those who would endanger the health and safety of the american people, and to hold accountable those who violate the public trust by committee waste, fraud, or abuse. let me be clear. we will not tolerate health care fraud. and in every instance where we uncover it, we will use all of our available tools to help -- to hold those responsible to account. before i turn over the podium to our next speaker, i want to read knowledge our colleagues and partners at a part of health and human services. -- the department of health and human services. the federal bureau of investigation, the federal drug control unit, and of our federal and state partners who have made valuable contributions to this effort. i would also like to thank karman ortiz, the ditch attorney for the state of massachusetts,

who -- the district attorney for the state of massachusetts, who has done an enormous amount to make this effort possible in a longstanding commitment to eradicating health care fraud. i also want to thank john walsh, the district attorney of kalla rudder, and his office, for their significant -- of colorado, and his office, for their significant contributions to this effort. and finally, the civil efforts in advance in this investigation and other important ones like it. it is now my pleasure to introduce to you the deputy secretary of the health and human services. >> thank you, deputy attorney general call for your leadership and your partnership in continuing to fight health care fraud. i also want to abolish the team of people who brought us here today through their tenacious

investigation and expertise on fraud as well as science. the leaders of our team are with us, and the deputy attorney general has mentioned many of them. i also want to of knowledge the hhs inspector general, the deputy commissioner for global regulatory operations and policy, and our deputy director for the office of criminal investigations who is offstage. this is just the latest milestone in a coordinated campaign to stamp out fraud in our health care system. when president obama took office, he asked secretary to the as an attorney general holder and our senior leaders to make prevention a top priority, and we have done so. in early 2009, which created the health care fraud prevention and enforcement team. together, our apartments are fighting a wide range of crimes. including marketing trends for

off label use, underpaid programs, and giving kickbacks to providers for writing -- prescribing one drug over another. when corporations mis-brand a drug, improperly influence doctors, or keep critical safety information from the light of day, they betray people's trust and confidence in the very care and they count on to get well and to stay healthy. practices like these put our public health at risk, increased costs, and undermine our health care system. we have increased enforcement at prosecutions while recoveries have reached record levels. we're protecting tax payer dollars under the false claims act. we're protecting americans' health.

we have begun to put medicare and medicaid on stable footing for the future. for a long time, our system has been a target for cheaters who thought they could make a quick profit. that equation is now rapidly changing. we will be vigilant in stopping these abuses, and this is a testament to collaborations between our departments in the face of this challenge. together we are protecting the taxpayer and our health care system for the future. it is my pleasure to introduce the acting assistant attorney general of the civil division. >> thank you. as the deputy attorney general

mentioned, today's resolution resolve's several major investigations. specifically, the global settlement resolves allegations relating to three major issues. this includes $757 million in criminal fines and forfeitures for misbranding the drugs axle and wellbutrin and to resolve civil allegations regarding the payment of kickbacks kickbacks the second investigation resolved today relates to the diabetes drug of and yet. gsk will pay a fine tooth -- for

failing to report safety did it to the fda. gsk will pay $657 million to resolve allegations it made concerning avandia. the third investigations has to do with the underpayment of medicaid. they will pay $300 billion to resolve civil liability related to these allegations. in a moment, an attorney will describe the conduct regarding our investigations. health care fraud is an epidemic that touches every aspect of our lives. for far too long, we have heard the pharmaceutical industry used

these settlements as the cost of doing business. that is what this administration is using to use every tool to defeat health care fraud. as we did with abbott laboratories, today's resolution seeks not only to punish wrongdoing and recover taxpayer dollars, but to ensure future compliance with bell mall. the corporate integrity agreement which hhs and the inspector general will describe, exemplifies best practices and compliance. but that agreement and the other agreement thegsk to maintain certain compliance policies that the company has put into place recently. in addition, for the next five years, the plea agreement requires gsk report to justice any probable violations of the federal food drug and cosmetic act concerning promotional activities.

u.s. president must personally certified the company must comply with all every year. for every day that one of these reports of certifications is late or one of the policies is not maintained, gsk agrees to pay the government $20,000 in damages. the changes required may not and health care fraud, but they will go a long way to bring about much-needed change in the with the pharmaceutical industry conducts business. because one of many companies already played by the rules, these changes will help level the playing field and a clearer that there areincentives to cut corners and good compliance is also good business. i want to echo the deputy attorney general's, about all the many public servants in boston, colorado, and across the country who contributed to this matter. in particular, i want to recognize the dedicated

attorneys and support staff in the civil division here in washington who are the backbone of all our health care fraud enforcement efforts. it is my pleasure to introduce carmen ortiz. >> thank you. thank you. good morning. it is a real honor and pleasure to be here and join in this historic announcement, and i would like to focus my comments forms's illegal, at that the basis of a significant portion of that criminal plea and a portion of the civil settlement. gsk distributed paxil with

false messages about its safety. this includes ghost writing a journal article that did not report correctly the result of the study. gsk promoted paxil for kids by three studies it had conducted failed to demonstrate that paxil actually worked to treat depression in children. paxil never been approved by the fda for any purpose to treat children or adolescents under 18. ska' also misbrand it wellbutrin by the shooting it for unapproved uses such as weight loss, the treatment of sexual mix function, and substance addictions such as alcohol problems. gsk paid millions of doctors who went on speaking tours in which they promoted wellbutrin. it was a wonder drug for uses

that had not been approved, were found to be safe, and effective. they hired a public relations firm to create a buzz about getting skinny and how you could have more sex by using this drug. in promoting advantek, gsk fell to report data about the drug. the data that they failed to report is important because the fda uses it to determine if a drug continues to be safe for its patients. the missing information included data about two studies done in response to european regulator'' assertions about the safety of a band yeah. since 2007, the fda has added two warnings to the label about the potential increased risk of congestive heart failure and possibly heart attacks using up

and dieppe. this settlement pays $600 million to assault allegations ir forts promoted adva whom it was not approved. the government alleges gsk marketed the drug as superior for that use in certain mild asthma patients based on a study that the fda had explicitly rejected. in marketing these drugs, gsk bribed physicians to prescribe products using every form of high-priced entertainment come from halloween vacations the pain doctors millions of doctors -- dollars to go on speaking tours to tickets for madonna concert spirit this is to name a few. these allegations are detailed

in the papers filed and unsealed today appeared in those documents, you will find many examples of gsk's misconduct, including a dvd showing senior executives in las vegas during a launch for advair who were motivating the sales force by asking who wants to be a millionaire? also using a slot machine to illustrate how much money they could make in commissions. the more they sold, the more they could make and the more gsk would make. ultimately, this case is not about punishment for past conduct, but reforming a country and end -- company and an industry to conserve health care dollars and ensure better information and care for patients today and in the future. the hard work in this case cannot be understated. i want to congratulate the entire trial team, tasting,

including my staff, especially, for assisting u.s. attorneys, investigators, as well as my colleagues from colorado and a terrific staff there in that case, and of course, the department of justice's civil division for their outstanding work and effort in support, and i am proud to be a member of this team, and i thank you for your attention. i would like to now to introduce inspector general dan levinson. thank you. >> thank you, good morning. patients rely on fda rules designed to ensure drugs are safe and effected. these rules must be followed so patients' best interests drive medical decisions. paxil is aanding of

stark example of the importance of these rules. this unlawful promotion for children -- put children at risk for taking drugs that were proven to be ineffective for them had been shown to increase the risk of suicide. in addition, millions of elderly, media, and disabled americans rely on medicare and medicaid to help pay for their prescription drugs. it is imperative that the funding for these vital programs be used to provide needed care to patients. this investigation and today's resolution helps achieve both goals. this unprecedented three but in dollar resolution and a guilty plea cents an important message -- we will not stand by while drug marketing and safety rules are violated, kickbacks are paid, or medicaid is cheated out of rebates to which taxpayers are entitled.

moving forward, we need to ensure that glaxosmithkline client gets it right. so that inappropriate gains are not born on the backs of taxpayers and vulnerable patients and so that doctors have accurate information about drugs to patients for the right medical reasons. to that end, oig enters a and agreement with glaxosmithkline. this agreement includes provisions that will foster individual accountability by the country -- but the company and its board and increase transparency about research and its relationship with physicians. notably, the agreement addresses financial incentives for sales representatives, managers, and key executives. sales purposes are being paid based on the quality of service that of a lark to customers, not on sales targets. in addition, the company made recoup performance bonuses from

the executive they engaged in significant misconduct. the goal is to great incentives for sales representatives and executives to do the right thing. oig is committed to our mission for protecting health care programs at overseeing the rules in place. i commend oig's special agents and attorneys for carrying through on our commitment. i extend my thanks to our partners in the department of justice and united states attorney's offices, both in massachusetts and colorado. our colleagues at the fda, and many agencies who worked together to protect our nation's patients and our federal health- care programs. thank you. mr. deputy attorney general. >> thanks very much. we're ready to take questions you might have.

