which, if we have the wealth to do them, we definitely should but where we can make cuts we need to, and that the end result of that equation, those tradeoffs, is that the first priority is the security of the united states. and, mr. president, as we make our decisions here going forward, i will be speaking more about the areas in which we have already slashed defense spending and the areas in which, as secretary gates noted, defense spending is going to have to be enhanced if we're going to have the kind of force that the american people have come to rely upon. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. kyl: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with for a unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks,

that two publications be inserted, one from the "weekly standard," dated july 18 by max boot and the other a piece by james fly posted on july 8 on national review on-line. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, we have a group of british parliamentarians meeting with us and so i see the distinguished republican leader on the floor, senator cochran, and i are leading a delegation to meet with them and i'm going to, for the notice of everyone, i'm about to ask to put the senate in recess subject to the call of the chair, which will only be a matter of minutes, i assure my colleagues, and so we can bring them on the floor. so with that, i ask consent the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess

subject to the call of the subject to the call of the >> the senate is in recess, and as we wait for them to come back, we'll bring you a portion of this morning's "washington journal." >> host: "wall street journal"

has this headline, greece gets new bailout and boehner and president obama advance towards deficit. hot tempers around the capitol like the hill, anger boiling over. tension between obama and allies brought to service in the "washington post" this morning. joining us to help us understand is eric. you have perhaps the most straightforward headline this morning is obama-boehner moving towards deficit deal. what can you say about where things stand right now? >> caller: looks like they are trying to revive their grand bargain negotiations that fell apart a couple weeks ago. they are trying to patch things together again with the goal of possibly a plan of $3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. it's a -- it's a plan that

clearly will excite the republican conservative base and is a major disappointment so far for liberal democrats. what they're talking about really is a package of cuts, mostly cuts in areas including government agencies, elimination of foreign subsidies, reduction in pension benefits, health medicaid savings, and on and on and on, but with no promise of immediate increases in tax revenues, so the balanced approach that president obama has promised his base, one that would have both revenue increases and spending cuts is not materializing. there is talk of doing longer term tax reform which would include reducing tax rates,

eliminating certain deductions and writeoffs with the hope, the goal, of raising tax revenues down the road, but no assurance of that, and certainly no tax revenues in the foreseeable future. >> host: to understand that $3 trillion, did they calculate the tax portion of it to get to the $3 trillion figure? >> caller: well -- >> host: $or 3 billion in cuts? >> caller: it's $3 billion cuts. you mentioned harry reid and the other senate democrats in particular that are very upset about this and had a very unhappy tense meeting with jack lew yesterday afternoon to talk about the budget negotiations. he tried to reassure the democrats that in the end it

will be a more balanced framework including cuts and revenue increases, but he didn't do much to reassure the democrats that they weren't being led down the path of huge spending cuts and very little in revenue. >> host: budget director, jam lew, is referenced in the paper there's no deal and careful to say nothing is agreed to at this point. if they do announce a deal between the president and the speaker, is there any guarantee that the two bodies of congress will have the votes for it? >> caller: good question, and the answer is absolutely no. there is no guarantee that if boehner and the president walk up to a microphone together and announce a deal has been reached either today or over the weekends that that will guarantee passage in the house and the senate. i mean, you have to look at the challenges that the leadership

faces in getting any deal through. it's most problematic probably in the house because of the 87 house republican freshmen who are wild cards in all of this. many of them are opposed to any deal that would raise the debt ceiling, and also they are going to need a lot of support from house democrats to pass anything because they can't count on a lot of the republicans. as we just discussed, democrats are very weary of this deal and feel that the president may be, you know, abandoning his base in search of a deal with the republicans. >> host: and so it continues. well, thank you for bringing us up to speed after last night's two hour meeting with democrats in the white house. >> caller: my pleasure. >> host: appreciate it. talking about the anger among some of the senior democrats. before phone calls, here's a

better sense of the reporting on that. the hill this morning, angle boiling over. this is how it starts. reid 2, why don't i know about this deal? harry reed confronted white house budget directer during a thursday afternoon meeting about secret talks on deficit reduction deal between the president and speaker, i'm the senator majority leader, why don't i know about this deal? according to a lawmaker who witnessed the exchange. he shot back, if there's a deal, then the president doesn't know about it, the vice president doesn't know about it, and i don't know about it. an aid confirmed the exchange took place. here's a picture of harry reed on the phone looking towards the white house on thursday before a democratic caucus luncheon. this time barbara of maryland, tensions between obama and allies brought to surface.

one after another, senators john f. kerry and cantwell of washington demand lew explain what the president was doing. the american people were with them on tax increases for the rich and the notion of "shared sacrifice" why give up now? why cut a deal without guarantees of new tax revenues? for 45 minutes, the cross-examination went on. when lew left, they turned to the colleagues and said, "i haven't hen a meeting like this in my 35 years of congress." we want to know where you think this stands now on this 22nd of july with the august 2nddeadline ahead of us. beginning with the republican line. terry, you're on the air. >> caller: hello? >> host: yes, sir.

>> caller: well, what i can't understand, they want to cut out medicare medicaid and disability, and as it stands now, i've been totally disabled from 2001, and if they cut my.com out, we're -- my disability out, we're going to be on the street. we don't have a choice. >> host: they are not talking about cutting it out, but if they rediced it, would you be still in the same situation? >> caller: yes, ma'am. >> host: what's your message to washington? >> caller: to get out of their keester and do what's right for the elderly and the disabled. we're the ones that brought them where they are now because when we was working and younger, i

mean, it was our taxes that helped them out. >> host: all right. thanks for your call, terry. scott independent, mason city, iowa. you're on. good morning. >> caller: morning! why is nobody in congress for years said, and most of the american people want this, why don't they just drop the irs, get rid of all of this crap they're going through, and just give a flat tax that way it's fair to everybody. when you buy something new, then you pay the flat tax. it will raise more revenue than this country would ever think about arguing over. they'd have more money than they know what to do with. all they need to do is get rid of the arguing and have a flat tax is what the american people years ago said they prefer to have. >> host: thank you, scott. >> caller: that's my opinion.

>> host: "washington post" has a men knew of budget -- mean ewe of budget choices. there's another one which is $9 trillion, but here are a comparison of four. $4 trillion deal called the grand bargain which comprises all or any of the options. the $3 trillion deal, the $2.5 trillion mid size, and the $1.5 billion. >> senate is back in session. taking you back to the floor with senator patrick leahy. met in the state of vermont. but with the changes in the senate session, we are going to meet here in the capitol. so anyway, i thank you very much for the courtesy and i yield to the senator from mississippi. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, it's

a distinct honor and pleasure to join senator leahy in welcoming our guests from the united kingdom to the united states senate. this is a tradition that we have really enjoyed and benefited from, the close opportunity to talk and discuss issues of mutual interest and concerns. and we -- i think we reflect credit on the good relationship of both our countries in that process. it's an honor to join him in welcoming them at this time. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, it was ten years ago that my office was contacted in chicago, illinois, a young woman named teresa lee, who is korean by birth, had been part of something known as the merit music program in chicago. it's an amazing program. a lady in her later years of her

life decided to leave some money to a program that would offer to children in the public schools a musical instrument and instruction. her belief was that many of these students would take up the offer and that learning a musical instrument could be an important part of their future lives. she was right. the merit music program, at least as of last year, had a 100% placement rating of graduates in college. it turned out that giving a musical instrument to a young person and giving them a chance to develop that skill did a lot more than create music. it created self-esteem, confidence and a belief that they could do something with their lives, even for many students who were from poor families. well, ten years ago, the merit music program contacted us and told us about a young woman named teresa lee who was one of

their start pupils. she had learned piano and had graduated from a level of competence that they seldom had seen in their program. in fact, she had played in concert, and now at her -- after she graduated from high school, she was accepted at several of the major music schools around the united states, including juilliard. as she filled out the application to go to school, though, she found out she ran into a problem. they asked on the application for juilliard school of music what her nationality or citizenship was. she turned to her mother and said what do i put down there? her mother said teresa, when we brought you to this country, you were 2 years old and i never filed any papers. i don't know what your status is in terms of your nationality. the mother was an american citizen. her brother and sister were american citizens, but she had never established her

citizenship or a claim for citizenship. so at the age of 18, she contacted my office and asked what could she do. we took a look at the law and the law was very clear. under the law of the united states of america, that young woman who came here at the age of 2 and had not filed any papers had to leave the united states and go to brazil, which was the last country that her parents traveled through on their way to america and wait ten years before she could apply to become legal in america. it didn't sound fair to me. 2-year-olds don't have much voice in terms of whether they should file papers or not. if anybody made a mistake, it was her parents, and they knew it. they couldn't correct it, though. and the law didn't correct it. the law punished her, ultimately sending her back to korea, a place she could never remember with a language she didn't

speak. so i introduced the dream act and the dream act said if you came to america under the circumstances, if you're brought here as a child, if you grew up in this country and graduated from high school, if you had no serious questions about your moral standing in the community, no serious problems with any criminal activity or background, we would give you a chance, just a chance, and the chance was you could either enlist in our military for at least two years or you could complete two years of college. and if you did that, we would allow you to work toward legal status. all along, we would be asking the same questions. as the years went by, have you done anything that would suggest to us that you shouldn't be part of the united states of america? that was the dream act. and so i introduced the bill ten years ago. interesting story what happened to teresa. she went on to school at

juilliard, and she did become an accomplished concert pianist. she has played a concert at carnegie hall. she has now married an american citizen and she is legal in the united states. so the story had a happy ending, but for many of these young people, it has no happy ending. they end up deported at the age of 18 or 19 because the parents didn't file papers or couldn't file papers on their behalf. that's why i introduced the dream act, to give these young people a chance. last month, i chaired the first senate hearing on the dream act. there was compelling testimony there from a number of witnesses. secretary of the department of education, arne duncan, testified about the talented students who would be eligible under the dream act. the class valedictorians, the star athletes, honor roll students and leaders in rotc. their options, however, are limited because they are

undocumented. secretary duncan explained that the dream act would make america a better and stronger country by giving these young people a chance to fulfill their potential. dr. clifford stanley testified he is the under secretary of personnel and readiness from the department of defense, and he testified that the dream act would strengthen our national security by giving thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young people a chance to enlist in the armed forces. homeland secretary -- homeland security secretary janet napolitano also testified in favor of the dream act and said this law would strengthen our homeland security by allowing immigration agents to focus their time, attention and resources on those who clearly are a danger in the united states and should be exported and deported rather than on these young people who had never posed any threat to anyone. lieutenant colonel mark let stock who taught immigration law at west point military academy

testified about important restrictions included in the dream act to prevent abuse. the most compelling testimony came from this young woman, ola keso. ola was brought to the united states by her mother from albania in 1998. when she was 5 years old. last month, she graduated from high school in warren, michigan, with a 4.4 grade point average. she is enrolled in the honors program at the university of michigan as a premed student. ola has so much to contribute to america, but even today she faces deportation back to albania, a country she barely remembers, a country she left when she was 5 years old. she spoke for thousands of people just like her, young people, who call themselves now the dreamers. i often come to the floor of the senate to tell their stories,

and today i want to tell you about three others. this is tapiya and dominique inkata. tapiya is on the left. dominique so the right. their parents, john and joan tapiya brought them from alawi to the united states in 1990. at the time, tapiya was four years old and dominique 11 months old. the inkatas came here legally so they had work permits. john inkata, as ordained christian minister, worked as a hospice counselor. his wife joan worked as an accountant. they filed papers to stay here permanently. for years their case was stuck in immigration court. finally in 2009, they were

granted legal permanent residency in the united states. but by this time, tapiya and dominique were adults and unable to obtain legal status through their parents. had the court moved more quickly and the decision made while they were still children, there would be no question about their documented status. earlier this year, these two young women were placed in deportation proceedings. dominique sent me a letter and here's what she said about being deported to malawi. "the looming fear of having everything i know, including part of my family, here in the united states while i'm removed to the other side of the world is crippling." and tapiya wrote a letter as well and said, "i cannot imagine my life in africa. i'm an american. i know this culture and speak this language. i pledge allegiance to this fl flag." the department of homeland security decided to give them a one-year stay in their

deportation. i think that was the right thing to do. it would just be wrong to send these young women who grew up in america and have so much to contribute back to malawi, a country they don't even rememb remember. tapiya is now 25. in 2007 -- listen to this, mr. president -- in 2007, tapiya on the left here graduated summa cum laude from the university of cincinnati with a degree in finance. for the past two years, she's worked at an accounting firm and she dreams of being a certified public accountant. she cannot as long as she is undocumented. in her letter to me, she said what america mens to me, "quite simply, when you say the american dream all around the world, they know what you're talking about. people who have never been to our shores, eaten our food or even spoken our language have heard of a prosperous nation that above all else grants freedom and rights to all peop people." dominique, on the right, is now 21. last month, she graduated from the university of cincinnati, a double degree in chemistry and

premedicine. she's now working at the university hospital and the jewish hospital in the research department of clinical studies. dominique is studying for the mcat and plans to apply to medical school when her immigration status is resolved. dominique told me -- and i quote -- "i dream of being a doctor and of giving back to a country that has given so much to me." so would america be better off if tapiya and dominique are deported to m malawi or if they are continued to stay in the united states, realizing their dreams and making us a better nation? let me introduce to you another dreamer. this is jose migana. a big smile on his face. jose brought to the united states from mexico when he was two years old. he grew up in arizona. he graduated as the valedictorian of his high school class.

