, it does the prime minister believe that such informality was consistent with what was expected? one of the things that came out of the evidence is that whereas rebekah brooks was indicted six times a year, she has not been invited to no. 10 by me. i have set out the great contrast. i have set out all the meetings in complete contrast to the party opposite.

and never held a slumber party. >> thank you. >> it is political order. >> the house wants to hear this. >> i will start again. >> this has been undermined. if camby traced to the dismal example of politicians in the mid-1990s. how can we change that culture, address the abysmal failure and is sure that never again will we allow this to be sacrificed?

transparency is probably the best answer. the best way of making sure relationships are appropriate is for everyone to see how often we meet. >> the prime minister has repeatedly emphasized that he has no evidence of any complaints are questions about the concept of coulson. will the prime minister confirm that a year ago when he was the director of communications that the secretary was alerted to evidence of illegal phone hacking a media briefing directed against a senior official in the government service tax what was taken to investigate?

>> active a closely. where he did work there, as have this communication, there is no complaint about the way he did his job. i take responsibility for employing him. i take responsibility for that decision. i lay out what i have thought of that. in my defense is the time be spent. he did not behave in a way that anyone thought was inappropriate. the decision was to employ him. the thought this was a misjudgment.

>> many others have been in touch. >> the honorable lady is right. they want is to get on with the other issues. we need the economy to grow. they want to see reforms. they want is to keep us in perspective. >> the prime minister is absolutely right. he was to get to the bottom of the issues. all the parties are consulted. >> we take very seriously about

the increase. >> we did consult the administration. >> they clashed with points made by other facilities. we will see a covers all of the ground. >> have you ensured there are no alternatives at the bbc? >> we come onto the issue of plurality and the power of media owners when we discuss this. it is important not to leave the

bbc out of that entirely. it is a huge part of the media. you want to make sure that no media group is to powerful. >> i thank you for telling us that he will answer all questions. but to go back to the article in the new york times. he told us that no information could make him change his mind. could he tell us who brought it to his attention? who did he discuss it with? >> this article was discussed and debated in a written about. let me be clear. this is important. all the way through the employment, there were questions about his resignation.

i gave myself a very simple test. if anyone knew about packing, i would have fired him. if i knew that he had known about it, and would not have hired him in the first place. i tried to be extremely clear about this. their responsibility is mine. he does not work at no. 10 any more. the only person has been stuck there. >> thank you. >> in the conversations he had, the questions of the takeover was mentioned? >> the point i am trying to make is this. i had no responsibility for the takeover.

i specifically asked to be taken out of any of the decision making and in the have the information because i did not want to put myself in any compromising position. i was very clear about that. i did not know any of the key announcements are being made. that is why rebekah brooks was able to say that there was not a simple conversation that could not have taken place in front of the committee. some people were hoping for some great allegation yesterday that could add to their conspiracy theories. i am disappointed for them that they did not get one. >> as police minister, my experience was that they did not give you any operational information, but they did tell you things that you needed to know. senior police officers would understand that perfectly. does he really want to be kept in the dark?

was he angry? as the minister, i would be limited if officials were keeping information from me. did the prime minister want to be kept and the dark? >> of course, i have very regular meetings with senior leaders of the metropolitan police service. the key issue about my chief of staff's e-mail is that sense reading it, the head of the home affairs committee has done that was the right of judgment. the offer was quite rightly rejected. >> this house, the media, and the whole country have been focused on this issue. is the prime minister aware that aid agencies are reporting the

lack of public awareness of the humanitarian crisis in somalia not? can you convince me that you will spend time looking at those issues? >> the message is extremely serious. whatever her feeling about this, this can not mutate and a general exchange. >> i thought it was ingenious to get back porch into order. she is making a very important point. it was one of the reasons why i did not want to cancel my visit to africa. it is important that we get on with doing things that britain should be doing in the world. whether that is trading with countries like nigeria or leading the aid effort in the horn of africa and were we had been told is not the catastrophe, it is also a famine.