>> what are the consequences for doctors who are accepting kickbacks and bribes? >> we are here to comment on this one case. we're not here to comment on any other matters that may be being looked into. >> other aspects of this case -- in addition to the financial penalties, isn't there some deterrents in finding individual executives, and putting them in jail? is there any criminal sanction here that could lead to any jail time for anyone down the line? >> again, we're not going to talk about other cases that may or may not be undergoing a. we cannot talk about investigations or whether or not investigations occur.

as a general proposition, there is a deterrent effect from prosecuting individuals as well as corporations. >> can you estimate how much the company profited over the years from this off labeling? >> did not have a firm number on that. it covers a number of years. there would be a lot of accounting. >> these types of sediments are essentially in the phrase of the cost of doing business. do you have a response to that that they can still make a profit and factor this into the profits? >> over a long period of time, this is hitting them right here this year. this has a big effect on this year's profits. it has a big impact on the company. $3 billion is a big financial impact in a single year. >> i think to supplement, it is

important to focus on the integrity agreement, the way in which the road map is being changed, the way in which the incentives are being built in the future business arrangements. the possibility now of recouping or clawing back inappropriate compensation through a federal sanctions mandated -- mandated corporate process. the opportunity to and transparency now and for the feature is an extremely important part of the global settlement here. >> in the presser, the conduct took place from 1998 until 2003 for paxil. did any conduct go on past 2007

for these drugs? if he could -- if you could follow up on terry's questions. >> we did not comment on whether or not investigations are ongoing. cannot answer that. as far as how long is took, stuart? >> will find the details in the papers, but some of the conduct went as late as 2010 with respect at fair, and the rebate issue covered a large span of time as well. >> i heard that some of the misconduct had been evaluated within the company, and get the company did not do anything about it. is that the case? are you confident that the integrity has been met and the financial sanctions will be enough to send a message? >> i think it is going to be a

deterrent effect and they will abide by it. the concept of overlapping medications, different prescription drugs, given the given criminal penalties, the civil fines as well, and the fact that now people have signed off, the board and the president, they know they are on watch because they cannot allow this kind of conduct to happen and not be held accountable for its in some format or another. the cannot say -- contact happens under their watch they will be accountable for and that is what they are signing off on in this deal. >> do you have an estimation of how many people were affected? >> no. >> the role of whistle-blowers,

any compensation that they may receive? >> as a matter still subject to litigation. >> is the largest settlement of its type. i am curious, how would you describe the extensive nature of the contract? >> the i.g. has seen it more of it that anybody. >> suspect rebate issues as well as the off label marketing problems. this is one of the very big cases, and we have focused on this case at multiple levels, of which is why i emphasized the importance of the integrity agreement which is on our website, and might be on the justice department website, that runs over 100 pages in lake and

provides a very important detail in creating what i think is a very new significant road map toward greater accountability and transparency in these areas. >> can you give us a general sense of what would or not be found in those documents? what is the justice department doing to get ready for that fight? >> the first thing you need to realize is the documents at issue are not the documents concerning the actual fast and furious investigation. all of those other than sensitive law enforcement documents were turned over. these are documents that occurred well after the fact. they concern internal communications in the justice department about how we would be responding to the congressional questions, and that is all. these are things we offered in an accommodation to try to give

to congress in return for just having a satisfied -- in terms of just having satisfied this is peanuts. as far as what will happen, it is up to the house to initiate it. we will see what they do. >> are you preparing for a scenario? >> can you talk about a criminal or civil settlement? >> northeast sediment or discussion of whether or not there is a discussion of settlement is not something i can go into. >> [unintelligible] wondering what the department [unintelligible] is there any indication that the wild fires may have been started as a crime? >> we are working with law enforcement agencies to determine whether there is in the intentional document

involvement in these fires, but i cannot comment on whether those investigations -- it is at the top of our to do list. >> thank you, everybody. >> tonight, leon panetta discusses a new national security strategy that emphasizes working together with other nations. >> we continue to see the destabilizing behavior of nations like iran and north korea, the rise of new powers across asia, and the dramatic changes that we have seen unfold across the middle east and north africa. these challenges, coupled with

the new fiscal reality, let us to reshape our prairies with a new defense strategy for the 21st century. it is a strategy that places a greater emphasis on building the capabilities of others to help meet the security challenges of the future. and to sustain a peaceful and cooperative international order. >> you can see the full remarks at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> sopa and pipa are dead. that is pretty clear, that the effort that was undertaken there ran into a lot of controversy, this communication, and so i think

those bills are not coming back again this year or any year, for that matter. >> rob goodlatte on prospects for anti-piracy legislation in the next congress, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> we are featuring american history tv in primetime pick tonight a look at the legacy of watergate on the 40th anniversary. starting at 8:00 eastern, a tour of the watergate exist that exhibit at the nixon presidential library. after that, an interview with officials and reporters who first broke the story. >> this we can add to the state

capital named in honor of thomas jefferson, saturday at noon eastern. jean carnahan on family life .nside the governor's mansion the stories behind eight miniature clay tablets from babylonia. >> 1967, this is called the bloodiest 47 acres in america. >> a former warden takes you through the former missouri state penitentiary. local content vehicles export history of cities across america. this we can come from jefferson city, saturday at noon and sunday at 5:00 eastern on c-

span2 and c-span3. >> national organization for women president terry o'neill spoke at the closing session of her group's annual meeting. she talked about the efforts of now and challenging legislation that would restrict women's rights. this is 20 minutes. ve a lot of thank-yous to deliver today. i want to thank everyone for coming to this conference. this could not be a more important time for women's rights activists to come together. we are at a watershed moment, i think, in the history of this country, and i am grateful to every single one of you for being here to think through and work through what is we're going to do to stop this war on women.

i want to thank my vice- president and erin and others. erin -- they are probably putting out fires as we speak. for your tireless work to move the organization forward, to move the movement forward, and not just to defend against the attacks coming at us, and they are coming at us fast and hard, but also to find a way for a corrective women's rights agenda that we can go forward with. i want to thank all of the board members of the national organization for women --

[reads nmaes] -- [reads names] and it is a long list. i cannot tell you how grateful i am. [applause] advisory thank now's committee led by dr. janet canterbury, ambassador carol moseley braun, patricia ireland,

and eleanor smeal. the advisory committee has been great this year. the modern position of the structure project, which is important -- we must move this organization into the 21st century to seize the opportunities provided for us, which are different from those faced us in the 20th century, and also to fight the threats we face in the 21st century, which are going to be very different from what we saw in the 20th-century. the key to the advisory committee for all your real energy and work on that issue. yesterday and to date we have heard from some absolutely remarkable women. some of them have spent the past two decades or three, sometimes for decades come at the forefront of the struggle for equality. some of the women we have seen are in their 20's and just now

embarking on their own journey, demanded and achieving freedom and justice for all women and girls. the one thing that all of these women and all of the people in this room, all the women in this room, all women in the country, really come across all our differences of age and race and sexual orientation, ability, economic status, immigrant status, the thing that all of us have in common is that today we are facing an unprecedented war on women. we know what that war is all about, and i will not go into detail. we have learned all about the details of this war. it is a war on reproductive rights, economic security, our personal safety. what i want to talk about is what we're going to do about it. we know that wars are won by the

right combination of a good offense as well as a good defense. i will tell you over the past 12 to 18 months, we have played defense, and we have had some remarkable successes. last year when conservatives tried to cut social security benefits under the guise of blowing the deficit, now its allies worked tirelessly sometimes feverishly to make the case that social security has nothing to do with that deficit. it has nothing to do with the federal budget, and although social security needs to be improved, the budget cannot be balanced on the backs of the millions of women who rely on social security, often as their only source of income in their retirement years. [applause] what was remarkable, against

huge odds and obstacles, we stopped cuts to social security last year. having scored that victory, we are being proactive, developing a campaign in partnership with the national committee to preserve social security and medicare and the institute for women's policy research to improve social security benefits for women. for example, so security needs to begin providing a caregiver credit. [applause] women who stay home to care for their children or their elderly or ill relatives do not have to face a kirch -- social security benefits as a result. we want to ensure st-6 spouses and the vested partners are treated exactly the same as heterosexual spouses under social security.

we need to increase basic minimum benefit under social security for those who have worked a lifetime, a particularly low wages, disproportionately women and women of color. we need to increase those benefits. [applause] in other words we cannot simply be satisfied with the success we had on defense last year, preventing them from cutting social security. we're calling on the offense for the future, going to improve social security for all women, and we're going to do its starting now. [applause] we have had other successes playing defense. when mississippi proposed a person hooded men that ballot measure, which would have amended the state constitution to provide that a fertilized egg

is a human being -criminal- icing all abortions, criminalizing some of the most popular forms of contraception, outlawing probably stem cell research and in vitro fertilization and other reproductive technologies, when that threat arose, now and its allies dropped mississippi and excluding the grass-roots network throughout mississippi mobilized. in just about every county in the state we were mobilizing. we defeated that amendment by a vote of nearly 2-1 in the end. [applause] we did it again in north dakota, where we defeated a ballot initiative that would have changed the constitution in north dakota to provide so- called religious freedom. it would have allowed anyone to

take any action or to refuse to take any action based on their religious freedom. think what that means a tree is actually aimed at employers being able to not provide birth control to their employees, but it was phrased so broadly it could mean just about anything to anyone. we defeated that won by a vote of 64% to 35%. it was remarkable. it was north dakota. [applause] sometimes playing defense can be fun. last year about six feminist state legislators filed lost to restrict access to reproductive services for men. for example, one of these laws would require prior to receiving a per share for erectile dysfunction medication, like viagra, that a man would have to undergo a digital rectal exam.

[laughter] and a heart stress test, because we care about his health and we cannot let him that that heart attack, and it would have required and after that -- an affidavit from his central partner that, yes, indeed, they need that medication. also before he should have a 24- hour waiting period before getting that restriction and taking the medication during which time he would have to undergo at least one counseling session in which he would consider the benefits of a celibate lifestyle. we are -- funny.

we have had a good defense, and we had a remarkable good year considering what we were facing last year. on defense, we stopped some of the worst excesses of the right wing extremists who flooded into office, at the state and federal level after the disastrous elections of 2010. now we have to take a good offense. we must mobilize to throw these extremists out of office and replaced them with feminists who will stand up for women's rights. [applause] we know we can do this. i have three reasons to tell you why we are right to do this. we have some great candidates. we have ms. bald when running from the senate from wisconsin.