he enrolled in arizona state university, became the first member of his family to attend college. but then arizona passed a law prohibiting public universities from giving financial aid or in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. hundreds of students were forced to drop out of school. but jose persevered. he found his calling on the speech and debate team where he ranked fifth in the nation. and in 2008, jose migana graduated summa cum laude from arizona state university with a major in business management. jose couldn't work because of his legal status so he went to law school. next year, jose will graduate from baylor university law school in waco, texas. despite his potential to give to this country, jose will not be able to work as a lawyer because of his undocumented status. he sent me a letter and here's what he said. "the worst part of being undocumented is the fact that legally the united states is not considered my home.

i have not been to mexico since i left when i was two years old. i don't have any friends or close family in mexico. if i were to be deported, it would literally be like being thrown into a foreign country with a different language and culture. the united states is my home. i want to give back to this country that i love." could we use someone with jose's talents here in america? of course. for the last ten years, i've been working on the dream act. there's been one constant -- i've had the support not only of my colleagues in the senate but i've also had the support of religious leaders across the united states. the faith community supports the dream act because it is based on a fundamental moral principle that is shared by every religious tradition and is this. it is wrong to punish children for the actions of their paren parents. earlier this month, i held a press conference to announce dream sabbath. the dream sabbath will take

place this fall on friday, september 23, saturday, the 24th, and sunday, the 25th. on the dream sabbath, churches, synagogues, mosques and temples around the country will be asked to dedicate time during their regular weekly worship service to a conversation about the dream act. when i announced the dream sabbath, i was joined by religious leaders from a variety of faith traditions. one of my real heroes and friends, cardinal theodore mccarrick, a leader and friend, bishop minerva karcona, the first hispanic woman to be elected bishop in the methodist church. nathan rodriguez, bishop in the largest hispanic churches with over 30,000 churches. reverend derrick harkins, pastor as one of the largest churches in our nation's capital, representing the national association of evangelicals,

rabbi lisa gershaw, representing the hebrew immigrant society, and rabbi hami magib. i want to enter into the "congressional record" the statements of two religious leaders who participated in that sabbath announcements. center simone campbell, executive director of network, a catholic social justice organization, and bishop richard graham of the lutheran church. and i ask unanimous consent that these statements be added to the record at the close of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. in her statement, center campbell quotes the prophet joel who spoke of our sons and daughters as prophets. she said, "our sons and daughters are prophesizing to us. they are telling us of a way our nation should go in order to be whole, to be creative, to lead in the 21st century. we, the older generation, need to listen and act. congress needs to enact the dream act." at the dream act sabbath announcement, we were joined by

gabi pacheko. gabi has become a great friend of mine, a wonderful young lady. she's one of the leaders of the dream act students. her parents brought her to america from ecuador when she was seven years old. she was the highest-ranking junior rotc student in her high school. the air force tried to recruit her but she was unable to enlist because she does not have legal status in the united states. she was brought here as a child. gabi's currently working on her bachelor's degree in special education and she wants to teach autistic children. i met her last year after she and three other dream act students literally walked 1,500 miles from miami, florida, to washington, d.c., to raise awareness for the dream act. along the way, these four students joined -- were joined by hundreds of supporters who came out to walk with them. they called their trip "the trail of dreams." the goal of the dream sabbath is to put a human face on the plight of the undocumented students like gabi and educate

america about the dream act. and, of course, our ultimate goal is to build up support to pass the dream act. dream act students need more than our prayers, they need our help. they need our help to pass the dream act. dreamers like tapiya and dominique inkata, jose migana, ola caso and gabi pecheko are americans in their hearts. they have stood up every day in their classrooms across america pledging allegiance to our flag and singing the only "national anthem" they know to the only country they know, a country that they love. they are willing to serve in our military. they are willing to pursue an education to add to a better america. all they need is the permission splislip of congress to give thm that chance. i ask my colleagues to support the dream act. it's the right thing to do. it will make america stronger. mr. president, i have a brief statement i'd like to ask be put at a separate place in the

record after the remarks which i've just concluded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to take a moment to thank a friend of mine who is leaving public office after more than four decades of service in winnebego county, illinois. doug irand won his first political race in 1970 when he was elected win ba winnebo couny treasure. he wasn't supposed to win that race. they hadn't elected a democrat to a county-wide position in 138 years. apparently nobody told doug. he ran as a write-in candidates, campaigned in his first election like it was the most important race he could possibly run. he filled out the campaign schedule every day by knocking on every door and talking to every voter he could find. when the volts were counted on -- votes were counted on election night, doug irand had made election history, becoming the first democratic treasure

ever elected in winnebego county, illinois. over the next 30 years, he was reelected seven times. he was born in dixon, illinois, hometown of ronald reagan, and he was every bit as proud to be a democrat as president reagan was to be a republican. but doug never allowed his political affiliation to influence the way he treated his constituents. when you walked into the country treasure's office in rockford, you weren't a republican or democrat, you were a taxpayer who deserved straight answers, good service and respect. that's how doug irand saw it and that's why voters reelected him to the treasurer's office many times. two stories will tell you something about what kind of treasure he was. one of the first actions he took was to put the banks, the local banks on notice that they would have to bid for winnebego county's bank business. no more awarding country's banking business on the basis of friendship and political connection. whichever bank offered the highest interest rate would get the job. in nearly 30 years, competitive investing brought tens of millions of dollars in the

higher interest rate -- pardon me, higher interest payments to the county, a real savings for taxpayers. doug also whittled down his staff. when he came in, it was 30. by the time he left, they were down to nine and their service never suffered. another example of the sort of treasurer doug irand was. in the late 1970's, an elderly man came in the office to pay his tax bill and he pulled out a big bag of coins. he was literally counting his coins to pay his tax bill. doug went up to say hello to him and he noticed that the coins were all silver. mercury dimes and silver dollars. valuable collector's items. doug told the man his coins were worth more than their face value and he didn't just stop there. he arranged for a professional appraise afl thprofessional -- e coins. in the end, not only was the elderly man able to pay his tax bill, he took home a small nest egg. that's the kind of conscientious person and public servant doug irand is. in 1999, doug announced he was

stepping down after 28 1/2 years as country treasurer. at that time, he was in a life-and-death struggle with smoking-related cancer and his prognosis wasn't very good. once again, doug irand defied the odds. he beat cancer, resumed his political career, winning election as harlem township supervisor and a winnebegoth county board member. after ten years, he lost his reelection bid to the country board last november and he'll step down from the harlem county township board next month. it will shortly be his 70th birthday, leaving behind a distinguished record of 40 years and 8 months of public service. he grew up on a form in rural winnebego county. he was one of six kids, including three foster children. his family raised miniature horses. doug's dad worked in the factory. doug served in the air force during the vietnam war and came home and started working delivering mail. that's when he got the political bug. federal law prohibits public employees from running for office so doug gave up the

security of the postal service job for the insecurity of political life. he's a passionate supporter of ordinary working people. and the american labor movement, and he considers himself a fiscal conservative when it comes to saving taxpayers' money. ask doug's friends his political hero win in life and he'll tell you one life, hubert heracio humphrey. like humphrey, doug irand is a happy warrior. he loves politics, shaking hands, talking to voters, debating the issues. the high point of his year -- is at the winnebego county fair where he'll spend hours and hours talking to every one of the visitors at the fair. doug gives back to his communities in other ways than politics. only about 2% of the boys who enter boy scouts ever make it to eagle scout. i was in the other 98%, but doug aurand was in the 2%. he became an eagle scout leader for more than 30 years. he has been a leader and friend to hundreds of eagle scouts.

doug and his wife julie have attended scores of graduations and weddings of doug's former eagle scouts. he also speaks frequently to young people about health dangers of smoking which he learned through his own life experience. cancer cost doug aurand a small part of his tongue. that would have been a loss for any of us who fancy ourselves to be public speakers, and for doug it presented some special challenges. but doug's problem wasn't in his expression and diction. it's in his mastery of mall -- malproposeisms. doug has a unique way with words. one common doug-ism, in speaking of things that are done and can't be changed, he often refers to water over the bridge instead of water under the bridge. another friend says his favorite is the way doug pronounces protege. he calls it proto-joy. because of his service as public

officeholder, eagle scout leader and friend to many, doug does indeed have proto-joys all across america, all across winnebago county. doug and his wife julie will retire to florida. their influence in illinois will be felt for years to come. julie's famous donkey cookies which she always had a box waiting for me whenever i got up to rockford will certainly be missed by this senator. in closing, i want to wish doug a happy birthday and happy retirement. i want to thank julie and the children and the grandchildren for sharing their husband, father and grandfather with the people of winnebago county. doug aurand's service to america has made a real difference. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i seek the floor

if you will excuse me for one second. i ask unanimous consent that -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 237, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 237, expressing the sense of the senate regarding coming together as a nation and ceasing all work or other activity for a moment of remembrance. beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern daylight time on september 11, 2011, in honor of the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks committed against the united states on september 11, 2001. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure.

mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed at the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. and i ask unanimous consent further that i be permitted to speak up to 15 -- for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, there are so many things here that we can disagree upon, but i want to say thank you to all of my colleagues. 100 of us have joined together in overwhelming numbers to

support this historic legislation which creates a national moment of remembrance to commemorate the tragedy of 9/11. mr. president, few events, if any, have done more to change the course of american history as much as the horrifying terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001, nearly ten years ago. it was one of the worst days in american history on our soil, a day that placed a permanent cloud over america and the free world. few, if any, americans can forget where they were that fateful tuesday morning when our country was gripped with shock and disbelief and it felt like our world had turned upside-down . i was traveling at the time, i

was in the middle east, and when the news came that an airplane struck the trade towers, the first con collusion that i came to was that there was a stray airplane from a nearby airfield and that that was it, but as the news kept coming and people in the streets of the city i was in who were tearing at the terrible news about what happened to america. almost 3,000 people, including more than 700 people from my own state of new jersey, were brutally massacred in that attack. that's more american lives lost than on d-day when thousands of americans stormed normandy. now, many of the victims were hard at work on a typical

weekday. 50,000 people worked in the twin towers, with another 200,000 passing through as visitors. it's impossible to believe that these towering facilities with a huge infrastructure could be burned, melted and brought to the ground. many of the people who lost their lives lost them saving others, including 343 firefighters, 60 police officers and other first responders as they answered the call of others who desperately needed their help. some became heroes that day, such as those on united flight number 93, who took on the hijackers that were in the aisles to try and bring that

airplane to its target, but the people who stood up and fought against them, heroes, brave, courageous to prevent that airplane from reaching its intended target. tragically, a decade after the twin towers fell, the toll of 9/11 is still climbing. more than 85,000 first responders, cleanup workers and community residents are dealing with the aftermath of this tragedy. there are victims who are being monitored, receiving medical treatment after breathing the toxic fumes and the dust at ground zero. and we all know the wounds that come from 9/11 are not just physical. the witnesses of the tragedy. to see people jump -- jumping from high stories on the building because they could no

longer stand the heat, the smoke the witnesses of the tragedy that thousands of survivors who narrowly escaped the attacks and the families of their victims who will never see their loved ones again still bear the scars of that awful day. and life changed in countless ways for all americans on september 11, affecting every move that we make. all of us are reminded of 9/11's legacy almost every day as we wait in line to present our i.d. when we travel, go to work or just when we hear news of further attempts on the lives of americans. there are approximately 50,000 baggage checkers and screeners working every day to keep us safe at airports across the country. in fact, the federal department of homeland security created in the wake of 9/11 has more than

230,000 employees and spends more than $40 billion each year protecting us from a similar onslaught. like pearl harbor, 9/11 can be described as a day that will live in infamy forever. with pearl harbor with all of its pain and sacrifice, an end to that conflict finally came and normalcy was restored to our country after some years, but our enemy today continues its search for ways to bring pain and suffering to americans. they keep searching for technology and weapons, and ten years later we're still fighting them. and as we near the tenth anniversary of 9/11, it's important for us to remember what brought us to this point. and that's why i am so proud and

grateful to see the senate unanimously approve this legislation, which as we approach the tenth anniversary of 9/11 calls on our country to pause, not september 11 for a moment of remembrance. what's planned is that at 1:00 p.m. eastern time that day, all americans will call upon to cease all work and activity and spend a moment in silence reflecting on what happened on 9/11, 2001. our local, state and national institutions from sports teams to railroads to broadcasters and places of worship will be called upon to mark this moment with church bells or sirens to recall the honor of those victims. this will be a striking symbol of american solidarity, signaling to the world that we

remain united against those who threaten our freedom. it will also be a powerful nationwide expression of america's patriotic spirit and our refusal to forget the thousands of innocent lives that we lost in the destruction of 9/11. many of us recall the love of country that we experienced in the days and weeks and months after the attacks in 2001. during that period, it seemed like everywhere you turned, you saw an american flag. as a nation, we were willing to set aside our differences to mourn our losses, to mourn losses of friends and acquaintances and neighbors and decided to work together to defeat those who threaten our way of life. i believe the national moment of remembrance can help us recapture that spirit of unity and remind everyone how strong

we are when we stand ght together. -- stand together. i thank my colleagues for the outpouring of support for this legislation and hope that they will be able to encourage their constituents to participate in this moment of remembrance. every member of the senate joined together as cosponsors to create this moment of remembrance, representing all political views in every corner of this great nation. we want everybody to participate, including straight and local governments, military and veterans organizations and news media, houses of worship and sports teams. the 9/11 moment of remembrance will be a way to pay tribute to the lives lost and forever changed by the events in pennsylvania, at the pentagon and at ground zero. let there be no doubt, 9/11 changed our country forever, and

the tragedy of this magnitude demands memory and vigilance. as a nation, we must keep alive the memories of the many courageous americans that we lost that day. we must be vigilant on behalf of the thousands of families who suffered incalculable losses, the losses that must never be forgotten. and during the past decade, through our pain and sorrow, has come the realization that this vigilance must be maintained so that nothing like that can happen again. but once again, mr. president, i say thank you to my colleagues for supporting this measure. it will send a powerful signal to the rest of the world and remind us how strong america is when we all stand together. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the american people deserve an accounting of what happened on the floor this morning. the citizens of utah, who i'm honored to represent, and citizens all over this country thought that the senate would be voting on the cut, cap, balance bill later this week.