>> mr. speaker, yesterday' rupet murdoch was asked about his secret meetings with the prime minister and his government. he replied, i wish they would leave me alone. >> one of the outcomes is that there will be a lot more of leave everybody alone. >> in the investigation, the information commissioner found 861 personnel information transactions which were possibly identified as coming from 89 newspaper did analyst. can the prime minister confirm that the inquiry that he has announced will be able to look into the on law practice is going on at mirror group

newspapers? >> i think the gentleman makes an important point. what we should not believe automatically that these practices were spread right across the media, it would be naive to think they were restricted to one newspaper or one newspaper group. when you look at evidence, it is clear that they went wider. this investigation must go where the evidence leads. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the avoidance of any doubt, upon the prime minister state whether this does extend to scotland to? does include the issues such as policing that have involved in -- involved in scotland? has the security -- about his

contacts with his international? >> it does end -- it does extend it to scotland. we were able to accept a number of points. there was one specific point that the scottish administration wanted dealt with. it concerned the information -- information commissioners' report. it will be dealt with by the inquiry cut it is such an important part of the work. when it comes to the relationship between politicians and media, this inquiry will be able to go where the evidence leads. >> there were allegations between -- against some offices and the metropolitan police. >> police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. we have to get to the bottom of

what went wrong, we should not allow that to undermine the public confidence that people have and the fantastic job they do. >> the prime minister said he was given credible information regarding andy coulson, he would have done something about it. when you receive that letter in october, what did he do? >> a lot the information that came out while he was working at downing street comment that was a private conversation about what this new evidence that he knew about some hacking. if he does, he would have to go. ap did not, he would not. in the end, because there were so many allegations and because he would not able to get on with this job, he left. the second chance that i gave them did not work.

. isn't -- the decision to appoint him was mine. the contact that he had is not something that is under question. i think it would be better if we spend our time time to curl up -- to clear of the illegality that took place. >> there must be a widespread agreement that it is imperative that the police and the media at start to clear up their own mess. it is time that police officers stopped divulging details and the press stop printing those details and engaging in a feeding frenzy that destroys somebody's reputation, even though they have not been arrested. >> per work as a lawyer and in broadcasting. one of the things that the fact

that elizabeth is going to work for the metropolitan police to work out a better code of ethics. in relation to the media and the steps that they take. it has opened up a whole conversation that this country has put off parts along. >> -- for far too long. but he said that he had not had any inappropriate discussions with news international executives. which discussions did he have with the execs that he deemed were appropriate? >> all of these meetings are now published. he can look at the internet to see every single meeting that i had. he might ask his good friends why he does not do the same thing. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister was right to

recall parliament and is also right to be concentrating on the immediate questions being passed. will he ensure that the government commence to ensuring that this does not happen again? part of this involves looking at the company's 2006. it seems absurd that we had a crime of corporate manslaughter. >> i think we can talk about this in the debate. but there are some lessons to be learned about policy and i am sure that we will be debating those. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in the evidence yesterday, rebekah brooks stated that it was the chancellor's idea. is she right or is she trying to protect her friend the prime minister? >> the decision was mine.

the buck stops here with the prime minister. i have defended the decision. >> is there not a real danger that this gamble will follow others? bad behavior, moral outrage, additional inquiries, more state regulation under the guise of the independent regulation. will you commit yourself to the values of liberty and freedom? >> on the panel, i was very concerned to make sure that you have people really understand how television works, how newspapers work, antel regulation works. the fact that george johns is going to be on that panel of experts will help them do their work. >> i ask the prime minister

whether andy coulson had been to the proper procedure. instead of answering, he referred to me to the rules of conduct. will he now answer the question? >> he had a basic level of vetting. he was not able to see the most secret document of the government. it was all done in the proper way. he was subject to the code of conduct. he obeid that code of conduct -- d.o. beta code of conduct. >> -- he obeyed that code of conduct. >> there has been a lot of talk of freedom, but that freedom has to be under the law.