-- balwin from wisconsin running for the senate. we have elizabeth warren he stood up to the bullies on wall street. she will be standing up to those police every day for us in the senate. we have lois frankel, who founded 8 now chapter in florida who will be there for us every step of the way. we have tammy duckworth in illinois who will be with us every day fighting for our rights and, yes, we are going to re-elect president barack obama. [cheers] this is something that is not well known. i learned this at the now conference. for the first time there are so many women running for the u.s.

house of representatives that it is entirely possible that women may make up a majority of the freshman class of the 113th congress. we can win this thing. the second reason i know we can wind is women all over the country are mobilizing like they have not mobilized in a very long time. remember when the state of virginia. house of delegates wanted to pass the mandatory ultrasound law that effectively require a woman to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound probe before she could have an abortion. the new definition of rape is

penetration, however slight, without consent. penetration without consent. that is exactly what that ultrasound bill required. it was state sanction to rape. the thing that was amazing, people noticed. all run the country, it was on cnn, msnbc, it was in the newspapers, and people started saying, what in the world is going on in virginia? not only does this get visibility, but one day, thanks to the extraordinary organizing of women, not only women in now, but throughout the women's movement in virginia, the day that the legislators were going to go to the house of delegates and vote, 1500 women lined the sidewalks and formed a conflict that the legislators had to walk past, standing arm in arm,

silent, in a silent vigil watching them walk through. that is a mobilization that was practically overnight. this was fuelled by social me the at and by passion, and outrage at these exchange lists who are overreaching like i have never seen it at any time in my life. another mobilization that we did, when lisa brown stood on the floor of the house of representatives in michigan, objecting to yet another anti- reproductive rights bill, and at the end of her remarks, she said, mr. speaker, i am glad everybody is so interested in my vagina, but no means no. lisa brown was censured by the speaker of the house, told that

her burbage was inappropriate, that the use of the word " regina" was a bad thing to do on the floor of the house of representatives of michigan. it was not two weeks later 5000 people showed up, 5000 women showed up on the steps of been capitol to say "vagina!" another explained to ledges where there's -- to legislators that if you cannot say yet, you have no business regulating it. women are paying attention. the gender gap is large and growing larger every week, and is getting larger, because the mask has been ripped away from the extremists, and women are seeing in all of its raw

ugliness their real agenda that right-wing of extremists have in store for us. the mask has been ripped away. women and men are horrified and people are mobilizing. the third reason i know we can win this fight is because we're all going to have each other's backs. [applause] right across differences of age, race, economic status, sexual orientation, we will be there for one another. we will not leave our sisters behind. when will not allow the dark forces to divide us against each other. let me give you an example of how this effort is being made to the five women against each

other, and that is the shenanigans going on on the violence against women act. the senate passed the reauthorization that we supported. it was not perfect, it was a compromise, a consolidated programs and order to save money. one thing that the senate bill did and one of the main reasons we supported it is expanded services to underserved populations. it identified underserved populations. lbgt survivors that reported they cannot access -- they can access services at 8% as compared with up to 30% in the heterosexual committee saying they cannot access services. the inability to get the services is a demonstration of how the violence against women act has never been adequately

funded. that disparity is jock dropping and wrong and the senate version addresses that disparity, and that is one of the reasons we supported it. women on tribal lands, where sexual assault and domestic violence are rabbit because tribal authorities did not have jurisdiction over non-tribal members who commit crimes of violence on tribal lands. the senate version of the reauthorization addresses this problem, and that is another reason we supported it. women of color who need and deserve culturally specific services that take into account the realities of their communities and their resources and families -- they need those provisions and they are in the senate version of the act, and that is another reason we supported it. [applause] immigrant women, who, if their abuser is there immigration

sponsor, they need to be able to continue their immigration process and pushed the paper work through without relying on that abuse of sponsor. they need to be able to access permissions to stay in this country while they make that concession. they need to self-petition coming is what is called, so they can push forward their paper work out reliant on the sponsor. they need new the says -- visas. this will allow them to cooperate with authorities to hold the perpetrator accountable for his crime of violence. immigrant women need these things, and that is in the senate bill, and that is why we are supporting it peak. -- it. --men on college campuses

those provisions are in the senate bill, and we intend to keep them there. right now as i speak, republican leaders john boehner and mitch mcconnell are doing everything they can prevent us from achieving an inclusive -- want to turn their backs on these inconvenient victims, who they say do not deserve services. we will not let our sisters down. we will fight side by side with our sisters, all of us come across all our differences. we will be there for one of the other, and because of that, we will not fail. we will stop this war on women. thank you, all, very much. they give for coming. let's get to work!

>> tonight, leon panetta discusses a new national security strategy that emphasizes working together with other nations. >> would continue to see the destabilizing behavior of nations like iran and north korea, the rise of new powers across asia, the dramatic changes that we have seen unfold across the middle east and north africa. these challenges, coupled with the new fiscal reality, led us to reshape our priorities with a new defense strategy for the 21st century. it is a strategy that places a greater emphasis on building the capabilities of others to help

meet the security challenges of the future. and to sustain a peaceful and cooperative international order. >> you can see the full marks at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> sopa and pipa are dead. that is pretty clear that the effort that was undertaken there ran into a lot of controversy, this communication, and so i think those bills are not coming back again this year or any year, for that matter. >> bob goodlatte on prospects for anti-piracy legislation in the next congress and other issues, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> congress on its recess, we're

featuring "book tv" in prime time. "the impossible state," "private empire," and a book looking at the nobel peace prize. now david cameron returns to the house of commons after attending last week's summit with european leaders to discuss the debt crisis. years from the 27-member european union agreed on measures to assist struggling economies like spain and italy. this is an hour, 20 minutes.

>> mr. prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the whole house will be deeply saddened by the debt of three british servicemen in afghanistan yesterday's. the perpetrator is in custody and we will do everything to ensure justice is done. this incident demonstrates a real risk our soldiers face every day, and we will learn all the lessons that arise from it. i want to send support to brave troops and their families at this difficult time. britain had three objectives at last week's summit.

first, deal with the immediate crisis. send a clear message about what we expect from the budget negotiations to come. let me deal with each before turning to future policy. britain has been clear in the short term we want urgent action by eurozone countries to defend their currency and deal with the instability. in a longer-term, we recognize the logic of a single currency means the eurozone may need closer integration. britain will not join the euro, we should neither pay for short- term measures or take part in longer-term integration. at this summit there was progress on shorter-term measures. they used -- they agree to use the funds to put your son money directly into struggling banks

and to ensure official loans to spanish banks would not be given preferential treatment. under the last government we could have been liable for support of these members, but this government has repatriated that power. on longer-term issues, members agreed toward closer steps toward closer integration. it is vital for britain and the strength and prosperity of the european union that they do this in the right way, so we secured an agreement unity and the integrity of the single market will be respected. on the proposal of the banking union, britain will not be part of any comment deposit guaranty or under the jurisdiction of the the single european supervisor. british taxpayers will not guarantee any eurozone banks and while we need proper supervision

of our banks, british banks should be supervised by the bank of england. the original draft of the compact included a section on economics and monetary union which implied the banking union might apply all 27 countries, number of countries were to insure that whole section of the compact was removed. the grove program includes commitment to deal with lending, including an increase of funds for the european investment bank, our clear commitments were britain will be one of the prime beneficiaries, and the plan includes dates and times by which these steps should be included. we agreed businesses -- problem will not be solved. britain had two objectives, a

significant part of the court governing pharmaceutical industries would be based in london. i am pleased to say we secured both of those outcomes. this will mean millions of pounds and hundreds of jobs for britain. the budget -- we want a budget that is focused on growth, not a focus on growth in the budget. e q numbers are 3 to $5 trillion's more in debt and when the last e.u . budget must negotiate, and we should face up to that reality. without the british rebate, which would have the largest net contribution and the whole of the union as a share of our national income. without it, it will be double that of france and 1.5 times bigger than germany's. the british rebate is fully justified. on foreign policy, we welcome the oil embargo against iran,

the call for united action by the security council on the assad rgime. here it is changing rapidly and this presents challenges for our country's trade those inside the zone have to face choices about whether to limit democracy and provide a better support to weaker members. like others outside the euro zone, we face three choices as well. as your changes to meet the challenges of the eurozone so our relationship with europe will change as well. i do not agree with that because i do not believe leaving the eu would be best for britain nor do i believe will do to preserve the status quo would be right either. as a vote yesterday, i cannot believe the status quo is acceptable.

-- as i wrote yesterday, i cannot believe the status quo is acceptable. it would be wrong to allow any referendum for the future. the right path for britain is this -- >> members are a little overexcited. they must call themselves and the statement by the prime minister must be heard. the prime minister -- >> the priority is to do with the instability and chaos. over time, take the opportunities for britain to shape its relationship with europe in ways that advance our natural interest in free trade, open markets and corporations. less europe, not more europe. lest he talks, lesser bureaucracy and less meddling in issues that allow to nation- states. all party leaders will have to address this question. far from the ruling out a

referendum to the future as a fresh dill in europe becomes clear, we should consider how best to get the consent of the british people. speaker, as the eurozone moves to a banking union, we must ensure britain takes responsibility for sorting out its own banking sector. only on folding banking scandal here in uk, we need to take action across the board. introducing the toughest and most transparent rules on pay and bonuses of any major financial center in the world, increasing the taxes banks must pay, answering tough and civil criminal penalties for those who read the law and clearing up the regular -- the failure left by the last days of government. the british people want to see two things -- bankers who acted improperly punished and they want to know we will learn in the broader lessons of what happened in this particular

scandal. on the first, the serious -- the office is looking at whether there are criminal prosecution that could be brought in a are using the full force of the law in dealing with this. on the second, i want to establish a full parliamentary inquiry involving both houses, chaired by the chairman of the commons treasury select committee. this committee will be able to take evidence under oath. it will have full access to papers, officials and ministers, including ministers and special advisers from the last government and it will be given by the government all of the resources they need to do its job properly. mr. speaker, the chance -- the chancellor will make a full statement but this is the right approach because it will be able to start immediately. it will be accountable to this house and it will get to the truce quickly so we can make sure this never happens again. i commend the statement to the house.