i was an original cosponsor, i am an original cosponsor of this bill in the senate. i have signed the cut, cap and balance pledge. and i've always supported a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. and this year is one of my proudest achievements to have introduced s.j. res. 10, a balanced budget amendment that is supported by every republican in this body for the first time in all the balanced budget amendments i've brought to this floor. it is the strongest balanced budget amendment ever written, one that fundamentally deals with our spending crisis and i am honored to have work with my colleague and friend from utah, senator lee, in crafting this amendment and -- and senator cornyn and -- and 44 other republicans as well. and i'm honored to be working with old and new friends, such as senators cornyn, kyl, paul, toomey, rubio and all other republicans in pursuing this constitutional amendment for the american people. the cut, cap, balance legislation that the senate tabled today culminates in a

balanced budget amendment but also includes the short-term deficit reduction that families and markets are demanding. cut, cap, balance provides meaningful deficit reduction for the next year and spending caps for the years that follow. it sets us on a path toward a balanced budget and addresses the gross overspending of the federal government in the short term, taking on the deficits and the debt that are holding back economic growth and permanently burdening american families and businesses. and most importantly, cut, cap and balance would fix the problem of government overspending permanently. it would eliminate the bias in washington for ever more spending by requiring congress to send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the states for ratification prior to any increase in the debt ceiling. the more the american people hear about this plan, the more they like it. they know that the president has no plan.

they know that the markets are done with promises to cut spending down the road. they know that raising taxes is not the solution to a government spending problem. and the president and congressional democrats know that the people know this. that is why they have pulled out all the stops to kill this bill's momentum. the president threatened to veto cut, cap and balance so that did not do the trick. so after the house passed cut, cap and balance, the president all of a sudden supported the so-called gang of six proposal. his advisors knew that they had a problem. all of his clever talk about raising taxes on oil companies and corporate jets and yachts was not distracting the american people from the simple -- from a simple fact. my friends on the other side of the aisle have no credible plan for balancing the budget. the president has no credible

plan for balancing the budget. he hasn't offered anything that would help us to get to a balanced budget. nor do i believe he ever will offer anything. they have speeches and executive summaries of bills that will be written down the road. they have plans and proposals for future spending, cuts that remain a mystery to everyone. they have budget frameworks but they have no plan. the chairman of the senate budget committee has a budget outline but here is the senate democratic caucus budget proposal. let me just refer to this goose egg chart here. that's the senate democratic caucus budget proposal. a big goose egg. as meager as this is, i have to hand it to them. it beats the president's budget proposal. the president has offered us

nothing and we have a good egg here in the senate. -- and we have a goose here egg hoo thinthe senate. the american people are done with this. the same people who brought you the stimulus, the policy of taking $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars and throwing it into the potomac river, and the same people who brought you $2.6 trillion in new spending and a half trillion dollars in new taxes with obamacare, are just not credible when they now boast of their commitment to deficit reduction and balanced budgets. the most recent proposal is from the gang of six. we are still looking at this proposal and i will not condemn anyone who makes a gad-faith effort to get -- a good-faith effort to get to the bottom of our serious problems. their efforts might be on the side of the angels, but the devil is in the details and many of us have real questions about this proposal. specifically, we want to know what the revenue impact will be, because by some accounts, it will raise taxes by between $2 trillion and $3 trillion.

at the very least, the american people understand that the president's desperate embrace of this plan is to avoid once again dealing with the deficit. whatever its substantive merits or demerits, this proposal is a commitment to later dealing -- to dealing with the deficit later, but later is too late. we need to deal with deficit reduction now. the people of this nation are telling us this over and over. they are lighting up the capitol switchboards, and i am confident that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hearing the message loud and clear -- balance the budget now. get spending under control now. a last-minute op-ed from the president telling us to -- quote -- "go big" on a debt deal is a little, should i say, too little too late. we are facing our third straight

year of trillion-dollar defici deficits. our debt is now over $14. $14.3 trillion and the president has shown no serious signs of getting this fiscal crisis under control. he offered up a dead-on-arrival budget in february. when even his friends in the mainstream media panned his budget for his total lamb of attention to our looming debt crisis, he offered his budget mulmulligan with a much ballyhod speech on deficit reduction, but a speech is not a plan. meanwhile, it has been over 800 days since senate democrats have produced a budget, thus abdicating their most basic duties. the american people are finished with this dithering and they know what the solution is. the president and the majority leader no doubt saw the polling yesterday on the cut, cap,

balance plan. here's the bottom line. nearly two-thirds of the american people support it. that is only half the story. herhere is the rest. everyone likes cut, cap, balance. not just republicans, not just democrats. it makes sense. american families want deficit reduction and with this plan, they get it. no vague platitudes or speeches oral lior rallies about reducine deficit. this plan reduces the deficit and it fixes the underlying problem, which is washington's predisposition toward more spending. the president frequently demands that congress put partisanship aside and come to a deficit-reduction agreement. well, the american people are one step ahead of him. the cut, cap, balance plan, along with the balanced budget

amendment to the constitution, won support across the board. 63% of democrats back cut, cap, balance; 53% of those who oppose the tea party support it. democrats threw everything they had at this bill. they absurdly called it the cut, cap and destroy medicare plan. what bull. the left is becoming a caricature of itself when it comes to demagoguery on the issue of medicare. and i think that the american people have caught on that liberals claim that when republicans turn on the lights in the morning, they are working to destroy medicare. bull. these claims no longer have credibility. the left is out of talking points. their constituents are telling them to pass cut, cap, balance. they know it won't destroy

anything. it will save this country. and so instead of having a vote on it, democrats decided to pull the plug on the vote. ordinarily, it is not a good idea to actively undermine the will of the people, but in this case, there is a method to their madness. the president and his hard left supporters are in a real pickle. they refuse any structural reforms to our biggest spending programs. the programs that are driving our country toward a fiscal collapse, but they know that they cannot come clean with the american people about the tax increases that will hit squarely in the middle class if these structural reforms fail to occur, so they do nothing. unable to talk straight with citizens who are demanding a balanced budget, they do nothing. they focus on $21 billion in tax benefits that go to energy companies over ten years, when we have a $1.5 trillion deficit

this year. this year. this is how peter roth at the "u.s. news & world report" put it. "the president and congressional democratic leaders are still dug in, trying to pull a rabbit out of their hat that will get them what the political coalition behind them demands. new taxes, new spending and no real cuts." unquote. this is not going to happen. so i'm able to thread the needle between the president's hard left base that refuses benefit reductions and the hard right wing that refuses deficit reduction, they punt. they refuse add vote on the cut, cap and balance plan. to distract the american people from the fact that they were running from a fight, the rhetoric was laid on pretty thick. this is what we heard about this bill. according to my friends on the other side, cut, cap, balance is

-- quote -- "as weak and senseless as anything that has ever come on this senate floor." it is -- quote -- anathema to what our country is all about." unquote. this is some of the worst legislation in the history of this country, unquote. now, let's be clear about what they are talking. they are smearing a bill that is -- that would balance the budget. they are trashing a bill that requires a balanced budget constitutional amendment. i personally am glad to know where the other side stands, but they don't stand with the american people. they certainly don't stand with my home state of utah. the american people think that balancing the budget is precise ly what america is all about. reining in spending, restoring the constitution and securing the liberty and prosperity of america's families is exactly about what congress should be

doing. i am disappointed in what happened here today, and i'm also confident that this fight is not over. the left might be able to hide from the vote on balancing the budget by a simple motion to table, which they are hoping obscures their desire to not balance the budget, but they cannot hide from the markets and the legacy of debt that president obama has given this country because that is a real threat to our credit rating. yesterday, standard and poor's made clear that avoiding the default was only one variable in their rating of u.s. credit. this is what standard and poor's said. quote -- "we have previously stated our belief that there is a material risk that efforts to reduce future budget deficits will fall short of the targets

set by congressional leaders and the administration. in this light, we see at least a one in two likelihood that we could lower the long-term rating by one or more notches on the u.s. within the next three months and potentially as soon as early august. if we conclude that washington hasn't reached what we consider to be a credible agreement to address future budget deficits." unquote. now, after years of reckless spending by president obama and his democratic allies, the chickens are coming home to roost. we face an imminent debt crisis and a failure to take it on will impose a crushing burden on america's families and businesses. our economy is stagnant, and the failure of the president to load on deficit reduction now threatens higher interest rates which will slow it even further. this is standard and poor's analysis of the impact of the debt downgrade due to a failure of deficit reduction. quote -- "we assume that under

this scenario, we would see a moderate rise in long-term interest rates, 25-50 basis points, despite an accommodative fed due to an ebbing of market confidence as well as slowing of economic growth 25-50 basis points on g.d.p. growth, admitted increase in consumer and business caution." unquote. for an economy that is slogging along on such anemic growth and job creation, this warning should wake people up. it should make the president and the left get serious about deficit reduction. but instead, the president is still casting about for a plan. it is important to remind people that we have a plan. it is called cut, cap, balance. it culminates in a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, and it is supported broadly by the american people.

some folks on the other side claim to be for a balanced budget. they claim to stand with the people, but on a party-line vote, they voted to table this proposal today. when america's founders came together in the summer of 1787 to draft our constitution, they faced many challenges, but at heart they had a respect for republican government. they had a respect for the sovereign power of the american people, and they understood that the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty gave the constitution its legitimacy. for that reason, the constitution that they wrote was clear that the voice of the people should be loudest on the most pressing issues. the provisions for amending the constitution provided that on the most important issues, that people rule directly. the constitution belongs to the people. it only became law because it was ratified by the people, and it can only be changed by the

people. our nation is deeply in debt, and this debt now threatens the very liberty of families and the vitality of our economy. it is a threat to current and future prosperity. and most importantly, it is a threat to limited constitutional government. the people know this. they know it in their guts. they know that the problem here is spending. our problem is too much spending, not too much -- or should i say -- let me put that this way. our problem is too much spending, not too little taxation. and they know what the solution is. cut, cap, balance and a balanced budget constitutional amendment. there will be talk now about moving on, but i am not moving on. democrats want to write the obituary on this bill and turn to some new plan or framework that this president produces one way or the other, i guess, but no plan that this president produces will get us to balance. cut, cap, balance does. i'm not so sure what my friends

on the other side are afraid of. the founder of their party, thomas jefferson, had a deep respect for the democratic process and the sovereignty of the people. what are they so afraid of? why not pass cut, cap, balance? why not send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification? if the liberals have a better argument, they can lead a fight against the amendment in the states. all they need are 13 states to defeat the balanced budget amendment. why not let the people decide this? during the last presidential campaign, the president frequently told his admirers yes, we can. well, now the american people are saying it back to him. they are telling him that they want to balance the budget and that we can balance the budget. we can and we should pass cut, cap, balance and send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. again, i will just repeat it. if the democrats so much hate

the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, all they have got to do is get 13 states to vote against it, to vote against ratification. we have to get 38 states to vote for ratification. that may seem like an overwhelming job. i don't think so. i think the amendment would be ratified so quickly, democrat heads would be spinning. and i might add, maybe even some republican heads as well. all i can say is that this country's in trouble. this country is on the way down to self-destruction unless we get it under control, and i don't see one program from the other side that even comes close to showing how we get this under control except more taxes and more spending. i guarantee you if we raise taxes, they would spend every stinking dime of it. that's been the history of my 35 years in the united states senate as the most senior republican, and all i can say is

that we're not going to let them get away with it anymore. we're a minority now. i believe that we can get in the majority, and all i can say is the democrats would do themselves a great favor if they would vote for cut, cap, balance and a constitutional amendment and let the people, let the people decide, let them make this decision. come on, democrats. all you need to do is get 13 states. what's -- what's so fearful to you? i think what's fearful is that this waltz that has been going on of big spending all these years is going to come to an end. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that we be put in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in recess. recess:

sandra wilkness be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: in about an hour mr. reid: in about an hour >> we'll vote on the republican cut, cap, and balance legislation. as i've said before. it's one the worse pieces of legislation to be placed on the floor of the united states senate. it violates the spirit of our constitution and certainly what we're trying to accomplish in washington. we as a senate refuse to waste one more day on this legislation. we have 11 days left until the united states simply stops pays its bills. frankly, we've wasted too much time already on this. united states house of representatives needs to know this legislation has expired. it's gone. republicansmented a -- republicans wanted to vote on social security before helping democrats avert this crisis. in an hour, they'll get that chance. at least one of the republican senators went over to a large

gathering in the house of representatives i'm told and said we're going to get at least 60 votes on this. it cuts military pay, benefits, and more. it erects constitutional protections for hundreds of billions of dollars in special interest tax breaks, oil companies, jobs overseas, and millionaires and billionaires can buy the yachts and corporate jets for which they get tax benefits. republicans demanded we pass this radical proposal before considering cooperating with democrats to avert a default crisis to rock the financial markets. in effect holding this nation's economy hostage and demanding the death of medicare and social security as its ransom. we all know their failed

prescription will fail year in the united states senate. we do not have the votes to pass the plan that balances the budget on the backs of seniors, middle class families while protecting unfair tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and so we must move on, mr. president, and i want to be very, very clear. there is simply no more time to waste debating and voting on measures that have no hopes of becoming law. we have no more time to waste playing partisan games. as the saying goes, indecision becomes decision with time. our time is running out before this gridlock, this refusal by the other side to move even an inch towards compromise becomes a decision to default on debt. markets are racks towards inaction, every responsible voice including those of my republican colleagues, many of them at least, has warned much worse is to come if we don't take action and take it soon.

that's a risk we can't afford to take. i ask the republican colleagues again to join democrats in seeking commonground. the american people demanded it you of us. overwhelming they said national default is a serious problem, and that's an understatement and both parties of congress need to meet in the middle. we know, mr. president, there's talks going on between president obama and speaker boehner. i wish them well. we await their efforts. i'm told there's revenue measures in that. that's the case we know constitutionally, the matter must start in the house of representatives. >> we'll leave this program to continue our live coverage of the u.s. senate. members have just returned from a recess.