>> of course, i give that assurance. if you look at some of the great investigative stories in the past, sometimes there has been a public interest defense. that is one of the reasons we are asking this. today that difficult work. >> another opportunity to say on what occasion and with from and where during the time he became prime minister -- [inaudible] >> the discussion i had was to make sure i was not involved in this decision. i did not know about the timing of many key announcements. that was the sensible thing to do. >> he said that he wanted to

hold an inquiry into phone hacking and journalistic practices. he said that the civil servants have stopped him from doing so. can the prime minister tell me if he inherited any plans from the former government on this inquiry? >> all i can say is that the idea the former prime minister had was never raised with the official opposition. one of the things i saw in the press is one of his former colleagues saying he thought it was a proposal that gordon brown made to himself. [laughter] >> order. >> it meant that andy coulson either was guilty of being

accomplices and the corrupt counter or that he presided over pure evil. what were the warnings given by the deputy prime minister not to appoint andy coulson and why did he ignore those warnings? >> i have to say to the honorable dent demand, we do still have in this country the idea that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. i hired him on the basis of assurances that he gave me that he did not know about hacking. after he resigned, at the very first person to wish him well was care? gordon brown. >> rebekah brooks spoke about the number of times that she had visited 10.

>> the point i would make is that we all have to be open about the fact that both the front benches spent a lot of time according rupert murdoch and according news international, everybody has done it. we all have to admit that this sort of relationship needs to be changed and put on a more healthy basis. we are prepared to admit this. the clock has stopped on my watch. i determined to sort it out. you had him falsifying documents in government.

>> order. let me remind the house that i have not been hiring people at all. >> mr. speaker. >> order. the house will listen. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on july 8, but, ministers said that he commissioned a company to do a basic background check on andy coulson. for the fourth time, i am asking for the name of the company. >> we did hire a company to do a basic background check. that is an appropriate thing to do. i have to say that the reason i hired him and that was above all

the assurances that he gave me. that is the key part of the decision. >> mr. speaker, we will get to the bottom of these very serious issues. do not be overly distracted by this over the next few months. focus on things that my constituency is concerned about, the economy, and the contagion in europe. >> my old friend is entirely right. we have to sort this issue out. all things this government has taken action on. we do want to get on to the other issues about which are consistent care so much. >> will be put on hold its plans to meet with its elected

commissioners? >> i am afraid i do not agree. one of the things this episode shows is that our police service needs reform. the idea of greater accountability is then having to account to someone you can stand for local people is apparently a good idea. >> the whole affair a select committee was told evidence about serious failings -- the whole affair a select committee was told about evident about serious failings. we were told that it happened all of the time. will the prime minister ensure that we looked at this mass of a lump of corporate failures in

the metropolitan police -- at this massive s failure of corporate and the metropolitan police? >> we will be looking at the specific issue even before the inquiry gets underway. >> is the prime minister concerned about what the prime minister -- about the metropolitan police have told the ministry? shortly after he resigned from downing street. is he not just guilty of bad judgment? >> the metropolitan police made that very clear it to the select committee. the police should pursue this without fear or favor. they should go where the evidence leads. they should arrest anywhere -- anyone they choose. they could not have more support on the government. >> [unintelligible] >> i want to hear the honorable

lady. >> i agree, mr. speaker. today, people will note about the moon landing. many i urge the prime minister bets rather than listening to the conspiracy, he focused on the facts. >> i consider the development of a beautiful relationship there just for a moment. i do not ruled out my children having a slumber party as if that is acceptable to the honorable lady. >> in the last year, has he been

briefed about the phone hacking and surveillance of the senior public servant? has he had that briefing? will intelligence services be requested to give evidence to the inquiry? >> we do not discuss intelligence issues in this house. if he has something to come and talk to me about, he will obsolete come to me. -- he will absolutely come to me. >> can you confirm that it was watered down under the 2003 communications act? >> he makes a very in point and point. -- a very important point. there was a progressive of media ownership delivered to the last government and they should do well to remember that.