>> mr. speaker, i am grateful to the prime minister for his statement. all of our thoughts with the families and friends of the soldiers concerned. the news reminds us once again of the risks are troops faced day in and day out. and of our duty to do everything we can to protect them. the restart with his announcement on the banking inquiry. it is right that he reconsider the position of last week and i welcome that recognition. but i am not convinced by his way forward. i do not believe it measures up to the scale of what it requires. however able or distinguish, politicians investigating bankers will not command the consent of the british people. people understandably are angry about the way the banks let them down and i do believe the proposal is the way we can build a consensus that is required for

real change. i'm told they're already been selected midi reports into the banking crisis -- a number of resports into the banking crisis. we will continue to argue for a full and open inquiry independent of bankers and independent of politicians. that is the only way in my view that we can rebuild trust in the city of london and financial- services. turning to the european council itself, on syria, those agreements reached geneva on saturday but little progress. too little is being done to bring the escalating violence to an end. in that context and the position of russia which is absolutely imperative regarding a feature of syria without president

assad. the summit took place against a backdrop of continuing crisis in the arizona, a global recovery, a double-dip recession here in the u.k. the challenge was how we can have a europe -- on that central issue, the prime minister cannot be part of the solution because he is part of the problem. on growth, the prime minister use and phrase -- just as we had to tackle the euro crisis, so we have to tackle the growth crisis. having in admitted there is a growth crisis, he added this -- britain has been driving this debate. [laughter] i do not think this was meant as a joke but it does suggest someone quite out of touch with reality. as he was speaking, figures were coming in showing the double-dip recession created by him was worse than we thought.

the u.k. is one of only two countries in the g-20 in a double-dip recession. there can be no solution to the growth crisis unless we tackle the prices of demand in the european economy and globally. can he tell us in the measures at the summit to tackle the crisis of demand in the european economy as well as the long term measures he talked about? on the banking regulator, he talked about this. how will he use the popularity and influence in europe to secure a specific safeguards between now and december's final proposal to protect the very important british interest in the single market? he then talked about the patent office which is a was suffering humility. only this prime minister could pretend that having argued for the office had to be headquartered in london, it ended up being based in paris. [laughter] on the eurozone in fact

recapitalization, does the prime minister really believe the funds in the eurozone countries are making available are adequate? there are reasons to believe that is not the case. but europe and the prime minister also addition -- edition, on friday he will out a referendum during he said i completely understand why some people want a referendum. i do not think that is the right thing to do. hours later, 100 bank ventures and a former defense secretary called for an in out a referendum. then on sunday -- the prime minister hints he might rule one in. in the foreign secretary -- >> order.

i do not care what they are exalted or encouraged to do from any quarter. that is not order. that is not proper behavior. however long we have to continue, it will not happen. that is the beginning in the end of the matter. >> the prime minister is not changing our position. 3 days, the positions. personnel then yes then it was maybe. -- first ti was yes then no then maybe. has there been a change in the government's position? he talked about a referendum being connected to the renegotiation of power. his position on renegotiation is a longstanding one. he has gone nowhere in negotiating its but is he now saying that he might be in favor of withdrawal from the european union if he does not get these powers?

that would be a new position and it would be helpful again if we have a yes or no answer to that question. can you explain this? he said last october in this house, there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum, lummis a real opportunity to further our national interest. -- we will miss a real opportunity to further our national interest. why is he doing it now? not to tackle use unemployment or the national interest. it is about managing the divisions and that of his own party. a nudge nudge policy is not good for the country nor will it keep his party quiet. five years ago, he said his party should stop banging on about europe but now he is a man getting out the drum. as john major could the told him, it is not going to work. a veto that never was. a referendum he cannot explain. a party talking to itself.

and prime minister managing his party, not leading the country and the government letting britain down. >> prime minister. let me start with his questions on the inquiry into the banking scandal. i think what the opposition said actually is rather demeaning to parliament, the house of commons in the house of laws. if we take the best and brightest from both houses and all pocket -- all parties, i do not see any reason why parliament cannot get to the bottom of this. there are fewer people better to do that than the -- that is considerable expertise. we need to have speed in terms of doing this. the banking bill will be introduced into this house in january. i wanted inquiry done by then so we can take the best of that inquiry and put it into the bill. i think that is the right thing.

no one would like to see him in the dock of a court room more than me but the job is to get on with it, find the answers and put it into law. let me deal with the question on the european union. he asked a specific question. on russia -- and the situation in regard to syria. after some very hard negotiations of the weekend, all parties have agreed on transition by mutual consent. now we need to implement that policy and all of the p5 members need to do that. he talked about to give responsibility on the economy. when will they take responsibility for these twin crises -- the deficit and felt banking regulation? yes what we did to protect a single market. if he looks at the conclusions of the summit, he will see that it says very specifically that the single market and its integrity must be protected. on the question about are the

eurozone funds sufficient? he is right to ask that question. we continue to sit at the bazookas are big enough. as for a description -- i think he ought to give up the hokey poeky and stick to the rubix cube. give up our social, took us into the bailout funds even more we were not part of europe. these are the people who say that the european union has not gotten too much power and they joined the rural if they were in power for a long run-up. he likes to talk about standing up to vested interest but the fact is he will never stand up to to be vested in -- the trade unions and brussels. >> while there is wide agreement

in britain as to the need for reforms in our relationship with the european union, with the prime minister -- would the prime minister agree that the worst possible moment to start negotiating with 26 other countries is when all the member states are preoccupied with the future of the eurozone and the potential of its collapse? would the prime minister also agree that as the united kingdom is fully protected by the secretary requirement for referendum, is there to be any further proposal for transfer of powers to brussels that it must be the right policy to establish a link between any negotiations we wish to begin in the treaty that would be required to have unanimous consent if the eurozone 17 which to achieve a fiscal and banking union? >> i think my friend has said it out very well. it is worth saying that

everyone has to recognize that he short-term is the eu's immediate priority. we are safeguarded through the referendum law. about further powers being transferred. what to think about how europe is developing, make sure we make the most of those opportunities and then think how to can see the consent of the british people. question will the prime minister agree with me that the customary said the rations after last week's europe summit were premature? there is not enough money in the european stability mechanism to deal with spain let alone other countries. the german chancellor's opposition to eurobonds means there must be questioned over the eurozone. just remember, the regulation of the last 30 years came from their side of the house. >> i have great respect and i

think what he said about the eurozone agreement is absolutely worth listening to and taking into regard. the point i would make is that for the first time in a long time, there were a series of steps the countries -- that countries like britain have been calling for about using facilities to buy bonds, about the rectory recapitalization of banks. they were hatched around thoughts but that was progress. i note that he said a public inquiry is not the way ahead. i think the way ahead we have suggested would be swift and strong enough to get to the answers quickly. >> thank you, mr. speaker. given that there is no on pledged money left in the current bailout fund and the new bailout fund does not exist, does -- did the member states discuss how that would get hold of the $500 billion or more they might need? are they proposing to borrow it

on the credit -- credit rating of countries like spain and italy? >> the point i would make is i think we should be pushing the eurozone members into taking the short term steps to try to help the financial stability that buying bonds that directly recapitalizing banks, sorting out issues of seniority, are all about. we have to recognize the great difficulties they are going through trying to raise the adequate amounts of finance. it is in our short-term interests that they do deal with the crisis of the heart of the eurozone because these high interest rates of italy and spain are not only hurting them but us as well. >> the gentleman failed to answer the question from my friend and former chancellor a few moments ago in which he asked the prime minister to recognize that the pressure for deregulation and a light touch

in the city was coming strongly from -- >> yes it was. if there is to be truth and reconciliation, will there be accepted by the prime minister and chancellor that they got it woefully wrong in putting the pressure on? >> everyone will have to account for what they have said. but i have to say, who was in charge for the last 13 years? who was the city minister that carried out this action? if he wants to go into who said what and did what, the conservative party voted against the arrangement that is so badly baled. >> may i welcome my honorable

friend continuing and occasionally warm endorsement to britain's continued presence in europe but he does -- but does he agree to provide detail as to what the political and economic costs would be rather than the promises? >> we need to make sure the whole debate about our engagement in europe is properly informed. i do support our membership. i do think the single market is vital for us and determining the will of that market -- market matter. the review will help all parties and civic society to see some of the arguments and facts and figures. that will help inform the debates. >> further to that question, i wonder if there are any circumstances further to his

negotiations in which the prime minister will recommend to the rich people they should leave the european union. >> i want to stay in the european union because of the reasons i have given but i will always stand up for the british national interests as i see it. that is the job of being prime minister permit >> -- >> my opposition has never been in doubt. the only doubt was that which john major cast, for eternity -- cast upon my paternity but will he agree that what we need is not an agreement to a referendum but a commitment to assisting that our partners give us back powers to govern ourselves if they want our agreement for them to subordinate themselves further in europe? i think my friend whose parentage i have never

questioned did very well. europe is changing very rapidly. the eurozone countries in my view are going to need to take some bold integrationist steps. that ought to provide opportunities and openings for countries outside of the eurozone like britain. we should maximize those opportunities to pursue our national interest. that means remaining at the table for those things that really matter for us but i think that is what we should do. >> is the prime minister concerned that on europe and the referendum, it sounds more like john major by the day? >> what matters is doing the right thing. i think there are two positions that do not make sense. the first is -- unless you want to leave the european union's and some people do, i think an in out referendum is not the answer. ruling out any form of getting consent of the british people for a fresh dill also does not

make sense. that is a question of party leaders are going to have to answer. we are providing the answer. his part of the leadership will have to do the same thing. >> will my honorable friend agreed to look carefully at the fresh start product options for change paper that the launch next week by the secretary. the culmination of a year's worth of -- and external experts. as possibly offering some solutions to the kinds of reform we are looking for in the european union. will he agree to look at the issues of competition in the banking sector that are one of the major reasons why we have come to the essex -- to this appalling situation. >> i will look carefully at what the honorable lady says. the foreign secretary will shortly review. i hope the process will inform debate. she mentions the banking sector.