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, may i speak as if in morning business? the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, yesterday the space shuttle "atlantis" came back and in that early morning darkness with these xenon illuminating that three manufacture mile long run way at the kennedy space station, where a century ago a set of grand parents of mine had homesteaded under the homestead act, worked the land for the required four years and i have a copy of the deed signed by woodrow wilson in 1917 to my grandparents, and, you know, over three-quarters of a century later that thought was not lost on me when we went in that early morning darkness to the launch pad that my grandparents would have never, never, ever believed

that so many years later that a grandson was going to literally leave the face of the earth from almost the old homestead where they had to swat mosquitoes and fight off rattlesnakes and alligators where they eked out a living out of that florida soil. well, that was the location that "atlantis" came back to yesterday morning, after a 13-day flawless mission, after having been launched by the finest launch team in the world, a launch team that is now having to disperse, in part because we are shutting down the space shuttle program after 30 glorious years, an incredible

flying machine, 135 missions, very successful, this allowed us to do -- that allowed us to do incredible things in space with human beings interacting, and of course two tragic missions -- the destruction of "challenge enjeer" o "on assent ascent 25 o and the destruction -- there would not be as much angst in the space community if the new rockets were ready. the problem is that the rockets

are being designed and in some cases being built, but they then have to be human-rated -- that is, all the redundancies for safety as well as the escape systems have to be designed and developed for the new rockets. one of those new rockets is going to fly this fall, and it will launch and rendezvous with the international space station and will deliver cargo, but it's going to take a few years to rate that for humans, and that all the more adds to the angst, the angst of people that have lost their jobs and now don't see the american rocket that is ready to fly immediately upon the shutdown of the space

shuttle program. i have been surprised, mr. president, that we had a lot of people in america that think that the space program is being shut down. we have an international space station up there at about 225 miles up. this thing is huge. it's 120 yards long, from one end zone to another of a football field. that's how big it is. and there are six human beings up there doing research right now, and, you know, we have trials in the food and drug administration on drugs that have been developed on that international space station. the first one that's in trials right now is a vaccine for salmonella. another one that is getting ready to start trials is a vaccine for mrsa, it is the

highly infectious bacterial disease in hospitals that we find so difficult to control because you can't get a kind of antibiotic that'll control it. so, mr. president, i just wanted to say for america's space team, a job well-done. a number of us, including senator hutchison and myself, had introduced and we passed last week the resolution commemorating the men and women of nasa and, indeed, their congratulations and commendations are certainly in order. -- on a job well-done. the space program lives -- the space program will go to greater

heights. we will go to mars, and we will see americans venture out into the cosmos for even greater discoveries. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to precede to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. officer sph without objection. mr. durbin: we're face ago deadline tonight. at midnight the current reauthorization of the federal aviation administration expires. that expiration will mean that no funds can be collected or paid out of the airport and airways trust fund starting tomorrow, july 23. the trust fund provides the primary source of funding for the federal aviation administration through excise taxes imposed on airline tickets, aviation fuel, and air cargo shipments. we asked the federal aviation

administration and secretary of transportation what would happen if the extension is not passed today in the united states senate. and he said,als follows: there will be a partial shutdown of federal aviation administration operations, approximately 4,000 nonessential f.a.a. staff will be furloughed, 143 of those employees, incidentally, work in my state, mostly in chicago. the airport improvement program, which provides construction project grants to airports, will be shut down and unable to obligate grants for projects. projects already obligated will be able to continue, for example, the o'hare project, quad cities runways in illinois, but obligating funds for new projects will be suspended. if the extension continues for a period of time, there may be reimbursement issues with projects that are underway. there's an unresolved question as to whether or not this failure to extend the f.a.a.

authorization will have an impact on the fees that we collect, the aviation taxes and fees that we collect from airlines for their operations. it's not clear yet whether or not we will lose that revenue or can recapture it if we reach an agreement at a later time. majority leader reid and chairman jay rockefeller have told house leaders that a shutdown is likely unless a clean extension can be passed. the senate is hotlining a clean extension today which i will go to next. there are no objections to this clean extension on the democratic side but we do expect an objection from the republican side. i want to tell you that the request that i make for this extension, this clean extension, is in the name of chairman jay rockefeller from your state of west virginia. this is a sad commentary on the political state of affairs in congress today. mr. president, this is the 21st extension of this authorization.

how could we probably explain to america that we have been unable so many times to extend this authorization for something so critical to our commerce and our economy? but now we are facing the most serious challenge we've ever had when it comes to this extension and that is the expiration of it this evening, a direct impact on the people who work for the f.a.a. and a direct impact on their operations. now, i might add very quickly, to give peace of mind to people, this will not have an impact on air traffic control and the safety of our airlines, not at all. but the orderly operation of the f.a.a. is at risk here. what is this all about? it's a battle over a program called essential air service. essential air service, if i'm not mistaken, was initiated by your predecessor, senator robert c. byrd of west virginia. at the time of deregulation of airlines, a decision was made

that the smaller communities across america needed a helping hand to maintain air service. we have it in illinois. over the years we have reconsidered it, amended it, changed it. it's really a shadow of what it started out to be. it's a very small program bystanders of the original program. -- by standards of the original program. there's a battle going on in the house and the senate now between republicans in the house and the democratic leadership in the senate about the future of this program. and, mr. president, i just want to say in all fairness and all honesty, for goodness sakes, to both sides, we believe you save that battle to another day. let us not jeopardize the operations of the federal aviation administration because of a squabble over an important but relatively small program. and that's what's going to happen. what we're going to hear after i make this request is an objection from the republican side to extending this authorization of the federal aviation administration with a clean extension, making no statement about change in

policy, just says don't jeopardize the operations of the f.a.a., let's keep them in business, let's fight this out next week or the week after on the essential air service issue but let's move forward and let the f.a.a. do its business with a clean bill that doesn't take sides on who's right and who's wrong on essential air service. what i'm offering is neutrality, political neutrality, a clean extension, bu, but what i'm afrd i'm going to get back is an insistence if you don't take the house republican proposal, we'll shut it down. i don't think that's a good choice for america. let us as politicians do our battles here. let's never do them at the expense of ordinary people across america who are trying to do good work to improve our airports and to make sure that we have the safest runways and the safest air operations in the world. that should be our highest priority. and so i'm going to make this request for a clean extension, without getting into this political squabble at all, and i

hope that the republicans will not object. i hope that we can extend this authorization for the federal aviation administration. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 109, h.r. 2553, that a rockefeller-hutchison substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hatch: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i would like to take just a few minutes to explain my objection to the legislation just offered by my esteemed colleague. i want to make it absolutely clear that a long-term f.a.a. reauthorization is a priority for this country and a priority for myself and i've said as much repeatedly. the consent request just offered by my colleague, even if accepted, would not prevent a lapse of current law. as my colleagues are likely aware, the house has completed legislative business for the

week so the only way to prevent a disruption to f.a.a. funding is to pass chairman mica's bill the house passed earlier this week. i worked with finance committee chairman baucus to report a tax title from the finance committee to the bill that passed the senate earlier this year. however, since then, progress on a long-term reauthorization has been slow. i share house transportation and infrastructure committee chairman mica's frustration that favors to organized labor have overshadowed the prospects for long-term f.a.a. reauthorization. last year, the national mediation board changed the rules under which employees of airlines and railroads are able to unionize. for decades, the standard has been that a majority of employees would have to agree in an election to form a union. however, the new national mediation board rules changed that standard so that all it takes to unionize is a majority of the employees who vote. now, this means that the m.n.b.

wants to count an employee who doesn't vote as voting for big labor. somehow, organized labor is able to claim that it is democratic to appropriate someone else's vote without that person's input and participation. the f.a.a. reauthorization bill that passed the house earlier this year undoes this heavy-handed rule and lets airline employees decide for themselves how to use their own votes. the house bill would merely undo a big partisan favor down a done behest of big labor and put efforts to unionize airline work forces on the same footing they have been on for years. the house bill does not create a new hurdle for unionization. instead, it restores the long-standing ability of airline employees to make decisions for themselves. as i said, it is unfortunate that kowtowing to big labor has effectively grounded efforts to get a long-term f.a.a. reauthorization off the ground. the lack of a long-term bill is bad for airports all across the country because they don't have the funding stability to plan

and complete projects. kicking the can further down the road is not a viable alternative to -- to actually doing what is in the best interests of passengers, commercial users of air transportation and our airlines and airports. as a senate conferee to the f.a.a. bill, i stand ready to do everything i can to break the cycle of short-term extensions and to do something that hasn't been done around here for more than 7 1/2 years and get the f.a.a. reauthorization off the ground. so having said all that, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 2553, which was received from the house. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table -- upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senator from utah is my friend.

we've worked on many things together. on this particular moment in time we're in disagreement. what he has presented to you is one side of a story, one side of a debate and said, unless you accept the house republican position on this, which has not been resolved, we're going to lay off 4,000 people at midnight tonight. do you think that's -- that means anything to them? what i offered was a clean extension that didn't get into 9 merits of this, which said let's put this big debate aside and that debate aside and keep the agency working, the federal aviation administration. said no, you either take the republican approach or else. and, incidentally, he told you at the outset, the house republicans have gone home, they're gone. they sent this over and said, take it or leave it or close it down. that's not a very sound choice for our country. i'm sorry that the senator from utah objected to a clean extension of this so that we could keep up these operations. i object to this because i don't believe it's a fair approach. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: hatch: a lot of us os side are getting a little tired of the national labor relations board usurping the power of the congress of the united states and enacting labor laws that -- by fiat of the board that are hardly going to be upheld by the courts. but nevertheless, that take years to reduce them and take them away. in this particular case, the national mediation board has changed a long-standing rule that when you vote to unionize, it's the vote of all employees. and this means that you could have a vote -- and this is what i think the house is trying to stop and to -- and to change addition it means that you can have a vote with less than half of the employees and it would be the majority of those who vote. now, that's never been the law, it's never been the case and it's clearly a heavy-handed approach towards -- towards the f.a.a. and i think that's one reason why the house has taken this very strong position. now, i understand my friend on

the other side. we are friends and we've worked together on so many issues and i have a tremendous amount of admiration for him and his ability. to lead and to express himself. he's one of the best -- best people of expression in the history of the senate and i have great respect for him. but that's one of the main reasons why the house is up in arms on this and i have to say our side is up in arms as well. we've got to stop this changing laws without the consent of congress just by the fiat of those on the national labor relations board and the national mediation board. it's not right. it's overturning hundreds of years of labor law and, frankly, it's wrong and i'm on the side of the house in this matter because of it. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: perhaps if i were as persuasive as my colleague has just said, he would not have objected. but having said that, when we speak about heavy hands, we don't have to worry about the heavy hand of the house on this

issue because they went home. they took off. they left. which means that 4,000 people will be furloughed this evening. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 104, s. 300. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 104, s. 300, a bill to prevent abuse of government charge cards. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and my statements relating to the matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that on monday, july 25, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: calendar number 83 and 84. that there be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on

calendar number 38 and 84 in that order -- 83 and 84 in that order. the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, july 25. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following my leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 46789. 30 p.m. with -- 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. further, that at 3:40 p.m., the senate observe a moment of silence in memory of officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john m. gibson of the united states capitol police who were killed 13 years ago in the line of duty defending this capitol, the people who work here, and its visitors against an armed

intruder. finally, i ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the first roll call vote next week will be at approximately 5:30 p.m. on confirmation of the nomination of paul englemeyer to be u.s. district judge for the southern strict of new york. mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> buddy roemer launches campaign for the republican presidential nomination on thursday at dartmouth college in new hampshire. the former louisiana governor said his to top things would be reducing unfair trade to return jobs to the u.s., and any the influence of special interest money in washington. he has promised to limit content contributions to $100 per person and will take no pac money. this is about 40 minutes.