>> can the prime minister confirm, and did he see that letter? what did he do about that? if you did not see the letter, can you go back to downing street? >> i have shown all letters. what did he receive any advice from the editors of the guardian about the hiring by the leader of the opposition? >> i have received quite a number of representing to -- representatives representations'. >> i welcome the fact that he was able to say that no inappropriate conversations took

place between. county tell us that note appropriate conversations took place also? >> all of my conversations are appropriate. >> is the prime minister aware that under the 2005 inquiries act, contrary to the evidence given by his predecessor, it is under the terms of the act for a minister to call for an inquiry, not the cabinet secretary. >> i believe that my honorable friend is right. in the end, ministers have to make these decisions. i do not think it is noble to hide behind them. >> in this statement, the prime minister told us that wallace was not employed by the

conservative party. it has transpired that he has been advising andy coulson. highest the prime minister made any inquiries about that nature of the advice? but it wasn't -- he was not contracted by and he was not paid by, but he did offer some informal advice. we will be equally transparent we get to the bottom of this. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents feel that relationships between news international and politicians have been too close for many years. they are shocked by the association. county prime minister show as -- i congratulate him on setting up the independent review. will it include guidance on preserving the freedom of the press?

>> i can reassure about that. the terms of direct -- be referred to the importance of a free press. when you think about having people like george jones, i think it is a good mixture of experts to help advise the to make sure that we get the balance right. a free and a vibrant press, yes. >> mr. speaker, at two years ago in this house, i made this point. given his dubious reputation, none of us can feel comfortable while this man is allowed to walk to the corridor. his pass was not taken away from him. he was able to wander freely around this place. would you like to tell us

whether he has any other dodgy character is that we should be aware of? >> i choose to judge people by the conduct of the work they do for me. i would put his conduct at number 10 downing street against the concept of the bride and campbell and all the rest of them. >> order. i would like to accommodate many more colleagues on this important subject. in order for me to do so, i require your brevity. [laughter] >> the prime minister has referred several times to the future of regulation of the media, not just the press.

in the terms that we have been told about, the increase should look not just at the press, but other organizations if there is any evidence the eight -- did they have been involved in criminal activities. does this preclude what the chairman have called for it? an extension of the terms of reference to deal with regulation of all the media and not the press allowed? >> the change in the terms as a direct response to the chairman because you wanted to listen to their views and said that broadcasters and other social media could be included if there was evidence of wrongdoing. we're not trying to have an inquiry that is so wide that it cannot make progress on these issues. we have listened to what you said and have responded very positively. >> will the prime minister now

published and e-mails between andy coulson and the home office? be>> i am looking at being as transparent as the county. we just have the freedom of information act or you can make requests. we are pushing out a huge amount of evidence. >> the prime minister has published the names of people who have stayed overnight and include rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks. given what he said about the government getting too close to the media, we were was it -- we were wondering whether those visits were stopped.

as long as she does not insist on a slumber party, i think that is a very good idea. >> can i ask the prime minister what the deputy prime minister told him about andy coulson? >> the point that was made by a number of people was whether it was right to do the job tuba andy coulson. this man had resigned from "the news of the world." it happened on his watch. he gave me an assurance that he did not know about the hacking scandal. that is a judgment that i do not hide from, i do not and away from. i am totally accountable for it. some people question that judgment. that is why i did been so clear that this is my decision, a decision that i am responsible

for. today, i had been frank about what it would be like with double vision. i do not believe in politicians running away from the decisions they make. i do not do that. >> the prime minister burk will have very little time to consider my questions from last week. in the financial pressures, and they are asking people, and can he please assure no one found guilty of wrongdoing is able to keep any payout? >> would the hon. lady says makes a lot of sense. i think she should make those comments to the judicial recourse -- to judicial inquiry as well.