i think there are rules for financial-services at the level of the single market that are required. it is important we have a say of those rules but picking unions, the fundamental elements of banking union flowed from the single currency, not from the single market. that is why that union should be carried out 17 and not the 27. >> what discussions were there on the likely affect of the oil embargo upon iran? were there discussions about the prospects for sustainable peace in the middle east? what they were brief discussions about iran. the discussions about a single currency, the growth pact -- the growth compaq was protracted. there is a strong agreement in the sanctions are right and necessary. in terms of unliocking -- unlocking problems in the middle east, we could help on locke of

the problems rather than make them worse. -- help uunlock the problems rather than make them worse. >> given his negative answers on the 23rd of may, will he take the advice of the london taxi driver who i have just opened to who said the british people are not stupid. they understand the position. give them renegotiation. give them the referendum. get rid of the coalition agreement and then he will get reelected by a massive majority. >> i can see it must've been a particularly satisfying taxi ride from my honorable friend. what i would say -- i did not think in immediate out a referendum is the answer and ruling out the referendum is not an answer. there are opportunities to build

the sediment be what in europe. sentiment weehe want in europe. when it came to the bailout power, we were able to renegotiate that power and get out of that part of the treaty. you have had some small success already. there is a very big change coming in europe. how fast it will go, i cannot say. there will be opportunities because the eurozone countries will have to do more things to integrate. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> the decision of the party to remain on a referendum -- [cheers] can me friend cd and fraction of turning into law by any commitment to a referendum in the following parliament and

then a strengthened his negotiating hand if he's able to look the government in the eye and now that any agreement will have to be put to the british people, whose government we're talking about. >> i take seriously my honorable friend's point. we have legislated for a referendum lock. problem is that because of the change in the eurozone is happening so rapidly, i think it is difficult to predict the exact nature of the referendum in a future parliament. as i wrote in the "sunday telegraph," we have to show some

patience with the referendum lock. we can make the most of the changes happening in europe as i set out. >> mr. dennis mchsay. >> will the future -- mr. dennis mcshay. >> will it cover the council of europe? >> these issues are separate. there is the council of europe and the european union. i have considerable difficulty with that but the two things are separate.

>> britain is a trading nation. brigandines unfettered action to -- britain needs unfettered action to europe's single market and a clear voice and say in the voice of that market. >> i think my friend is absolutely right. we export a large share of our gdp. i would not want to swap the status we have of having access to the single market and the say over the rules of the single market. i think it is important as the eurozone develops and integrate that we make sure those safeguards -- there's a series of steps we could take. some are about safeguarding will we have. these are achievable if we play our cards right. >> could i simply ask the prime

minister to look at this terminology. he did not mention the united kingdom once. if there is to be a referendum that the people of northern ireland would have a strong say in this? the uk -- britain excludes in northern ireland. >> the honorable lady is right and i'm right to be chastised. >> as suspect the majority of people want is a common market, no more, no less. there's an overwhelming balance of trade in their favor. the door is unlocked. why doesn't the prime minister walk through it and renegotiate.

>> what we have in the single market is not just a free-trade area but they say over the rules on how the free trade area works. it seems it would be central are those two key points. that is what i think we should continue to pursue. >> i welcome the continued support that has been given to greece. it is the responsibilities it has to the rest of the eu. 100,000 people illegally entered greece through turkey. >> i know the gentleman has great expertise in this area. it seems important that we support these organizations and the means for these countries to protect the borders.

we have to be careful about the language of burden sharing. it is often country like britain or sweden or denmark that bear a large share of the burden. >> will the prime minister remind his coalition partners that in their 2010 manifesto, they said the european union -- democrats remain committed to an in-house referendum. given that -- can i remind him that the referendum is now inevitable and it would be at his advantage to be ahead of the curve. >> my honorable friend makes a

good point. now he is having a go of me for not delivering the liberal democrats side as well. i think the sensible position is not ruling out referendums of the future. europe is changing. >> mr. dennis skinner. >> can he tell us whether he came to his present opinion before or after -- >> i did not speak with him. >> i completely disagree with my friend. there has never been a better time that they should be minding their business and not ours.

it is the right time to have a debate about which powers wish to bring back before a referendum. >> the honorable lady makes a powerful point. while there may be opportunities because of the neat that they have, i think respecting the fact they are fighting a fire in the eurozone, which benefits us if they can deal with those banks and problems. the right time to consider institutional change is as treaties come through. >> sir stewart bell. >> the prime minister has referred to the national interest and a brief discussion on the imports of iran. is that how the european union --

act to assist the british national interest? >> the argument i would make is that that was an agreement that was come to route human enemy -- unanimity. that is what we've done in terms of syria and iran and eventually in terms of libya. i'm all for cooperating. that is what we've done about burma and sanctions. >> mr. simon hughes. >> following the death of our servicemen in afghanistan. his party had a manifesto as did the liberal democrats.

agreement is clear -- the agreement is clear. there is no provision for any other referendum. to hand over power from the u.k. to brussels. 27 european countries work together to deal with the imminent, urgent economic crisis from europe. >> that is an important point. we said no further passes of power from britain to brussels. we said we should defend the single market. we have promoted the single market in energy and services. we have written safeguards for the conclusion and i think that is all for the good. all party leaders have to think of the future in a changing europe and how we take the british people with us and that is exactly what i'm doing.

>> whenever we have such inquiries, the big difference is access information and other background information. such a committee will have the same powers that a judge would have. >> i do want it to have those powers. if people do not produce those papers, they are in contempt of parliament. we're seeing that the whole concept of being in contempt of parliament is being strengthened. that is all to the good. i think this committee will have the powers it needs and expertise it needs but it will be able to get to the job straight away.

>> would the prime minister agree at the last time we saw levels of interference, and led to the dramatic split with the catholic church? does he agree that we would be better having a second referendum? >> i -- the point i would make is that there are developments -- i find answering this question rather difficult. there are opportunities and we should show patience because of the firestorm. >> mr. barry gardner. >> the decision has -- ships are in dry dock. what practical steps are being

taken to monitor iranian vessels to ensure that there has been an embargo? >> i think the honorable gentleman raises an important point. i think the embargo will be robust. we will make sure the points he makes are being taken on board. >> the manifesto referred to a fundamental change in the relationship with europe. the prime minister said that europe is changing rapidly and fundamentally. is it not time we had a referendum in this parliament rather than relying on the outcome of the next general election, which of course nobody can predict?

>> i completely understand the view held by my friend. either we should get out straight away or the argument that the changes are so fundamental that the referendum should be held sooner rather than later. i think it would be better not to do that immediately. i think there is an opportunity for a fresh supplement and fresh consent. >> it looks like we'll have a referendum, maybe in two or three years' time. we do not know what the question is going to be, but this prime minister has the gall to question the temerity of the referendum.

>> i have to say there is a slight difference. his party wants to leave the united kingdom. there is a referendum to do just that. i'm trying to help them. i hope that scala will vote to stay in the united kingdom -- i hope that scotland will vote to stay in the united kingdom. >> the prime minister has said that now is not the time for an in-house referendum. would he confirm that the letter that was sent to him urged him to legislate for a referendum in the next parliament and to address the mass public distrust when they hear politicians -- they remember the broken promises.

>> i hear what my friend has said. it is never been my intention -- he is not suggesting an immediate referendum. as i replied, i do not think that while it is possible to legislate in one parliament to bind the next. i don't think in makes enough sense with a future referendum. we do not know the exact changes that will be taking place and so i don't think that is the right answer. >> treaty change. the government is going to campaign -- concerned that the prime minister has gone nowhere with that and possibly has not mentioned that to the new french president.

why should people trust him what he meant as not manage to secure the one thing he has committed to. >> i am still waiting for my apology. i think he will learn that he needs a treaty change so he should be wanting to bring it on. >> the importance of trade and the single market. if we were to see a return to prosperity of the european union, the rules of the world trade organization need to be in force. >> one of the things that we have made progress on over the last two years is the eu trade

deals including negotiations underway with singapore, india, and others, possibly including japan. we made exciting progress with an eu-u.s. trade deal. there are things we can do together and i agree with my friend about that point. >> does he have some sympathy for what john major had to endure during the 1992 parliament? >> i would worked very closely with john major and i admire him very much and think that people now reassess and see that the left this country and excellent economic record.

the party opposite completely squandered with a decade of debt. >> what is it like for the people of scotland will be given a potentially irreversible referendum and will not be given a similar -- >> i have great respect for my honorable friend. he feels very deeply. in scotland, there were elected with a mandate to do just that. the case of the united kingdom and the eu. most people wanted fresh settlement with fresh consent rather than have the choice of leaving right now or voting to stay in right now and thereby confirming the status quo.

>> how many of the hundreds of new jobs that will come from setting up will be located in the city that has been the home of the successful united kingdom patent office, in the city of newport? >> i do not know the answer to that question. i will have to look very carefully. parts are pharmaceuticals and life sciences and i think it is a good deal for london and a good deal for the u.k. >> unemployment hit a record high. 11.1%. whatever happens to the euro, recognition is there in brussels -- the need to do

serious deregulation and pushing for the single market? >> if you look at the different rates of youth unemployment, we are not one of the best nor one of the worse. germany and holland have very low rates of youth unemployment. they have different approaches to training and we have a lot to learn from them. overall what he says about opening up the single market is one of the key answers to getting young people back to work. >> mr. nicholas brown. >> why existing anti-fraud legislation does not work. >> with a vast the fraud office to look at this issue and to see -- we have asked the fraud office to look at this issue. if the need resources, they will

be provided with them -- if they need resources. >> i'm sure the prime minister will remember about the several multinational companies whose trade depends which using the uk as a hub for their european operation. cuddy in sure my constituents -- could he ensure my constituents that work for these companies that nothing that happens in the european council is detrimental to their interests -- >> my friend is absolutely right. britain benefits from being in the single market. because of investments on companies like honda and jaguar, we're now a net exporter of cars again.

for the first time since 1976. >> businesses are worried about jobs. given the size of our trade relationship, will the prime minister show leadership and getting growth? how did he see that as being in the uk's national interest? >> i think there was good progress on the growth program. people suspected it would be part of the agenda. that is part of that. there is clear commitments to the service, to digital single market. is the british and italian agenda -- that is the british and italian agenda.