>> we are about to kick off, i hope this doesn't mean anything for my campaign, but i noticed a sign when i walked in and said he roemer, 11:30. and right before it it had memorial services, 5 p.m. [laughter] >> imf this i don't believe in those kinds of signs, but it was humbling. are we ready? today i run for president of the united states of america. i run to prepare america to grow jobs again. beginning with the elimination of our tolerance for unfair foreign trade practices, and the use of our own tax code to ship jobs overseas. iran to reveal and challenge the control of the special interests over our nation's capital.

and demonstrate the freedom to lead that can only come from refusing their money. iran as a proud republican, but and even prouder american. i believe in america, its fires, its future. we are a nation at risk, and neither the president nor any of the other candidates for this office address is or has solutions for the two major problems facing america. one, unfair trade, which is stealing our best jobs, stopping economic growth, causing us to slowly sink under a mountain of debt, while we attempt to maintain our standard of living by borrowing rather than working. yet, no one mentions unfair trade or a solution for the

problem. no one. which leads to the second unmentioned problem. special interest campaign donations which owned washington, d.c., turning it into a corrupt institution where fatcat special interests checks write the tax code, the health care reform, and bank reform. and corporate profits are at an all time high, while the same corporations send american jobs overseas, causing fear and pain among the families of millions of our neighbors. in short, the guys with the big checks don't want reform or change. they've never had it so good. that's why no one running for president talks about solving either problem. and fair trade, stealing our best jobs, or institutional corruption of washington, d.c.. they need the money to win.

i run for president by accepting no pac money, no contribution over $100 a person, and full disclosure. no matter what the size of the gift, $5, or $75. we must break the stranglehold of special interests on a tax code you can't read, a budget that will never be balanced, and that it cannot be repaid come and the reform of wall street banks who live by their greed and illegal activity. health care reform that doesn't drive down the cost, and we send american jobs overseas day after day. there's only one way to get control of our country, away from the special interests, don't take their blood money. don't take their pac money. don't take their bundled money. don't take their only access to

money. president must be free to challenge and change washington, and our current president, oh, he's raising a billion dollars while in office, with much of it coming from wall street corporations and individuals he is supposed to regulate. the price tag? $35,000 a ticket. and too big to fail is still on the books. manufacturing jobs are fewer than 10% now in america. made in america is a label that has disappeared. unemployed and underemployed seen permanent now. at 20% plus. we have fewer jobs and they pay less, and china is having the greatest boom in history. and we are paying for it. we need trading jobs, but trade must be fair, or both nations

suffer. unfair trade chooses child labor, prison labor, work without standards, work without environmental scorecard, and pirates to bury designs and products and plans that come into the nation. these unfair trade practices have cost us millions of our best jobs over the last 20 years. not just the last two. causing untold pain and anxiety in families across america. and our leaders have done nothing but talk about the wonders of free trade. so-called free trade has killed us. trade must be fair first. then free. american president starting with george washington protected american manufacturing jobs from predatory trading practices for more than 160 years.

this is not a radical idea. it's what built america. it worked again after world war ii for germany and japan, both of whom refused free trade. and protected their jobs. now germany is the largest -- the largest economy in europe, and japan number two on earth. we must protect our best jobs from unfair trade, and from u.s. companies who move jobs overseas using our own tax code to pay for it. they are free to do it. but we should not have to pay for it. we can protect our critical jobs without the general use of terrorists, which although successful tend to be overly political in their formulation and application. as a first step, as a substitute for that strategy, i would commend the tax code to disallow

any tax deductions for expenditures for any goods produced or services located outside of the united states. don't bring up the problem of call centers. companies can still do it, but we taxpayers are going to pay for it. section 162 in sections 212 of the internal revenue code among others, would be so amended. next, i would eliminate the foreign tax credit loophole. that's section 27 a. of the tax code, whereby large corporations and wealthy individuals avoid u.s. taxes i am moving their businesses and investment out of the country. you know, they are protected as united states citizens, that they don't pay their fair share of tax for that privilege. example number one, general electric made 5 billion in profit last year in the u.s.,

and 80 federal income tax. this will stop. finally i would require a fair trade adjustment form to a company imports. this form which should economic difference necessary to bring the imports manufacturing process up to minimum american standards. america in which it competes. this difference will be paid by the importer. for the a cost of the adjustment announced. unfair trading nations will lose their unwanted advantage. the fair competitor will suffer no ill effect. trade will grow, but it will be fair. these few changes would effectively generate millions of american jobs, restore and needed growth in our lagging economy. there's much we need. we need to deregulate small business so they can grow again.

that's where jobs come from. we need to be energy independent and create 1 million new jobs. we need to reduce federal spending by 1% of gross domestic product a year for five years consecutively. we need immigration reform that seals the borders but allows legal immigration. it's important to america. we need tax reform that lowers the marginal rate. there's much we need to do, but the place to start is with the money and unfair trade, and no one is speaking about either of them. no one. we must break the stranglehold of special interest money on our political system. so that we can address the whole in the economy, caused by unfair trade through which our best jobs slip away. we must seal the hole and restore manufacturing jobs. this growth is essential to paying the debt.

we won't do it any other way. and getting out of this financial trap in which we find ourselves, it is the special interest who use unfair trade and self written tax loopholes to make their fortunes and steal our futures. $100 limit. no pac money. full disclosure. free to lead is the key. no one else can solve these two problems, because they need special interest money. all i need is you. i need 5 million americans out of 310 million to make this happen. stand with me. www.eddie rohmer.com. you don't want to miss this campaign. it will be something else. i am no one.

a former governor, a former congressman, a successful community banker who returns to politics after 16 years and happy private life. in order to confront the institutional corruption of washington, and the loss of our manufacturing base so critical to national defense, and economic health of our great nation. this is a loss of job that stems in part from the unfair trading practices of some nations, and the deliberate manipulation of our tax code. by some multinational corporations. i am no one. but i challenge the system. it's corrupt. it is not working. i am 67. i am old enough to know what to

do, and young enough to get it done. .. >> even with the obvious failure of government to confront unfair trade practices and make america strong. the boys at the top are living so well. they've forgotten the rest of america. i haven't.

i ask the 98% of americans who never give to a presidential candidate to stand with me. together we will restore america's promise to our children and grandchildren. free to lead a rising america. we start in new hampshire where the state motto is live free or die. it's a good beginning. may god bless america and each and every one of you. thank you. [applause] i said i would take whatever general questions you have, and i'll be glad to do one-on-one interviews if you would like. i didn't mean to take your breath away. anybody have a question? yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible]

>> i do. i, you know, i think revenue is down now because of the effects of the recession. the key to our future is jobs. we need to start growing or the middle class in this country is in deep trouble, and the unemployment rate is permanent, and the welfare state will soon be on us. that's a fact of business. we need to grow jobs. that's why i mentioned small business. they grow two out of three. but that's why i mentioned the manipulation of the tax code. it needs total reform, and unfair trade practices on a part of a few nations, not the most, a few. we need to take care of our business, start growing again. and i think the revenue will be at 18, 18.5% of gdp, and that's totally adequate. the way i would get from here to there in terms of the budget is a reduction of spending by 1% of

gdp a year for five consecutive years. taking it down from 25% where it is now to slightly under 20%. by the way, 1% of gdp is $140 billion. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. look, we have, we have more loopholes than a sane woman or man could read in a lifetime. and they are in infinite detail to select a few and reward them, often for doing nothing. in the case that you raise, people on wall street -- that's the usual source of this loophole -- can earn four and five and six times the income of a working man's 401 or an executive 401(k). tax-free. by parking it offshore and

deferring the income. there are many loopholes like that. now, i would work on the tax code loopholes to lower the marginal rates. i think we can offer corporations a 15% rate, not a 36% rate. but they've got to give up their loopholes. that's the deal. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> [inaudible] about 15 years in the private sector -- [inaudible] why now? >> the -- my view of the problem has, has left me in the position of waiting for others to address the subject. i've waited now for five, six, ten years. the money effect in washington grows, josh, and nobody says a

thing. i'll tell you one story. money to political candidates running for president four years ago with washington, d.c. addresses, these are lobbyists, these are pacs, exceeded the amount of money contributed to those same candidates by 32 states combined. we're a nation where 98% of the people don't give a nickel, don't give a penny. and they're shocked when the 1 or 2% who do own the system. and i didn't find anybody, josh, that would stand up to it. i've done it all my life, as you know. i was the only congressman that didn't take pac money. i got reelected time after time with no opposition. look, if you connect with the people on this issue, you will be amazed at what'll happen. i ran against the corruption in louisiana and beat a governor who had never lost a race. he spent $15 million, i spent $1.5 million and won.

it can be done. this will be a different race. this will be a war between the special interests and me. >> [inaudible] rest of the field get along pretty well -- [inaudible] what you're talking about is, basically, being a very different candidate from the rest of the candidates. um, question this way, if you weren't running, could you envision voting for -- [inaudible] >> i like 'em all. i'm not going to answer your question. [laughter] you know, it has been 16 years, but i remember certain tricks of the trade, josh, okay? yes. i like, i mean, i won't mention a tim pawlenty or somebody that i know well and like a lot. i won't mention michele bachmann who just it's fascinating to watch her do -- i have friends there. i regret that they haven't been able to step back and see the power of the money.

i think they know the power of the money, they're just afraid to run without it. it's the only way. >> why are you launching here? is. >> it was an accident. you know, i would give you my campaign manager's number to talk about a strategy. it wasn't -- we had wanted to announce this week, a couple weeks ago we had set this time out as our time, and dartmouth had an ini have decision for us to be here -- invitation to be here today, i couldn't think of a better place to start. we had been invited by another place in southern new hampshire, remember, josh, we talked about that, so i've promised to be in church there sunday at the methodist church and maybe have a town meeting. but we chose dartmouth, it happened to fit our schedule, and it's a great university. i know a two-degree man from harvard probably shouldn't say that, but i love dartmouth.

>> you're planning to relocate here? >> i've already move today manchester, new hampshire. i live in a small apartment with one of my sons who's leaving in the morning to go back to louisiana. so i'll probably be desperate, i'll probably be calling you guys for a cup of coffee by the end of the week. but i do town hall meetings day after day. i visit with people. i'm learning new hampshire. >> candidates have done that in the past, there's little indication that that approach necessarily works. >> man, you're right on target. i'm not taking any lessons from the past. what i like about new hampshire is live free or die. what i like about new hampshire is this pattern. i was here with john mccain. i saw him reach across old wars and be old wounds and old stories and say, john, you the man. and i'm hoping in this campaign in the next six months they're going to look at all the front runners, 100% known with 17% of the vote, and they're going to look at a guy that's 3% known with 2% of the vote, and they're

going to say, i like what he says. that's what i'm hoping. there's no guarantee. it's an election. >> what is your fear, talk about the corruption in washington building and getting worse over the years. >> yes. >> what is your fear if somebody likes you with your message doesn't get -- [inaudible] >> well, it means that i wasn't the right messenger perhaps. it could mean a lot of things. and i did think about that. it's an excellent question. i don't want to set back a reform movement by failing to achieve my goals. but my goals are already being achieved. there'll be more talk about campaign reform over the next two months, i guarantee you, with me in this race than if i weren't in the race. i remember going to iowa two months ago when i started my exploration, and tim pawlenty was there and newt gingrich and all the better known candidates.

herman cain, rick santorum. we all spoke to reform. they all endorsed the ethanol subsidies. i was the only one to stand up and say we're going to scrub this budget, and we're going to start with ethanol subsidies in iowa. they will be eliminated. and we'll eliminate oil and gas subsidies in louisiana. man, they sucked their breath in. but already now all those other candidates are saying, oh, yeah, we'll eliminate the ethanol subsidies. so a role in a campaign is a variety of things. you can stand on certain issues and make them be the discussion of our time. you can set an example for other candidates, and occasionally, in my experience, i can win. with little money, a lot of enthusiasm and strong principles. i beat an incumbent democratic congressman that way. i beat an incumbent democratic governor that way. we can beat an indumb bent

democratic president -- incumbent democratic president the same way. >> -- [inaudible] the two branches. what do you make of no tax pledges? >> with you know, they're political. i remember, i remember i was running for the constitutional convention in louisiana. and i met an old countryman. i'm not a lawyer. i'm a businessman by training and by practice. and everybody else were lawyers running for it. you need a lawyer to write the constitution, so i'm running out in the country in louisiana, and i met an old man. he says, you be careful. he said i was making certain commitments about taxes. he said, you be careful. he said, my son was in the legislature, and he promised that he wouldn't raise taxes. he also promised on another night that he would give schoolteachers the pay that they deserved. and his first bill in the legislature was to raise taxes to pay schoolteachers.

so i think pledges are good, and i think if you believe them, you should sign 'em. but if you don't think you will follow 'em, you ought not sign. >> [inaudible] >> i like grover, i have not seen -- you know, this is my first official day as a candidate. i have not seen it, i'll read it, and i'll probably sign it. but i have not seen it. yes, sir. you the man. you know, i'm a common sense guy. if i were to go to indiana and find a factory employing 9-year-olds, i wouldn't think that was a fair trade practice. i've been to china many times, for example. not to pick on a nation, but like their people, family people, hard working, great people. but their government

deliberately manipulates their currency, deliberately allows unfair trade practices. and it has to do with age, it has to do with working conditions. you can see some cities in china while you're driving toward 'em 30 miles away. and the factories are worse. now, look, i'm hoping for trade, but it has to be fair. and we can't keep giving our jobs away while certain nations -- not all -- certain nations abuse their own citizens. maybe we ought to stand up and say, no more. that's what i call unfair trade. good question. anyone want to work on a campaign? come on. yes. yes. >> [inaudible] efficiency and productivity has

been increasing a lot. >> it has. >> [inaudible] >> right. >> how would you justify the -- [inaudible] >> excellent question. excellent question. look, there are a lot of factors at work at changing the workplace. we don't make as many buggy whips as we used to. so i didn't anywhere say guarantee jobs. jobs must be efficient and effective. but america has lost there a 40% manufacturing base to an 8%. i said 10% in my talk, but it's actually 8%. and have other nations built up their manufacturing? germany's increased. they pay their workers more than we do. why is that? mexico has added manufacturing jobs thanks to bill clinton. why is that? china increases, japan has done well, and japan and germany have done it with protectionist trade

barriers, significant barriers after world war ii. as i said in my delivery. so technology changes, work demand changes, product need changes. that change will continue, and we must be flexible and swift and efficient. but somewhere, sometime, some place the president of the united states needs to protect our key jobs from unfair competition. and i intend to do that. i do not intend to guarantee the number of manufacturing jobs, but it's my belief if made in america becomes important, we'll grow jobs again. >> as far as made in america, what justifies millions of dollars in consumer -- [inaudible] >> you know, we followed that free trade philosophy.