>> the prime minister said relationship between politics and the media of meant the important issue of media and the regulation is put on the back burner. why did he think that putting someone in charge of the police force does not mean similarly difficult questions will be avoided in the future? >> the elected police commissioner will want to respond to accountable policing, so there will be action, and as long as there is operational independence, i think that can be a good thing. >> will the prime minister admit that this will cover the obligation, but when news

journalist of the ride -- authorized efforts to access an unlawful bank accounts. >> if there is evidence for illegal activity, the questions have to be answered, and i hope the leader of the opposition will be answering those questions. >> were there any meetings when andy coulson was working for the prime minister? >> i do not have that information. farmers would be to give information that could be -- far worse would be to give information that could be inaccurate. i will get back to you. >> can i ask the prime minister how he sees this able to end the practice of journalists able to pay police officers for a quick

scoop? >> we need to do a number of things. there is a police investigation into corruption. also, there is going to be the work to try to improve ethics and standards, but also, there is going to be the inquiry on the panel so there will be understanding about police work so we can get to the bottom and to deal with this problem. >> the police have often -- obviously been affected by the allegations. will the prime minister look at whether there is a need to establish an independent police force, and will he give a guarantee that the bribery act will not be an effective? >> we do have independent police complaint commission, which is independent of the police. i think there are two questions.

first, i want to make sure of the ability to investigate police, and then we need to make sure we are swift enough to call in and outside police force when there are allegations of wrongdoing so people can see this done affectively. >> last week we heard an impassioned speech from gordon brown. yesterday we heard evidence that he never raised her relationship with rupert murdoch. could they be two separate issues? >> i am afraid i cannot, but the evidence speaks for itself. >> they should refer to their constituents. when the prime minister was leader of the opposition, was phone hacking ever discussed at any of the meetings? >> i have had a range of

meetings with john yates over the years, mostly about terrorism. i do not recall every single conversation i have, and he would be manned to pretend that you do, so all i do know is that the conversations i have had over the last year have been over terrorist issues, and the key point of my chief of staff's e-mail was that he was trying to make sure please do not do anything inappropriate. >> is the process is set in motion, would he agree this is essentially an issue for the police so the hard-working, affective police can get back to doing a job they do fantastically well for all of us? >> i think it is hugely important. there are thousands of police officers doing a great job.

we still have a fine police force in this country, and we back it. >> and the prime minister confirm whether there are any officials in downing street said new -- that knew about this before the general election. the first i was told of this to my knowledge was sunday evening. i was not paid by the conservative party, but as we get to the bottom of this, i will put steps information to the record. there is no conspiracy theory. i think we proved that this afternoon. >> the committee hearings were heavy on entertainment but rather light when it came too hard facts.

they should be hard hitting and look at all the aspects of the hacking scandal, corruption, nepotism, and the relationship between the press, police, and politicians. >> that is the reason for setting up this inquiry, to get to the bottom of this information. to be fair, i think they did make some progress about all the relationships and some of the evidence we have been discussing today. >> with the prime minister confirm it is highly unusual for a senior adviser to not be properly vented, and will he confirm it was his decision not to properly vet, including family and friends about past life and past activities? >> it is not unusual at all. andy coulson was cleared in the

normal way. like former administrations, we set out all numbers. once again, i feel some of us are looking for some sort of secret behind the curtain that is not there. >> when it comes to restoring public confidence, we agree that the steps he has outlined today have made more progress in 13 months than the last? >> my right hon. friend makes an important point, which is that they have plenty of opportunities to shadow chancellor and the shadow leader of the opposition were there all the way through. they could have prompted an inquiry. they could have done something about the information.