>> large numbers are standing. i will not be able to accomodate them all. >> the prime minister urges integration as one solution to the problem. big civil disorder. he should be advising everyone to go back to their currency and then rebuild the currency and rebuild jobs. >> well said. >> we cann't make choices -- we can't make choices on behalf of other countries. they want a single currency and they want that currency to work. it remains to be seen if all of them will be able to do that.

we can not instruct them not to do something. that is their choice. we have made our choice and that is to stay out of the eurozone. i hope he will be reassured on that basis. >> are you prepared to see sacrificed in greece to defend the single currency? >> i cannot tell the greek people what to do. my view is to be outside the single currency, not to be involved in disintegration. you can go back to my address in 1997 when i said i was opposed to britain joining the single currency.

i did not think it was right to give up that level of democracy. that is not for us to make that choice for them. >> i agree with the prime minister. any referendum should, at the end of the process, not at the beginning. >> i think my friend makes an important point. i think there has been a defeatism, including when they are in government. when confronted with the issue of the european constitution, they promised a referendum and did not deliver. they always went along with absolutely everything. when it comes to this, they are the status quo party. >> significant misgivings about the -- on the financial services sector in this country.

what reassurance can he give the house that the strategy will not lead to the disadvantage in this country? >> we are trying to protect our interests in terms of the single market. i believe a banking union flows from the fact that there is a single currency, not a single market. we'll be able to protect that interest from outside the union. >> steve baker. >> nine i think my friend makes a good point -- i think my friend makes a good point. the constitution changed to the lisbon treaty.

country after country failed and let that country down. >> some more detail about the evidence -- serious about increasing demand. >> the point i make is there are parts that include expanding the role of the european investment bank and we support that. part of the problem is the need for an active monetary policy. we shouldn't give up on the real win s for our economy because there are increases in demand and supply.

>> does the prime minister think -- a referendum in the foreseeable future? >> i've only been a prime minister for two years but i feel like i've spent half my life in this building. there will be some it's coming along. if your view is that britain should leave the european union, then that is the logical thing to do. the approach i am setting out is the right one. >> the prime minister claims success with the bailout. if the prime minister fails to renegotiate those powers back to the house, will the injury to an in-house referendum -- will he agree to an in-house referendum?

>> we have replaced the stability mechanism with the european -- the esm. britain would not be included in it and we will not have to contribute to it. it shows what you can achieve if you are prepared to negotiate and not give in to whatever people want. >> matthew hancock. >> i welcome the announcement of the review to replace the regulation that failed. will the prime minister in share as a deterrent criminal actions are available in future for those bankers?

>> the chancellor will be going into more detail on this issue. we need to make sure the regulators have all the powers they need. crimes in the banks and elsewhere are punished in another way. that needs to be cleared up. >> wayne david. >> what is his position with regard to a referendum -- >> we will be sending out a clear path wait for the house of lords. the house of lords reform was in his manifesto and in the liberal democrats manifesto. i did not think a referendum is necessary -- i do not think a referendum is necessary. >> i have discovered he has invited a woman to downing street next week.

she is excited about the renegotiation on the referendum. could the prime minister promised legislation for an eu reference in the next parliament? >> i am looking forward to that meeting but did not want to get to excited before the big day. she should be reassured. >> marc hendrick. >> encouraging -- having a referendum --

that could possibly bring the -- other single currencies have. that means you have to stand behind weaker parts of the union. you need a single banking system. those inside the eurozone will have to take some of the steps i have set out. otherwise the eurozone will have difficulties. >> does the history -- more about the ever closer union -- a referendum should encompass the question about the union.

>> this goes back to one of the problems back in the 1990's. i did not think people had a full explanation. i do not support an ever closer union. i do not want to see an ever greater transfer of powers. there is a way that britain and the european union can work closer together on things like foreign affairs and making sure that is in our best interest. >> whether the issue of financial transactions support -- we would welcome this as a way of showing bankers are being accountable. >> it was mentioned because in the growth compact it says that a number of eurozone numbers are

going to go ahead with a financial transactions tax. i did not support this. those transactions would go to jurisdictions that do not have that tax. we would be cutting our gdp. people paying for this would be the pensioners and i don't think that is sensible. and i don't think that is sensible. >> to damage would have been if we had not gone out -- what the damage would have >> to damage would have been if we had not gone out -- what the damage would have been. have saved britain considerable amounts of money. >> economic demands continue to

fall. deep unemployment in greece and spain has reached 52%. when will the prime minister acknowledge that the entities such a chronic crisis of demand in jobs -- >> outside the eurozone we're able to have very tough fiscal targets that anyone in my position would have to deliver to deal with the deficit and debt. we have a ultra low interest rates. perhaps the difference between the situation in britain and in countries inside the eurozone. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i completely support the prime minister. part j which says the commission

has to consider proposals for a common consolidated corporate tax base. we're cutting corporation tax. >> he can. >> it is clear -- are you in favor of the status quo? will that satisfy the zealot -- >> those people who want to leave the european union members on both sides of the house and probably liberal democrats in favor of that position. then campaigning for the referendum is a perfectly logical thing to do.

>> in welcoming the prime minister's progress in russia views and syria, could we do more to persuade russia that is not in their best interest nuclear-arms to iriran. >> the foreign secretary has spent a lot of time with his russian counterpart in trying to resolve it situation in syria. these oil sanctions are tough and it is concerted action by the european union and i think it could make a difference. >> "yes but, no but, yes but." >> we should stick to our own

work and think of something different. i think there are two businesses that do not make sense for europe. to some out rollout anyway forming a new consent with the british people. i want to see this new settlement. seems to be logical the decision to have. >> why should the u.k. pay more so an investment bank can make more loans with increasing rates? some of these loans will never be repaid. much of an increase will this have to pay? >> and i think there is a need and

problems in terms of monetary policy. the role is helpful and it is import they maintain their rating. >> questions consisting of a single, a short sentence. >> if he does believe that some of the actions bordered on criminal, will recall for a resignation? >> i did not think it is for prime ministers to hire and fire bank chiefs. he has to make himself accountable to this house in answering questions on wednesday and i think he has some serious questions to answer. >> in any referendum while he is

prime minister, the option of voting to lead the eu not appear on the ballot/ >> that is not what i said -- on the ballot? i believe we should show tactical patients on this. then i want to see a fresh settlement. the right time is after we have that fresh settlement. that is what we should do. >> you have endorsed britain's membership in the eu. casey a situation where you would endorse a withdrawal from the eu? -- can you see a situation?

>> that does that mean that we accept the status quo. we are not happy with the status quo. we have shown in a small way that you can do better and i want britain to do better. >> is the prime minister aware of any institution that once this country to leave the european union? >> i am not aware of many institutions that want that. the city institutions want to make sure our position is safeguarded. we have a massive financial services sector. it is import that we make sure we safeguard the interests of that sector. >> would he agree that we must continue to battle substantial

reform of the eu? >> i think my friend puts it extremely well. we should pursue the national interest. that lies at the heart of our case for being in the european union. >> a referendum is only a means to an end. it is important that we work out what it means for the u.k.'s national interest. >> i think my friend is right. we have to ask the prior questions of what it is that britain wants in europe? how do we best change it? all those questions need to be asked before we get to the vital question. right.

>> stand up to taxpayers -- will you stand up to taxpayers? >> we have to make sure that the budget is focused on things that are likely to help growth like the single market and i think she makes a good point. >> there has been in a lack of growth in europe. would you agree that we should be focusing on policies that target growth like in energy? >> i think my honorable friend is right. the positive steps we have been taking is about building an alliance to push for the free- trade agenda.

with people like the prime minister in italy, it is no longer any north-south divide. we of countries pushing for the growth agenda -- we have countries pushing for the growth agenda. >> does he agree that this issue will be solved by giving the british people -- >> we do need as europe changes, it will need to seek a fresh mandate for it. >> mr. henry smith. >> the european council president said it could take up to a decade to implement trade. do you agreed that we have a referendum lock?

>> i think my friend makes a good point. europe is changing rapidly. some of the institutional changes will take a long time to come through. this is so very difficult for democratic states to do. i think this will take a long time. >> i will come my friends opening the door to a substantial renegotiation. resist regulations on biofuels which are pushing up prices at the pump. >> i will look very carefully at what my friend says. the level of sustainability with biofuels. i'll have a careful look at what he says.

>> we not agree the real crime is there is no doubt at all that this is a criminal offense -- will he agree that the real crime is that this is a criminal offense? >> there has been a bit of silence from the party opposite in this house. we have said this was squarely labour's fault. >> the uk's running a large with the rest of the european union, do you agree that our partners would have much to lose from erecting trade barriers? >> i think my friend makes a good point.

britain is a huge market for other european union goods and also in large net contributor to the eu budget. our membership of the european union and tells us to just a strong of view and we should never be frightened to make our voice heard. >> do you agreed the member of the opposition is wrong to criticize? he is criticizing our constituents. >> as ever, my friend speaks up robustly for his constituents. issues about extra regulations does come from the european union and you're right to make that point.