let the jobs go where they're the cheapest. to hell with the working conditions, we just want the cheap goods. and i'm sure that's important to some americans. but i have a better case to make. i have a case to make that if competition is efficient and trade is free and fair, that we can compete. we won't win every job. and that prices might be slightly higher, but if there are ten million more people working at good jobs, then the country is better. and i will make this case to the american people. we can go cheap and flimsy and unfair. look at where it's brought us. or we can do a stronger, better thing that presidents used to do in america and leaders now do in germany and japan. i think that the only way to get back to real free trade is to establish, as the gentleman

asked, what fair means. we're going to do it. thank you all. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> let me do the stand-ups, and then i'm yours. >> i'll wait. >> okay. >> so, governor, now just town meeting, town meeting -- >> i will do a lot in south carolina as well, so i won't just isolate myself in new hampshire, but my focus will be here. i was in massachusetts last night at a huge rally in worcester, mass, so i'll slip into mass, maine, new england a lot, south carolina less but a lot and iowa occasionally. that's my strategy. >> and is that based on what? >> just my gut feel of how to do it. >> i mean, do you think your message on trade is going to be better received here than it might be in other of those places? >> no. it will be equally well received

anywhere i go. i have done it for several years. it is well received. people are sick and tired. walmart's going only so far. people find now they work at wal-mart for minimum wage, and they used to work in a factory for $20 an hour. somebody says i wonder how germany can make things and we can't? why? this is what we're going to talk about across this state and this country. >> do you think that this can be done within the current, you know, within the current level of revenue collection, not -- >> oh, it's going to be hard. there's no question. you know, because the trick of it is the prairie, the prairie needs to burn, but you have to have a match. and i've got the match, but i just don't have the name

recognition. so i've got to hope that today helps me some, that my web site gets hit on and that we begin to build a team. it's like ron paul with an issue other than the federal reserve. it's an issue about jobs. and i think it can blossom. yes. >> what do you have to say to the people who argue that the debt ceiling has to be raised right now? >> as a banker, there's some truth in what they argue. but there's a bigger problem. it's spending. so, so a wise leader would accept the challenge to reduce spending and get his debt ceiling increase. but i look at washington as a circus and those meeting are clowns. none of them have ever run a business, balanced a budget, including our president.

they've got no clue what excessive debt does. i'll tell you what excessive debt does, it shrinks a nation. if you don't believe me, i wonder how the next flight to the manned space center will go. it won't be an american flight. we're out of the space business. excessive debt shrinks a nation. abraham lincoln, that was his speech. he pointed out the louisiana purchase, pennies an acre. napoleon had to sell louisiana because he had to pay his war debt to belgium. america doubled in size, and france disappeared from the new world. i mean, these, there are real consequences to the proffully gate, undisciplined spending of our federal government. the clock is ticking loudly. i have no confidence that they'll come to any reasonable settlement. that's why i mentioned the 1% reduction in spending a year. i would start with energy subsidies and the department of energy. i would eliminate it.

that's $140 billion. that'd be the first thing. you can go from there. i have five packages of 140 -- [inaudible] pell ticks is not hard -- politics is not hard. you just need the guts, that's all. you need the courage to stand by your conviction and quit worrying about the next election. one thing about president, you can't go any higher. >> it's such a huge problem to tackle though. in terms of the short-term decision, what else would you do to try and save the economy? >> [inaudible] i wouldn't take the special interest money. i would kick them out of the room. i would put small business people in the room. these are people that know how to make decisions. you know, we had a meeting in washington in 1982 with a congressman from columbia who

said the battle of the 21st century would be between china and america. i said, who will win? he said, i think america will. i said, fine. small business, they're flexible. we treat 'em like dirt. i would deregulate small business the first day. i would go back to january 1, 2008, and do away with all regulations since then. we were living pretty good as a nation this 2005. deregulate 'em, watch 'em grow jobs. >> i have a few questions -- hi, i'm jay webster with the dartmouth paper. >> what's it called? >> which it's the dartmouth. >> okay, good. >> i was a college student who began voting just a few years ago, how do you envision your -- [inaudible] >> we're putting that together. it's my first day in my campaign. we're going to have a series of town hall meetings on the

college campus with several colleges wired, kind of a virtual town hall meeting. we're going to, we're going to encourage -- i started in ohio about a week ago, and we are, we are going to the college campuses. i think -- [inaudible] the reason i think so is because it's their future that i'm talking about. and they can feel it at home, the anxiety, the pain of not having work. and i think that will be a wonderful resource. i'm going to spend a lot of time on campus be. watch out, dartmouth. >> um -- >> i'll wear my green t-shirt. [laughter] >> um, how, so what is your from a fundraising standpoint, what's your strategy -- [inaudible] >> i ask everyone i meet in the beginning to get on my web site and make a contribution. you haven't -- [inaudible] give me a chance.

the maximum it would cost you would be $100, but we accept $5 to 100. anything in between. and young students all over america have already started to do that. so what i do is i don't have a fundraiser some night at a fancy restaurant. this strategy is about every day and every meeting is a fundraiser. it's not burdensome. you're just asking people to donate. it's a form of volunteering. and when they do, you ask them to get a friend and ask them to do the same thing. if we can get a chain reaction going over the next 30 days -- [inaudible] we've already had contributions from 49 of the 50 states. most people haven't heard of us. [inaudible conversations] thank you. okay. >> it takes a behind the stacks look, says broadcasting and

cable. the l.a. times calls it required tv viewing, and it solves some mysteries that even nicolas cage can't conjure. c-span's original documentary the library of congress sunday night at 9 eastern on c-span. the supreme court is now available as a standard and enhanced e-book and tells the story of the court through the eyes of the justices themselves. eleven original c-span interviews with current and retired justices. this new edition e-book includes an interview with the newest justice, and add to your experience by watching multimedia clips from all the justices. c-span's "the supreme court," available now wherever e-books can sold. are sold. the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites.

and find our content anytime through c-span's video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicles bringing our resources to your community. it's washington your way. the c-span networks, now available in more than 100"÷"÷ million homes."÷"÷ created by cable, provided as a÷ public service."÷"÷ rebecca brooks, the former"÷ chief executive of news"÷"÷ international, testified earlie÷ this week before a house of"÷"÷ commons committee. she"÷"÷ was questioned on her knowledge of phone hacking at"÷÷ "news of the world," alleged"÷"÷ payments made to police officers and to celebrity victims of"÷"÷ hacking. she was"÷"÷ also asked about"÷"÷ tampering with the voicemail of a teenage murder victim. >> we've now come to the second part of our session. i'd like to welcome ms. be rebecca brooks, recent chief

executive officer at news international, and i'd like to thank you for your willingness to come before the committee. we are very much aware there is an ongoing police investigation which could lead to further proceedings, and we will bear that in mind, but we also appreciate your statement when you resigned from the company that you wanted to be as helpful as possible to various inquiries that are underway. could i just start then. news international issued a statement when you were chief executive in july 2009 saying there is not and never has been evidence to support allegations that "news of the world" journalists have accessed the voicemails of individuals, that they have instructed private investigators or third parties to access voicemails of individuals or that there was systemic corporate illegality among news international. would you accept now that that is not the case? >> thank you, mr. chairman. firstly, just before i answer

that question, um, i would like to add my own personal apologies to the apologies that james and rupert murdoch have made today. clearly, um, what happened at the "news of the world" and certainly when the allegations of voice intercepts is pretty horrific and abhorrent, so i just wanted to reiterate that. i also, um, was very keen to come here and answer questions today, and as you know, i've been arrested and interviewed by the police a couple of days ago. so i have, um, legal representation here just so i don't, um, impede those criminal proceedings which you would expect. but i intend to answer everything as openly as i can and not to use that, if at all possible, and i know you will have had a briefing -- [inaudible] >> well, we are grateful for that.

so perhaps i could invite you to comment that you now accept that "news of the world" journalists were, indeed, instructed to investigate -- is actually untrue? >> well, again, um, as you've heard in the last few hours, the fact is that since the zien that miller -- sienna miller document came into our possession at the end of 2010, that was the first time that the senior management at the company at the time had actually seen some documentary evidence actually relating to a current employee. i think that we acted quickly and decisively then when we had that information. as you know, it was our document, our evidence that opened up the police inquiry in 2011 in january, and since then

we have, um, admitted liability on civil cases, endeavored to settle as many be as possible. we've appointed sir charles grey so that victims of phone hacking if they feel they want to come directly to us and don't want to incur expensive legal costs, they can come directly and be dealt with very swiftly. as you know, the court process is taking its time, and those cases aren't going to be heard until, i think, 2012 for the compensation scheme in order for people to come forward. so of course i won't say it played in the past, but i think and i hope that you will agree since we saw the evidence at the end of december we've acted properly and quickly. >> so until you saw the evidence which was produced in the sienna miller case, you continued to believe that the only person in the "news of the world" who had been implicated in the phone hacking was clive goodman? >> well, i think if you -- just

the sequence of events. so in 2009 i think was the first time that all of us, and i know some members of the committee have spent a long time on this story and looking at the whole sequence of events, so i know you will know it pretty well. but just to reiterate, in 2009 when we heard about when the gordon taylor story appeared in "the guardian," i think that that's when information unraveled. but very, very slowly. i mean, we have, we have conducted many internal investigations. i know you've spent a lot of time talking to james and rupert murdoch about them. but we had been told by people at the "news of the world "at the time, they consistently denied any of these allegations in various internal investigations, and it was only when we saw the sienna miller

documentation that we realized that the severity of the situation. and just to point out one of the problems, um, of this case has been our lack of visibility. what we've seen at -- [inaudible] home. part of the drip-drip effect of this is because we only see it during the civil procedure, and then we act on that accordingly. >> but it is now your view based on that evidence that, certainly, you were lied to by senior employees? >> well, i think, unfortunately, because of the criminal procedure i'm not sure that it's possible for me to infer guilt until those criminal procedures have taken place. >> understand. tom wolf. >> there are many questions i would like to ask you, but i won't be able to do it today because you are facing criminal

proceedings, so i'm going to be narrow in my questioning. what did you -- when did you sack tom krone? >> we didn't sack tom krone. what happened with tom krone was when we made the very regrettable decision to close "news of the world" after 168 years, he's been the legal manager. because of the situation he'd predominantly spent most of his time, in fact, pretty much 99% of his time on the "news of the world." and the rest of the company and the rest of the titles had individual, we had appointed new lawyers, um, and there wasn't a job for tom once we closed the "news of the world," and he left. >> someone's still dealing with the "news of the world" legal cases though presumably? >> yeah. i mean, the civil cases are being dealt with by, like you said, the first one is the

standard management committee that we've set up, and you've seen the announcements on that recently, and i won't go over it. i know james and rupert have talked about it. but also doing civil cases all along, and there are people dealing with it. but tom krone's role was a hands-on legal manager of the "news of the world," and, obviously, when we closed the paper, there wasn't a job there. >> i must have misunderstood what james murdoch said. he implied that you'd sacked him, but i might be -- it's been a busy day. as a journalist and editor of "news of the world," how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> um, i think only on "the sun" not at all. when i was editor of the "news of the world," as you know, i came before this committee just as i became editor of "the sun" in relation to privacy and

operation -- [inaudible] as it's called. and i think back then we answered extensively questions about the use of private detectives across the street. as you know, a chart was published of which i can't remember where "news of the world" was on it. i think it was fourth. i think "the sun" was below "take a break" magazine, but certainly in the to be five, the observer, the guardian, news of the world, daily mail -- >> not my question. can i just interrupt there, and i'll declare i used to work for the observer, but not -- [inaudible] it was not at the top, in the top four. >> i think top six perhaps. >> [inaudible] >> it was on the table. >> just to answer my question, you extensively worked with private investigators, is that the answer? >> no. what i said was that the use of private detectives in the late '90s and 2000 was a practice of fleet street, and after

operation -- [inaudible] fleet street actually reviewed this practice. and in the main the use of private detectives was stopped. don't forget at the time, as you were aware, it was all about the data protection. data protection acts and changes to that which were made, and that's why we had the committee in 2003. >> just for the third time, how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> the "news of the world" employed private detectives like most newspapers in fleet street. >> so it's fair to say you were aware of and approved payment to private detectives? >> i was aware that "news of the world" used private detectives, yes. >> so you would have approved payments to them? >> that's not how it works. i was aware we used them. >> who would have approved the payments? >> so the payment system in a newspaper which has been discussed at length is very simply the editor's job is to

require the overall budget of the paper from the senior management. once that budget is acquired, it is given to the managing editor to allocate the different departments. each person in that department has a different level of authorization, but the final payments are authorized by the managing editor unless there is a particularly big item, a set of photographs or something that needs to be discussed on a wider level, and then the editor will be brought in. >> so stuart would have discussed some payments to private detectives with you? >> um, not necessarily, no. i mean, we're talking 11 years ago. he may have discussed payments to me, but i don't particularly remember any incidents. >> you don't remember whether you would have discussed any payments at all? >> no, i didn't say that. i said, i said in relation to private detectives. >> yes. >> i was aware that "news of the world" used private detectives as every paper on fleet street

did. >> so you don't recall whether you authorized payments or -- >> the payments of those, the payments of private detectives would have gone through the managing editors -- >> you can't remember whether stuart ever discussed it with you? >> excuse me? is. >> with you can't remember whether stuart ever discussed it with you. >> i can't remember individual payments. >> okay. in your letter in 2009 you said you did not recall meeting glenn -- [inaudible] you'll appreciate that this is an inadequate answer under the circumstances. we require a specific response to our questions. did you ever have any contact directly or through others with glenn? >> none whatsoever. >> would your former diary secretary, michelle, be able to confirm that? >> michelle? >> former diary secretary? is. >> i've had a -- [inaudible] for 19 years named cheryl. >> would she -- >> absolutely. >> did she hold your diary for the last 9 years? >>