they were the slumber party. that is what they are. >> can the prime minister give the house affirmation that andy coulson never had any involvement in to the government's response? >> the point i have made is it is not routine for people in downing street to give operational information about a police investigation. that is the whole thing might chief of staff was rightly trying to prevent. let me take you back to the time when tony blair was minister and -- was prime minister and there was allegations. just imagine if pollees had gotten information about intelligence. it would have been appalling. >> can i say the ipsa with the

inquiry, why does he think following -- can i say that following the inquiry, can i ask why with the journalist said similar inquiries were not established then? >> we have to be afraid. the last government was not on this at all. we should have done more, but they have to take some responsibility for repeatedly ignoring the warnings. i have taken my responsibility. every time i have mentioned it, i have talked about the failure of the opposition, but for once it would be nice to hear a little bit of responsibility from the other party. >> the prime minister has said

that wallace was never employed by the conservative party. can he confirm that they never received any payments from individuals? >> what i have said is the conservative party did not pay them. he did do some formal work with andy coulson. we announced that before the house of commons went down. we wanted to get the information out, and unlike the complete lack of transparency we saw, we will make that available. >> what about the recent remarks about the results of this inquiry that they should impose a balance in the media.

>> we want a free and vigorous press. sometimes it is infuriating that the idea of having equal coverage to every point of view would kill the vibrancy of the press, and i have to say if we have to have equal coverage of every speech, it is going to be a lot harder to read in the morning. >> >> after he resigned, did the prime minister take the opportunity to talk to him about these phone hacking allegations and what his reasons were for resigning? >> he felt he was not able to go on doing his job with all the allegations. he felt nikkei not doing his job. he needed to move on. i have been clear about the

reasons for hiring. you do not have to reveal private guest said you pay for yourself. i have done that, because i want to be transparent about my relationships and my judgment. i am very happy to let people be the judge. >> with my right hon. friend share my frustrations that we have been here for the best part of two hours, and have we heard from the members opposite any recognition of their parts to play? our constituents urgently demands that. >> the opposition came in with a choice. if they could have risen to the level and helped to deal with

this problem and responded to what our constituents care about. instead, they have conspiracy theories, and it has been a complete failure. >> to lead to higher prices? >> what i would say is if you look at the evidence, i respect it, and i think there are very good things. stevenson said very clearly that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were completely different from downing street. responsibility i have for hiring andy coulson, the fact he is not where i would argue is completely different than a police investigation about allegations of police corruption, very serious problems, and all the reasons he

said out yesterday. situations are different. >> the prime minister showed that his office has been paved without propriety, which compares amazingly favorable which the government, and i wonder if the prime minister would agree that it is hugely -- >> you have a good point. this is someone who has served our country. he is a conservative supporter and a friend of mine, but he has done great things for this country, and he is utterly beyond reproach, and his

judgment was proved absolutely right. >> prime minister, can you tell us what specific advice you were given against employing andy coulson? >> i am glad you asked. some people look at him and the fact that he has been a tabloid editor at the news of the world and resigned, some people advised me not to take him on, yet i made the decision based on the assurances he gave me. i could not have been more frank about it. there is only one tabloid editor class. there is a tabloid "mirror" editor sitting in his office, and i would not be surprised if they had questions to ask. >> does the prime minister think

the leader of the opposition should apologize? >> we did finally get an apology. this was somebody who was a special adviser who actually was sitting around casting appalling aspersions against people, and when you compare that with the fact that the conduct of andy coulson who during his time at work no one has complained about, i think it speaks volumes. >> did the prime minister discuss the issue of phone hacking with sean yates? >> i cannot remember every conversation i had with him. i cannot remember how many times i met him. predominantly what i have

discussed is the issue of terrorism. >> would the republicans agree that one issue is the death of david kelly. woody and admit that the investigation would cover horvath unfolds. good >> we have to be careful but this does not go completely viral. it has to focus at the issues at hand. i think this inquiry has to make some progress. good >> i read the prime minister was about to appoint harry but after intervention by rebekah brooks, he changed his mind. is that right? >> she rejected that point

yesterday. he works for my good friend and does a good job. >> i have a question about the conduct of andy coulson. did he ever suggest smearing members of the opposition? >> my hon. friend makes an important point that will be noted. >> would the prime minister agree we do need to move on, because we want to watch the collapse of the euro? would he agree that if we are going to move on, he has to help answer correctly questions?