>> last but not least. >> the prime minister is not ruling out a referendum on our membership in the european union, is in the time for the government to commission a full- scale independent comprehensive audit of the cost and benefits to better inform the referendum when it comes? the balancene ec's in his review, he will find a lot of what he is seeking will be contained in that. to work out the costs and benefits to make sure we have a proper debate. i think we benefit by the access i am not happy with the status

quo. >> thank the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and the 74 back benches who questioned him >> defense secretary leon panetta discusses a new security strategy that of the says is working with other nations. >> we continue to seek the destabilizing behavior of

nations like iran and north korea, the rise of new powers across asia, and the dramatic changes that we have seen an old across the middle east. and north africa. these challenges, coupled with a new fiscal reality, led us to reshape our priorities with a new defense strategy for the 21st century. it is a strategy that places a greater emphasis on building the capabilities of others to help meet the security challenges of the future and to sustain a peaceful and cooperative international order. >> you can see the secretary's over march from the u.s. institute of peace at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> with congress on its fourth of july recess this week, we're featuring american history tv on prime time. tonight, we look at the legacy of watergate on the 40th anniversary of the break-in. max holland " deep throat. and then an interview with white house officials, mr. gibbons, and the reporters that first broke the story. harris series on international news bureaus started today with -- our series on international news bureaus started today with al jazeera. host: "the washington journal" looks at foreign news bureaus.

we begin our series with al jazeera in english, the first english-language news program in the middle east. good morning. what is the mission of all jazeera english? how is it related to del jazeera arabic? guest: they are obviously sister stations, but they are different. the idea of al jazeera in english grew out of al jazeera arabic. someone suggested to people in doha that an english channel would be a good idea. then we went on the air almost six years ago.

the idea is to report places that are not reported very well, to give a voice to the voiceless. that is why we devoted a lot of resources to africa, asia, to south america and central america as well, as well as the known use the get across europe and in the united states and north america. the idea is that we will give a voice to the voiceless, give a voice to those who do not normally get the opportunity to be on television and tell their story. host: who is your audience? guest: there is a big study going on and those results will be revealed very soon. we know it will be reliable and it has been conducted in many countries around the world. we know that it is extensive. it is the first time in six years that we have carried out the sort of research. we will find out that a lot of people watch al jazeera in

english. and also in some parts of europe pact was told that we have a bigger audience in germany, which actually surprised me as well. once we get the details, we will know exactly was watching us. but we also know, from our online data, but there are a lot of young people watching us and a lot of young people in the united states watching us because they can access easily on-line. we are online 24 hours a day. since the arab spring, we knew the audience in the united states rose substantially. we also know that the audience for watching news is getting older. al jazeera has a very dynamic and engaged audience. host: how did the arab spring change the work that you do and how you're perceived internationally? guest: perhaps the perception

internationally changed. we have gone through some substantial and significant stories. we covered the war in got the -- in gaza. we covered the war in georgia. i was there. the next challenge that appeared was the arab spring. we did the job that we have always done. -- people who work on the ground live, people who knew the very intimately and knew the story for years and got eyewitness reporting. we took a lot of resources and time and energy in covering the arab spring. it was a star that the whole world wanted to know about. if you -- was a story that the whole world wanted to know about. we gave undoubtedly the most comprehensive coverage would find anywhere.

it was really that that change. it wasn't the sort that we do, but the perception of what we do. host: you're talking to us from the washington bureau and you cover stories that have been here in america. the stake a look at how al jazeera english, the supreme -- supreme court ruling. guest: this is the moment that the supreme court ruling trickled out into the crowd appeare. the supreme court is only a very sleepy building in a quiet

corner washington, d.c. it is not used to being handled by people. but in the last few years, it has been involved because of the health-care issue. the supreme court's opinion may have been formally handed down, but people stay here for hours on the steps of the court, celebrating, commiserating, arguing and, decision or not, that will not change in america any time soon. host: what kind of an appetite is there for news of america internationally? guest: huge. it is still one of the most important places in the world. politically, economically, socially command diplomatically. people want to know what is happening here. it is still one of the major power centers of the world. what al jazeera is also doing is showing more of america to americans as well. we're not just trapped inside the beltway. we're not just during stories in washington. the health care story is

important, but we did not deter us from washington. we talk to people about the impact on them. we went to upstate new york and other places across the united states as well. the management here in washington and also in doha are keen that we continue to do that. a around the world, people want to know what is going on. they want to know who will win the election appeared to want to know on various political issues who takes what stand and held it will impact them somewhere down the line. so there is an appetite globally for stories in america. and i think that america can be better served by the way we do our stories. host: a first caller is from columbia maryland. caller: i want to personally thank you for your coverage of mali and everything you do and africa. i watch you on the air here in

virginia. it has been great. i have to questions. number one, where you scaling back care coverage, scaling back your use kerridge here in america? i read somewhere that you are scaling back -- scaling back your news here in america? i read somewhere that you are scaling back. no. 2, what kind of regulations the face broadcasting over the air? guest: certainly, we are aware of how important africa's and held under-reported it has been. that is why we have bureaus across the continent and why we send to people in places like mali. they get very little mention elsewhere. there is an uptight at our headquarters to go and do stories -- there is an appetite at our headquarters to go and do those stories.

we went to show what what's happening there and why it was important for the world to wake up before it reached the tipping point. as far as your other question, we're not scaling back. management looked at how we do things. at one point, we had four new centers around the world. the idea was that each news center would follow the sun in news coverage. but that comes out to be incredibly expensive to duplicate some many teams around the world. so the decision was taken to see how we do these things. was there a better way to do them? so we still have people that are going out covering stories and doing so on a daily basis.

we lost so many good people. the company has tried to find them jobs elsewhere. since we lost those people, stories we do in the united states has gone up. from my time in the united kingdom, was based in london for six years, there is a thing called offcom, the protesting regulator there could be had to face the same -- the broadcast regulator there. we had to face the same regulations as anybody else. we realize that, to get access to broadcasting and certain countries, we had to fulfill some legal requirements. during the french election, the broadcasting system there -- al jazeera, we broadcast in france

because we are licensed to broadcast in france. we took the view that we should broadcast at the same time as the french broadcasters because that were the restrictions we were under. so we are seen as every other broadcast organization. host: we have a comment by twitter. guest: censored not by management and some countries would try to force censorship. we saw that during the arab spring where koss name of eric -- where hosni mubarak corel jazeera was covering what was on the street and he was disappointed. when that didn't work, he tried to stop the satellite transmission. when that didn't work, we found people on the ground were subjected to beatings, or arrests, regular harassment.

for the people who broadcasted during near spring were incredibly brave and managed to get the story out even though someone was trying to restrict what we were trying to do. it has become extremely difficult for governments around the world to keep news from getting out. the days of getting used out of the country -- the days of blocking is from getting out of the country are long gone. i watch cell jazeera almost every day. i still recommend that people put an end to end up in the d.c. area. i am appalled that the washington journal should ignore -- it has the best news

program in the world. the tom martin show. you get the information you don't get anywhere else. i want to thank al jazeera for what they do. but i want to say that you should be ashamed not to include archie in this program. host: you mean -- tv, right? right.ller: host: why do you watch all jazeera so much? caller: first of all, they don't have a lot of commercials. second of all, i watched it during the year spring. i felt privileged to be able to get it for free or the air instead of having to pay for cable. host: we're looking right now at a live shot from al jazeera appeared there covering the mexican elections. looking at somalia. looking at the birth of your coverage, you also hear from a

local your -- local viewer. guest: we're hoping to expand coverage threat the u.s.. you can watch online anytime. we have live streaming 24 hours a day. we know that that was incredibly popular in the united states throughout the arab spring. i was in illinois just last weekend speaking to a student from the university of wisconsin and he told me he watched of jazeera regularly in his dorm room and people would gather to watch it together. it was terrific that people are turning in, finding out more about what we do and taking the time we watch. we never forget how thank all we are for your sticking the time to watch. host: next, gabriel, and then call from massachusetts. guest: i noticed how -- caller: i noticed how you enter us -- how you interrupted that caller

who said something about rt. basically, our media is the extension of the industrial complex. they only tell us what they want us to hear. i always hear somebody saying that the people in media or the people that are holding the gold post for something. it seems like it is a bunch of people cheering one side or the other. you don't find out that we have here is corpus suspended year. we have no rights. that is why congress is basically pushing thing everything through without people's consent. people losing their rights pair of the get the impression they have rights here. i always thought that, when we started the airwaves, it was for the people, not for celebrities,

global as, bankers, international bankers, leaders to sit behind closed doors and make deals with a lead in the world know what is really going on. host: where do you get your news? caller: high get the news from the internet, overseas, rt, and other media networks, satellite and everything else. guest: you will see that we have done a number of stories about his corpus and what has happened there. we do a number of stories that affect the ordinary people here. we look that president obama as record on human rights in it, too. i am not entirely sure how you would judge that by any reasonable measure. and think what you get from al jazeera is that we cover the stories that we think people should know about. that includes habeas corpus. i know the day that we did the story because i did it appear

very few of the other networks said anything on it. i think you are right to the degree that they have gotten caught up in the celebrity culture, over whether tom cruise is getting divorced and what that means for scientology. i think that al jazeera the deal with that sort of story. we look at more substantive issues that affect real people, ordinary people, and we try to do that every single day. host:urskin can get rt getting a sampling r news operations here in the united states. we will be looking at -- alan fisher, who makes the decisions about content on al jazeera english? guest: there are a number of meetings throughout the course of the day.

this is not a top-down operation. there is an open discussion. when you're working in organization where you have over 100 nationalities, people have various inputs that are very worthwhile to put it to the process. somebody has to make a decision in the end of what we will do and where the capital go. but i think it is a very open democratic process here at el jazeera. some stories leaked out, such as the health-care debate. but there are other stories that perhaps are not marginal calls, but we have to see if it has global resonance. it is something that we're telling hear from the united states, for example, get someone to put down their tea or coffee and think that it is interesting. we had the election of fred

luther. here was a black man becoming the president of that organization and rethink -- we spent some time with fred. we went to the southern baptist convention. that is a store that would make people stop and go, you know, i never knew that. i think that is what we have to try to continue to do in our stories as we go forward. caller: i was wondering why the foreign media -- today, it seems like all the countries that have social security and workman's comp and unemployment are all going broke while china's accordance -- while china and all of these third world countries are making all the money. with socialople

security and stuff like that get together and say we will put tariffs on these third-world countries who are destroying our way of life? guest: i think the idea that the media on reporting those things is not true. when you say that the countries with social security are going bust, don't think that is the case. there are difficulties in the eurozone. there are nine -- there are 109 sovereign nations now appeared in a lot of them have social security. i do not think we are at that position where we are not reporting these things. there was a recent report that suggested that people get from the news with the want to get from the news. i think that al jazeera is trying to bust the mold. we want you to be slightly better informed and go, i never knew that.