>> -- 19 years? >> no, she probably doesn't, i mean, i don't know. >> would it be on a paper format? >> i did not meet mr.-- >> i'm talking about your diary. is it in a electronic forsenate. >> it would have been on a paper format. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sure he would. i mean, yes. [inaudible] >> okay. were you aware of the arrangement news group newspapers had whilst you were editor of "news of the world" and "the sun"? >> no. >> so you didn't know what he did? >> i didn't know he was one of the detectives used by "news of the world," no. in fact, i first heard his name in 2006. >> kid you receive any -- did you receive any information that originated from glenn or his methods? >> what, to me? >> you. >> to me personally? is. >> you as editor. did anyone bring you information

as a result of glenn's methods? >> i know it's entirely an appropriate question, but i can only keep saying the same answer. i didn't know glenn had a -- i'd never heard the name until 2006. there were other private investigators that i did know about and had heard about, but he wasn't one of them. >> we'll come on to that. now that you know what you know, do you suspect that you might have received information on the basis of stuff gathered by glenn glenn -- >> the well, now that i know what i know, i mean, this is one of the difficulties. obviously, i know quite an extensive amount now, particularly the last six months of investigating this story. and gwen, i am -- gwen, -- glen, i am aware, worked on and off for the "news of the world" in the late '90s and continued until 2006 when he was arrested. so, obviously, if he worked for

"news of the world" for that time, he was involved. and i think, i think the judge said in 2007 which, again, we may disagree with that now, but the judge said in 2007 when glenn was convicted that he had a perfectly legitimate contract with the "news of the world" for research and investigative work. and the judge said that, i think, quite repeatedly throughout the trial. so that's what i can tell you. >> did you have ever any contact with jonathan reese? >> no. >> do you know about jonathan reese? >> i do, again, i've heard a hot recently about jonathan reese. i watch the panorama program, as we all did. um, he wasn't, he wasn't a name familiar with me. i am told that he rejoined the "news of the world" in 2005,

2006, and he worked at the news of the world and many other newspapers in the late 1990s. that's my information. >> do you find it peculiar having been censored for a serious criminal o fence, he was hired by the newspaper? >> i do. >> have you been conducting an investigation for six months? >> the investigation that we've been conducting in the six months is certained particularly around the interceptions of voicemails, as you know. the management and standards committee at news international are going to look at jp than reese, and we -- jonathan reese, and we already do have some information. as to the conclusions of the investigation, i do not know. >> what information do you have? >> we have information that, as i said, that jonathan reese worked there, many newspapers in fleet street in the late '90s,

and then he was rehired by the "news of the world" sometime in 2005. >> do you know what he was doing at that time? >> in -- >> 2005-'6. >> i don't, i'm sorry, no. >> did you not ask? >> well, i was there -- [inaudible] at the time. i didn't know they'd rehired him. >> did you not wonder what he did in 2005-'6 given that you've got a hacking scandal breaking around you? >> absolutely. and i've had the information that panorama have that jonathan reese worked as a private investigator in the panorama program. it said that he was conducting many, many legal offenses what i saw, which you did, but also he worked for many newspapers presumably before his conviction, as you say. and then he was rehired by the "news of the world." >> do you believe he conducted illegal activities on behalf of "news of the world"? >> i can only comment on what i

know, and i don't know that. >> what is your belief? >> i don't know. >> you don't know what he did? >> i don't know what he did for the "news of the world," i'm sorry. i don't know what he did. >> do now not people would find it incredible as chief of the company you don't know? >> it may be incredible, but again, it's also the truth. i heard about jonathan reese's rehiring by the "news of the world" by an investigation conducted by panorama. do you ever have any contact directly or through others with steve -- [inaudible] >> yes. >> what did you do with him? >> i'd like to know what you did with him. >> in the main my use of private investigators while i was editor of the "news of the world" was

purely legitimate and steeped in the main, as you know, for the addresses and whereabouts of convicted pedophiles -- [inaudible] and that is my majority use, if not almost exclusive use of private investigators myself. but i respect that the "news of the world" also used private investigators for other stories. >> are you aware that steve whitmore -- [inaudible] >> i wasn't aware of that until two weeks ago. >> you are now? this. >> yes, i am. >> and why did you order a mobile conversion from steve whit more? >> as i said, it was 11 years ago. i've answered this question in many times, but just to repeat, a mobile conversion which is finding an address from a mobile phone, that is what a mobile conversion is, and can be got through legitimate means.

in fact, the story that your referring to -- that you're referring to, the mobile phone was a business number, and the address was widely known. >> so you can remember what the story was. >> i've just said to you -- >> what was the story -- >> i've read it in the new york times -- >> was that a pedophile you were after there? >> i think it'd be unfair to the person concerned because he's been named by "the guardian" and the miami times. -- new york times. but the very few occasions in which i used a private detective was on -- [inaudible] >> can you name other private detectives you've worked with? >> >> no. >> you can't remember them? >> no. >> but you're aware the paper used other detectives though? >> sorry? >> did the paper use other private detectives other than steve whitmore, jonathan rees and glenn -- [inaudible] >> he was aware of the one i'd heard of at the time. >> is it your belief that the

paper used other private investigators that you just can't remember today? >> it isn't that i can't remember, it is you have the same information which i haves which is from operation -- >> thank you. one last question. do you have any regrets? >> well, of course, i have regrets. i mean, the idea that many dialers, phone numbers were accessed by someone being paid by "news of the world" or even worse authorized by someone at the "news of the world" is as abhorrent to me as it is to everyone in this room, and it is ultimate regret which the speed we have found out and tried to find out the bottom of this investigations have been too slow. i think james and rupert both accepted that earlier, and we are endeavoring -- well, they are endeavoring now, i've leavitt the company -- left the company, to continue to investigate. but, of course, there are

regrets. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> draw you out in a question, james murdoch at the end of our long session which is the -- [inaudible] culture of -- [inaudible] private detectives within fleet street and be to what extent the "news of the world" felt justified this those practices because everybody is doing it, if you like. um, i put to him that piers morgan, now a celebrity anchor on cnn, said openly in the his book -- clearly, which was published before this whole controversy broke -- that he had hacked phones, he said that he won scoop of the year for a story about -- [inaudible] he actually gave a tutorial in how one accesses voicemail by punching in a set of four codes and, clearly, from the account that he gives he did it routinely for the daily mirror.

he was also, of course, an employee of news international. we talk about operation motor man and the different amounts of use that was made of steve whitmore by various members of fleet street. i went through the information commissioner's report, and i added them up. for transactions in the daily mail's associated newspapers group, it were 1,387 transactions with mr. whitmore used by 98 journalists across titles and supplements in that group. is it not, obviously, the case then that blogging, hacking, the use of, the use of private investigators for lis sit and ill his sit purposes was an absolute culture of fleet treat and that "news of the world" participated with the same entitlement that mr. morgan's using in his book, because everyone else was doing it?

is that not the case? >> i think, look, we've heard a lot over the last 11, well, 10 years, but particularly i think this committee held an inquiry into operation motor man which was incredibly extensive. every single editor of fleet street, i think, was called to this committee and, um, as far as i was concerned the failings of all newspapers in not, um, understanding the extent of the use of private investigators across fleet street was held to account then, and there were many changes because of operation meter man to the data protection act. and although i accept mr. fairly's knowledge, they, in fact, wrote a good editorial on this i think about three months ago. sort of, again, readdressing that climate then and how different it is now. >> um, in the committee in 2003

concluded that there was widespread evidence that despicable practices across the media including blogging and including payments to the police, um, i appreciate the legal sensitivities involved in this question, but i will put it to you anyway. in your evidence committee in 2003 you were asked if you'd -- [inaudible] we have paid the police in the past. and if i may suggest to you that the manner in which you said that, um, you said it almost as though we have paid the police in the past, the implication being as do all tabloid newspapers. i'm not asking you to make specific allegations. in your general knowledge, were payments to the police widespread across -- [inaudible] or were they confined to news international titles? >> if you remember the evidence i gave in 2003, actually, i was going on to explain my comment and, as you know, mr. bryant was asking me to explain my comment, and the actual session ended.

in 2003 straight after my comment about payment to police was, in fact, clarified, i think the chairman -- [inaudible] 2007 inquiry clarified it again. and i clarified it recently to the home affairs committee. at the end of march, i think. now, i, i can say that it, i have never paid a policeman myself. i've never sanctioned or knowingly sanctioned a payment to a police officer. i was referring if you saw at the time of the home of the select committee recently and that you'd have various crime editors from fleet street discussing that in the past payments have been made to police officers. i was, i was referring to that wide held belief, not widespread practice. and, in fact, it's in my experience in dealing with the police the information they give to newspapers comes free of

charge. >> in evidence to parliament committee yesterday stated that to his knowledge "the daily mail" has never published a story based on hacking or blogging. this from a group that operation motor man identified paid -- made 1,387 transactions across it titles. do you think it is credible that all those 100-plus -- 1300-plus transactions were lis sitly obtained, or is there this wider culture of hacking -- [inaudible] >> i think you'll have seen that all the media groups, um, in this country that news international has been the one to openly welcome the prime minister's public inquiry into, i think, which will be all fleet street practices. i mean, we haven't gotten the

perimeters yet. the fact is i'm not here in a position to comment on other newspaper groups. and like i said at the beginning, things went badly wrong at "news of the world," and we are doing our best now to sort it out. and i accept with not the speed which this committee would have wished, but we are trying to put them right. i think operation motor man it's important that there was a select inquiry, select committee inquiry. and it is properly right that the code of conduct of journalists and the ethics of journalism are in constant review because if they're not, it is, you know, the freedoms that this press enjoys which are, which i believe in very strongly. if there is not constant review of conduct and ethics, then they are at risk. >> okay. one final question. um, your correspondence with the committee did place great emphasis when you were refusing to attend in the previous letters on you be willing to to

attend as part of a panel -- [inaudible] all of whom have been identified with operation motor man. in other words, you appeared to put emphasis on whatever happened at "news of the world," it was just part of this wider culture. you seem to have implied that these practices were going on elsewhere. how could you not be aware that they were going on endemically at the "news of the world, delirium tremens and do you not regret that you did not yourself undertake some investigation of "news of the world "rather than waiting for these things to drip out over the course of time? >> i think just going back to 2002 and 2003 with all the changes to the data protection act, the fact is there was a recent branch change as a result of the select committee inquiries and the result of the information officers report into privacy. there was a fundamental change then across most newspapers and particularly, like i said, i was

then editor of "the sun," and i can say absolutely that "the sun" is a very clean ship, a great newsroom, and in particular, um, the operation motor man referred to the "news of the world" and some other parts of it. >> thank you. >> um, thank you. jim -- [inaudible] go thanks, chairman -- thanks, chairman. ms. brooks, mr. murdoch said in his session that -- [inaudible] fairly and squarely the senior management of our paper which i assume would include you, is that the case? >> i think, i think -- i may omit that part of the evidence, but i think mr. murdoch said it's exactly how it was, that it was a collective decision. we all talked together, and mr. murdoch was in with a --

[inaudible] at the time with conference, so we all -- >> [inaudible] >> sorry, rupert murdoch, yes. >> please, go ahead and say something else. >> no. >> just to follow up on that, when you were advising your staff that the paper was closing during the private session, i think you said something about there was more to come. would you like to expand on what you meant by that? >> yes, what i said when i went down to the newsroom to explain the decision, um, clearly and quite rightly the journalists on the "news of the world" who were very honorable journalists who had been putting out a newspaper under this scrutiny for a long time and would break exclusives and great pride in their newspaper were very sad and baffled by management's decision to close the paper. what i would say to them is that right now you may, you may not be able to right in this moment understand why we've done it,

but as the month bees, and i think i said in a year's time i think you will come to the realization that we actually did the right thing. once you have broken the trust with the readers, there's not much going back. and, unfortunately, the "news of the world" use today lead the headlines for the right reasons, the cricket scandal recently. but for the last few months and probably, actually, for the last few years it had been leading the headlines for the wrong reasons. and once that trust is broken, we felt that that was the right decision. of course, it wasn't the right decision for the hundreds of journalists who worked on that who had done nothing wrong, were in no way responsible, many of whom were at the "news of the world," many had spent years but were not culpable for anything, and we have endeavored to find a job for every single one of them that will be offered a job. >> i accept it just wasn't --

[inaudible] it was secretaries, engineers, whoever it may be. are they all expected -- >> is everybody. >> thank you. >> not just at news international, but for news corporation. >> what do you anticipate will happen in a year that you don't know now? >> well, as i've said, part of the, part of the problem with this, with this story is the lack of visibility of the documentation seized from glenn's house in 2006. we have no visibility on it. you have no visibility on it. only the police have visibility on it. and they are conducting their new inquiry, and i'm sure that will, they will go through the thousands and thousands of documents that they say are there. and i think we will in a year's time, maybe even longer, we will actually get to a final position on what exactly happened. >> can i ask you just a couple of questions -- [inaudible] tommy sheridan, the former amsp

who's now -- [inaudible] >> yes, i am. >> james murdoch couldn't answer that. ..