>> i share the lack of enthusiasm for the euro. we have to recognize that is where 40% of our products go, and we should be cooperative with our european partners to help them solve not a problem. now i do not think i could have given clearer answers. i know that they have looked but have not found a conspiracy theory. >> my colleagues tested witnesses about blindness. as the prime minister agree that those in charge should not get away with a willful blindness? >> there is no defense like that. if there is going to be a chief

who -- a police investigation under way, we will ask exactly who knew what, and after that is over, they will look at that information again, not requiring the prosecution, and it is then that we get the evidence. >> will the prime minister define for us what he regards as an appropriate conversation between him and news international? >> i take -- i think rebekah brooks did it excellently. >> in response to your comments met you were not in power, can i add that you did work wis the editor of "a times." to the substance of my question,

the prime minister is right to say we should get to the bottom of this because people care about it, but people will be affected by what is happening in the eurozone. can the prime minister let us know that the same amount of time and we have dedicated to this -- >> let the right hon. gentleman resume. >> i think he has been extremely brave if i may say so, and six weeks is perhaps long enough to forget what he just said. he is right that we should be focusing on what is happening in the eurozone, and we are holding a series of meetings to make sure we get our response right. >> the point that this scandal

was just a critical, and therefore, it is ok to leave the country at the height of it. >> i did not watch it. i take it is important that the tradition prime minister stands up for business and goes around the world as i have done to china and india and africa, and because there are suggestions you should cancel a trip like that, i think it is talking britain and down, and i think you should be better than that. in 2003, a committee warned about the media. the investigation the prime minister has announced, will we go that far back and related to

understand what the committee region really understand what the committee ignored. >> one thing they are looking at is the relationship between the media and politics. >> if they had known newt information, and would he have gone ahead with the appointment? >> i explain this last week. if i have been told the proper information andy coulson knew about hacking, i would have fired him. >> could i congratulate the prime minister on taking the lead when new evidence came out to establishing an independence inquiry. having gotten that independence, can he say he

will affirm with the economic tsunami democrats one thing we can do is lead the inquiry to answer difficult questions, and we focus on issues around jobs. >> can i ask a question that will help us to be transparent and end conspiracy theory. what was the name of the company? >> the point is we employed a company to do this to work. it is something companies and businesses do all the time, but in the end, the responsibility is mine for of playing him on the basis of the assurances he gave. >> the administration spent more than a 11 million pounds. as about continued?

>> you have seen who the many things we have done to cut waste. >> how many occasions has the prime minister dismissed this since mr. coulson left his employment? >> he came in march. i have not spoken to him in weeks. this was something that was discussed. if i had evidence that he knew about hacking, i would not have employed him. >> the hon. member says he wants to hold a public inquiry. what preparations will happen for this very important issue

of? >> it is a complete mess. the prime minister said he would be transparent when he got to the bottom of this. would that require any documents relating to mr. wallace? >> i want to get to the bottom of the question he asked about what a vice mr. wallace gave to mr. -- what advice mr. wallace gave to mr. coulson. >> the prime minister will require that gordon brown is meeting and now to ensure the continuing monopoly of rupert murdoch --

>> order, order, order. >> can i remind the right hon. member that i have made the play already that references to members should be about constituency? >> would he not agreed that with his statement to the house when he said he had not done anything to further the national interest? >> there is quite a contrast between the speech made last week and the evidence we heard yesterday. >> of the prime minister refuses to tell the name of the company, will you please the documents in the library of this house? >> the responsibility is mine alone. >> like many other members, i have been contacted by local newspapers who have been concerned about new regulation

and increasing pressure on circulation. can you ensure that new regulations will not be heavy- handed? >> we do not want the new regulatory system to punish the innocent. there are things i need to be looked back. -- that need to be looked at. strikes in -- >> in an article id said it -- how can the prime minister say there is no new evidence? >> i discussed these allegations at the time, and there was not a proper foundation for them, and that is for many people who followed this issue. terry is an investigation under way, and if it turned out