host: what does al jazeera mean? guest: it means peninsula. if you look at the middle east, qatar goes into the gulf. it is the geographic position of all jazeera in the middle east. host: out jazeera richest tendered 60 million homes in 130 countries. it first went on the air in 2006. it has a staff of 1000. the main american hub is in washington, d.c. other bureaus include miami, chicago, l.a., new york and then they have international bureaus like mexico city and toronto. let's hear from david in massachusetts. caller: i have called all three of the cable companies that

service cape cod in massachusetts and asking them about how jazeera and i get a blank, no answer. when will they be covered by comcast or dish cable or directtv? >> thank you for your support. you, like many of hundreds of thousands across the united states, are calling for all jazeera to be more widely viewed. there are negotiations going on with their distribution department. we are hoping that it -- that there will be announcements pretty soon. we recently signed a deal to get onto cable and satellite in india for their second biggest company already. from the time i was in massachusetts on super tuesday, we were on the kerridge side of the river and a lot of people can appeared when we told them that -- we run the cambridge

side of the river. and a lot of people came up and when we told them we were called jazeera, there were very excited. -- we were al jazeera, they were very excited. host: talk to us about how you're covering the presidential elections in the united states. guest: we have been covering it would seem like a very long time now. i was an ohio back in october. we did the ronald reagan dinner. i hadn't been long in the united states at that point. i came back and said that rick santorum will provide a big shot here. i think they thought that the rich who has just arrived has gone nuts. but we cover the process all the way through. we continue with a very good political team. we have an excellent white house correspondent. we get some great reporters here in washington, d.c.

you saw the health care reporting. and we have other plans going forward. obviously, we will be at the conventions. expect a well-known name in american television to be one of our key analysts. we will be in tampa and north carolina. then we will cover all the way to the election itself. it will be slightly different. we're not just interested in the process. therit is not just about the lat opinion poll. we will be looking at the real issues. we will look at immigration and that appeared we will look at education and the economy. of course, we will look at foreign affairs. that is very important for our viewers as well. we will do that over the course of the next few months. we have already been covering swing states. we will do again on the fourth of july. howhat makes a swing state? how did you become a swing state?

it is very exciting. i have covered u.s. presidential elections in the past, but never from the start to the end. will be in tampa and falling mitt romney right until election day. and maybe even beyond. he was working with the network part to its launch, since december 2005. it went on the air in 2006. let's take another call from john in baltimore, md. al jazeera follow through my iphone. i want to thank you for that. i have two questions for you about access in the middle east. my first question is regarding .he revolution in sierrsyria how much reaction you get in

israel? guest: access is difficult and syria. we are banned by the government. they don't like people go into places and holding up a mirror to what is happening there. but we have built up a network of people that we know and that we trust and they continue to feed us with a lot of material through videophones, through video cameras, putting it on youtube board depositary where you can send social media. despite the restrictions, we have been able to give an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground in syria and we will try to continue to do that. every journalist signs up with the general press office when you are right in jerusalem. access there is normally very good. we have not had any significant issues. they have always treated us by and large with respect.

but that does go where we want, certainly during the war in gaza. they felt that we are giving a fair reflection of what was going on. we interviewed, at times very harshly, representatives of the israeli government. but it felt that what we were doing was honest and fair and you can ask for no more than that when your turn to cover a story of the complexity of what is happening in the middle east. host: san antonio, texas, welcome. caller: i just wanted to thank you so much for al jazeera could it amazes me that some people don't know about link tv. i watch al jazeera. i watch was a news from the middle east. you have to dig for the truth. we have two types of media in america now here we have a 30- somethings that talk all day

long. they don't have a lot of experience and they don't know what is going on in the country. then you have the ones who have been there so long that a party with the people they're supposed to be investigating. it is amazing to me. we have the iraq war because of the american media. nobody asked the questions and needed to be asked. we don't have choice anymore. and it does not surprise me at all the york and in israel. they control our financial system and they bought out most of the congress. you really have to dig for the truth. i just want you to know how much we appreciate that there are some voices out there. guest: thank you for calling for a let me correct you. we're not banned in israel. we haven't been banned in israel. they like what we do because we seem to be fair and we seem to be honest. i think you're right. i think there's a real challenge for journalists to ask the questions that need to be asked.

not just to take with the government tells you. in america, certainly on cable channels, the people are not being terribly will served. there was a great line from a reporter in london. he said the idea of news and american television seems to be three middle-aged men of varying opinions yelling at each other. after 9/11, america would say why did this happen? why didn't we know others around the world felt like this? they wanted better news coverage. for a while, there was a difference. it was smart, clever, committed, analytical. and people responded by watching in record numbers and buying newspapers in record numbers. but suddenly, they realize that that becomes expensive. when that starts to peel away,

then the audience starts to peel away. if you give them good programming, they will come and they will reward you. that is what we're finding with al jazeera english. the reason for that is that we're giving people something that they don't have elsewhere and they can watch the news and find out something just about their country and about their world and walk away smarter. as a journalist, that is always my priority. i want people to get something out of what we do and go, you know, i never knew that. host: what is the biggest misconception that you find people have of al jazeera english and al jazeera arabic? guest: i cannot release the with the biggest misconception is because i don't speak arabic. i can watch it and visually i think it looks terrific. i know the director of music is a fantastic journalist and a very nice man. i cannot believe speak in any

depth about now jazeera and record of his hearing which is very interesting. before we went on air, i did a number talks at university. i would guess about senate a% of people put their hands up saying -- about 75% put their hands up saying that al jazeera has shown a beheading. that has never happened. out jazeera has never shown it be heading. i think people are interested in what we do. we recently won a peabody award. we were given the news channel of the year award. people are exposed to the quality of our work, the quality of our journalism and reporters. they judge it on its own merits.

that is why we are getting a growing audience in the u.s. and around the world. host: we did reach out to russia today to be part of our week long series. they declined. we are looking at for news operations that have bureaus here in the united states, how to cover the u.s., with their audiences like, and what their staff is, how they are funded. alan fisher, how're you funded? guest: we get a grant from the qatari government. some people may think there's something suspicious about that. in the united kingdom, the british government collect a tax called a tv license fee which funds the bbc.

it is fantastic it is one of the things that i miss. but the taxes collected by the government to then hand over to the bbc will decide how to spend it. there is no editorial interference in the news. the money comes from the qatari government. it is pet will of the channels. then it is up to the management at the channels to decide how that money is spent, where it should be distributed, how much should be spent on news gathering at how much should be spent on other structures appeared so we are based on a very traditional model. i'm sure that management would like to see more advertising. host: on twitter, jacks as this --

what do you think of the basic premise? guest: i think he is mistaken. we reflected what was going on and in a way that a lot of the western media decided that what happens in egypt was either the facebook revolution are the twitter revolution. that is because they came very late to what was happening. they didn't have people on the ground for a long as we did. that there had know been widespread dissatisfaction at how their government -- how there were governed. there came a point during the revolution were the barrier fear had been broken, where people no longer feared the consequences of defying government orders to stay off the streets and they

went onto the streets to protest. at that point, and of jazeera reflected that very carefully and we reported on what was happening. so it was not a case of fomenting. you saw on al jazeera that there were 10,000 protesters. the fear disappeared. people suddenly realize that many millions felt the same. that fermented it. host: bill is our next caller in baltimore, md. caller: as a news account, and listen to all jazeera -- as a news hound, i listened to all jazeera.

[inaudible] the regret and the targeting and murdering of your correspondents at your headquarters in iraq, i thought that was egregious the people who ordered that and they should be held for war crimes. i think that was a very sad thing for this country to in cajun -- to engage in, tried to silence a news agency and deliberately targeting them. i think that was egregious.

i sympathy to your colleagues. guest: thank you very much. it is very kind of you to say that. it is interesting to point out that, on the day that thou jazeera bureau in baghdad was targeted, two other places were hit as well. i know very closely about the reuters position because i lost a very close friend, the cameraman was killed in the hotel when it was hit by a show. the interesting thing is that a man of three places that were hit, they were written off as accidents at the time. all three of them were broadcasting live on that day at that point, showing american troops going into baghdad. you can make the decision on whether you think that is a coincidence. but all three places were targeted while going live. i think you're right. i think of jazeera journalists are where when going into certain cases -- and i have covered a number of conflicts -- we're taking a risk in doing a

story, telling people what is happening in the world and some have paid a very heavy price for trying to expose the truth. in a travell jazeera colleagues have died. we had been killed last year in libya. it is tragic when that happens. even after that happens, there are journalists not justin l. jazeera, who are prepared to -- not just in all this year, were prepared to go into these places -- not just in al jazeera, who are prepared to go into these places. it is unfortunate -- it is important that we continue to do these stories. host: that was back in 2003 during the war in iraq, april 8, 2003.

let's go on to north carolina. good morning. caller: i am so glad we have al jazeera. we get a lot of information from mount jazeera -- from al jazeera. i would like to see if you can help a little bit the poor countries will have some type of, i don't know, competition over there with kids who have been to school and do not have any means. maybe they can contribute in terms of giving some other news that is going on in the countries. for example, in africa right now, we have al qaeda their,

especially in malick, which is very close to america and europe actually, they are destroying all their very old vestiges of africa there. we have extraordinary things in molly hand they are destroying everything -- in mali and they are destroying everything. somebody has to do something over there. they are controlling drugs over there. they're controlling the weapons. they are controlling resources -- uranium and everything else. i don't know why al jazeera is going there and talking about this problem. guest: you will find that

reaction has spent a lot of time in mali. we have excellent team across the continent of africa. we spent time in niger. we spent a lot of time and effort and money covering africa because it is not a cheap place to operate for a broadcast organization. but we're committed to doing it and we will continue to do it. places that you never hear on any other broadcast networks will hear regularly on al jazeera. it is important that we continue to do that. this weekend, i was watching an american cable network channel. they said, let's go around the world in 60 seconds. al jazeera believes that the world deserves more than 60 seconds. if you look at the u.s. expansion in africa, we're covering that as well. i am grateful that you continue to watch all jazeera.

i'm glad you're getting a lot of information there. if you continue to watch, you will see more from the country's you're talking about. host: you have been talking about access here in the united states. we're getting tweets from people wanting to know how to get your programming. guest: you can watch on the web site at www.aljazeera english.net. i use it when i don't have access to al jazeera programming. i believe there are other options available for people to watch. it is good that people are trying to seek us out and i hope there will continue to tune in. the quality of our journalism is fantastic. i think we have some stupendous storytellers wav