there's a place that the e-mails are lost during? >> i don't know. it's still not receive these e-mails. these e-mails have since been reviewed. >> i think actually the clarifications and information commission what happened was the editor of the scottish "news of the world" made a comment during the trial which had been interpreted as you all are saying now that actually when he looked into his international explanation was actually a problem lies in india and there was no such retrieval. >> i think andy wise in downing street during the sheraton case. >> direct contact on e-mail or

lessons? >> i would've had to contact. >> is the conversation? >> it was mainly to do with work, by e-mail. >> a couple more questions. why would you pay the legal fees during the sheraton case when not only to witness this? >> sa said, i know james murdoch addressed this. when andy colson last "news of the world," he had an agreement that all matters related to this, his legal fees were paid and i think the same for clive goodman. on general care, it was when his legal fees would be paid when in fact he was a codefendant in the second cases. >> okay, are you aware of any

payment for police officers enforced? >> no. no. >> thank you, chairman. i'd like to ask a question about mindy coward and the editor of stud 10. just could you -- there are specific questions i'd like to ask you about. could you paint a picture about how a newspaper like "news of the world" goes about reporting on such a big story, with the level of senior reporters who'd been putting together a story like that? >> i think any big story, but for the purpose of process, the stories start out with the reporter that reporter may be announced at a news editor to go and investigate the story or they may have got information about the story from their own contact the news editor.

it is at that stage in the newspaper where the reporter goes to discuss the veracity and come back with a more considered view. you can imagine every newspaper gets a lot of information and only a percentage may actually use the publication. there are many layers from reporter to the distant news editors to news editor appeared fine weather, the story will coach the back bench, which will be the people that will oversee the story and will often talk to the reporter to rackley with copies. the lawyers are involved at this stage throughout the process and then finally, the final decision on publication will be made at the editor, where it is and how common it was. and obviously, mindy's disappearance was a terrible news story. and it would have been covered by all newspapers and for a very

long plays the title only finished last month. >> up for something like this, would it be noble to expect that it would need editor for cnet not anything because of the incredible sensitivity of the material? >> well, that is probably true, yes. on any story and particularly as you say the lawyers would be heavily involved in talking to the reporter sent to news editors or the executives on the news desks as to where the information came from about the veracity of the information. >> kobold to you personally and these allocations as editor of "news of the world"? >> as i say come the story ran for a very, very long time. so i will have been involved in

the story over the many years. i mean, even when i was editor of "the sun," the lowly dollar investigation for nine years. >> is also particularly important to ask you today, would you say that the milly dowler story was more heavily involved with another stories that took place because of the magnitude of the events to the real shock and horror of what had happened? >> not particularly more or less involved. the one thing i would say that we have had a series under my editorship i'm a series of terrible and tragic news stories starting with sir payne and milly dowler's disappearance and the subsequent murder and then of course the following cases.

and as you know, part of my main focus at my editorship at "news of the world" was in convincing parliament that there to be radical changes to the 1997 scandals act which became known as there is law, which was very similar to laws imposed around megan's law. i suppose if i had a particular extra involvement in the stories, it would have been on the basis that i was going to push and campaign for readers to write on the 10 pieces of legislation that we not through on cirrus law and campaign for this to be put forward. >> between 23, you reference the milly dowler case and how the press had were particularly well and it was a view supported by andy coulson on that day.

it's not something you stand by now? and did you have -- you spoke about what he could have been in. your particular knowledge of the case? >> when i photographed in 2000, i was unaware of what i now know. however, in 2003 as far as i was concerned, which may sound in light of what we believe the allegations are not a sound quite frankly ridiculous, but at the time i believed both on the milly dowler cases that the press exercise to hughes portion and expect the privacy of families. for example, i remember that one member of the press association was meant to go to the meeting and i was referring to the fleet street had actually come together and used press complaints commission code and adhered to it to respect the privacy of the families.

clearly, these allocations that came out two weeks ago, if true, are appalling and obviously contradict that statement. >> in the context of what we now know, it's ridiculous. when were you first aware that milly dowler had been hacked? >> i thought it was last monday, no maybe the monday before. >> i heard that when the story broke in the media i think on monday evening. >> methane into "news of the world" discusses that. milly dowler may have been carried out by milly dowler? >> no. when you aware that people let "news of the world" gave this information to the police, information about milly dowler seemed to the investigation? >> at the moment again i want to

be slightly careful, but i want to be as open as possible. we saw the story at the same time as your story. my instant reaction, like everybody else was one of, you know, shock and disgust and that a family who suffered so much already has had these allocations were clearly added immeasurably to their suffering. the first night it was right to mr. and mrs. dallaire to say we would get to the bottom of the allegations and if anyone representing news of the world are authorized by a professional journalist at "news of the world," which is staggering to believe, but if it's to have every confidence that news international and the police would get to the bottom of that initiative as a priority. >> i appreciate your statement there. but when you are aware there is information that was passed to

the police that resulted from hacking of milly dowler. we aware it was reported in the newspapers? >> yes. >> if it is the case that employees at "news of the world" were personally sanctioned with the dialer phone, since the police's e-mail me that it would help and information from you, then decided of their own volition to pass the information on to the police. that is what you're asking us to believe? in iran and may not? >> passing that on to the police? >> if the information was received -- information held by sub 10 related to the hacking of milly dowler was possibly for their investigation. he said the first you knew about that was in the newspapers?

what i'm saying it must've been the case that someone without your knowledge, an employee of yours i've said 10 decided without consulting a lawyer passed it on to the police. is that the case? is that the chain of events that must exist it? >> i think it's important to say that obviously the milly dowler news story went on for many years and i have been editor at both "news of the world" and "the sun" while the investigation was ongoing. what i thought you were referring to was when did i first hear an allegation that milly dowler phones had been intercepted by someone working for "news of the world" are authorized by someone at "news of the world." the first time he ever had that was two weeks ago. but the information was passed to the police.

>> i wrote to the police immediately. i first rule of call was to defend milly dowler family and unreserved apology on behalf of the news international and assure them we would get to the bottom of it, representative to milly dowler family lawyer and i most immediately to try and get more information to see if there's anything we could do, look for it or assist in that place. the third thing i did was right to the police to say that obviously in the last nine years if they have come across any information that supported these allocations, could they please either give it to the inquiry borchert at the management standards committee. i had a response at the end of last week, which is bad because there was part of the criminal investigation they couldn't tell

me. >> what i'm trying to get to is that the theme, potentially, allegedly someone at "news of the world" would make a decision themselves to pass information along to the police. however with pain as a result of a newspaper investigation and they didn't consult the editor or any members staff. that seems incredible. >> your allegation is that someone on the 10 knew that they had authorized someone to access the voice mails of milly dowler and then told the police they had authorized milly dowler stone. >> is there an event from the

passing to the police of the information regarding what was on milly dowler's phone. that's what i'm asking about. >> well, on the allegation either someone from "news of the world" or someone authorized by "news of the world" had access in the voice mails of the milly dowler is a serious allegation and that is being investigated right now. and when i first heard of it was two weeks ago. sorry, that's just how it is. >> it seems they think incredibly that you are so unaware of the fundamental issues that the investigation. >> and the mice i think the opposite. i don't know anyone in their right mind who would authorized to sanctioned approval to anyone listening to the voice mails of

milly dowler in those circumstances. i don't know anyone who thinks it's the right and proper thing to do at this time or any time. i know we know a lot more now, but that's all i can tell you. >> this is potentially something that happened under your watch as editor. if its person this is the case, would you take responsibility for what happened as editor of the newspaper? >> i would take responsibility, absolutely. i really, really do want to understand what happened. i think all of us do because that, you know, after everything i've heard of this case, i think that is probably the no shocking thing i've heard for a long time and certainly the most important thing i've heard about the people who were for news international. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've i've got a couple

questions. first of all i want to clarify one bit of curiosity. i was the observer before 2001 when i was selected, so there wasn't a time and i can't speak to the observer. one thing i do know that there is no publicly issue of mobile phone numbers from your evidence that there are ways for converting mobile numbers to address his, including web search. the person who had to put those numbers on the internet or otherwise -- otherwise the private investigator hired to secure it from a mobile phone company or through the police. you have to have a public interest defense for doing so. can you remember what you've got a public interest defense if you are challenged?

>> like i said, i felt in many people disagree with the campaign, but i felt that there is law in the 1997 offenders act needed to be changed to protect the public eye so it was absolutely in the public interest. however, my particular case, don't forget i remembered it when i was represented with it. in that particular case i know at the time my use of private detectives around serous law. >> you expect to mobilize and 547 of the commission by your secretary extension 4406 as a contact point. >> i can only assume it was, but as this person has been named and interviews extensively by the media and has said that quite openly that was wrongdoing

and can't understand what any less worth looking at the time and i have to accept that. i don't think that the inquiry led the publication about soon. but at this time to reduce private type in order to track down the many convicted people. >> your public interest defense in that case if they feel it wasn't just a question of employees on meets myspace is. >> i think as you know you say you went to the observer at the time, he left in 2001? but the observer have these private type days before 2001. it wasn't a new practice at the observer in 2001. and in your time at the observer, private detectives used as they were used and i'm sure you like i thought they were legitimate means. clearly, when we had the machine

inquiry and the subsequent conclusion of that, it was that the government spread its attack is were found to be one thing and the industry on the back of his committee's inquiry change their ways. >> let me move on to the connection with milly dowler. after the arrest and conviction of good men, two minutes and news international was paddling both of them. one it was a real good offerings secondly, they weren't doing this for themselves and to 2005, which coincided, you've gone by then and also it really was not to make any link between the two at dvds -- his activities and the source of activities. in the milly dowler case, comprehensively demolished both of those. >> i think if you remember at the time, when glenn mulcaire

was arrested in 2006, it was the belief of news international and basically the belief that the police that they would be thoroughly investigated. in fact, previous to the arrest they had been investigating the situation in order to make the arrest. and so, i understand why you are using the language, but that was the reality. we were told in the trial in 2007 by dan glenn mulcaire said the income he stated that he didn't start accessing voice mails until 2004 and that's what he said. that's what he told the trial. and after 2007, there were

committee hearings and news international conducted the internal investigation you covered extensively in the previous discussion and the police closed the inquiry. from my own knowledge in 2006 and because my own phone and as everyone knows now was asked as by glenn mulcaire, my own voicemails are accessed by glenn mulcaire appeared on a regular basis i had the same information as everyone else and whether you can save them if now, clearly we have now seen as evidence that that is not the case. but it wasn't in it. it was what everyone believed at the time. >> thanks to a good description of the paper that was left in the office, we've had an account to "the sunday times" in the last few days there were a

number of gatekeepers on the new status that your time and andy coulson, the name is clive goodman, celebrate coming teen atman sin at "the sunday times" as accurate. and yet, we are still being asked to believe the u.s.a. hands-on editor that andy coulson simply didn't know what "news of the world" was that too. >> i can't comment on what others knew and when they knew it and how they know it. i can only tell what i do at "news of the world" and subsequently editor at "the sun." as chief executive i can account for my actions and try to get to the bottom of the story. in 2006, for my own point of view is the editor of "the sun" and the one approached by the

police to explain the nature of access on my own voicemails and i would point that back to the company did any of the subsequent investigations they just remained editor of "the sun." and i became chief executive in 2009, that is when i started to pick up much more responsibility of how we acted and get to the bottom of this story. >> can i move on to milly dowler. after the milly dowler story, which was the straw that broke the camel's back, your company was used on your behalf i assume was a quick distance to you from being anywhere on the premises at the time of that particular story was run, and they said in the newspapers that you are on holiday at the time. is that the case? >> is slightly irrelevant where i was.

if this happened, then i didn't know it was happening. >> that's not irrelevant because they put out a finger talk to the press to you on holiday at the time. >> there in a statement at the time. >> if you do the clips, you find its source for the company. >> we didn't produce a statement. the actual facts as i was away for the stories that they're talking about, but i feel as editor that is irrelevant. i was the editor of the paper and therefore ultimately it happened on my watch. >> the deputy or the associate editor. >> who is the deputy? >> i had a deputy andy coulson. >> so andy coulson was editor while you're away quite >> it could be. i don't absolutely know.

>> i do want to take too long. you saw the exchanges over the e-mail -- the paper that was residing for a long time. it gives to the light at the evidence that we received previously about the result of a huge e-mail. clearly that was still sitting there when he became the chief executive 2009. so is out of commission before your watch, but not sitting under your watch. james murdoch said he first learned about it in april, may and passed in june. when did you first learn about the evidence was fair? >> just before james murdoch and then i just went. >> did he report to find you quite >> actually would have been nice to know we have this management committee that we set up and after the police we open their

investigation in january 2011. and obviously it was her investigation that led to the opening of the inquiry and they subsequently set up a management committee in order to facilitate the police within the information they requested or anything like tivoli could find to help them. as part of that disclosure comes as part of the references made to the internal investigation into her vocal lewis, the police -- as part of the reference, the police asked management committee about the hardback mos and we then found that end as they think james murdoch said in a session, we hand it over to the police on june 20th. >> okay. now, this didn't just involved

this world than this. it was overseen by news international, people who reported executive. in particular, john chatman. can you remember what conversations you had with john chatman after this came to life? we've heard from rupert murdoch that john chatman sat on that file for years. >> the original inquiry in 2007 i believe wasn't struck to. >> i'm just asking about when the evidence came to light through your committee, did you have any legal to write to her who reported to you? can you remember the conversations? >> obviously we discussed it. as soon as it came to light, it enjoys in the paper and i was told about it.

mr. chatman lives with the hidden knowledge of it, why it hasn't come to light before in the management and standards committee. >> what his response to you? >> his response to the decline was that he was also to do an investigation into the illegal infection of voice mails that he felt that the hard and lewis recommendation. >> he felt as a legal advisor to the letter was sent inaccurate review of the file. that is something that clearly you heard today that neither james murdoch nor i thought it was on closer examination.

.. >> i asked what he said to you. >> you also said did john chapman asked harbuckle & lewis right -- response to that question is firstly harbuckle &

lewis are a respected legal firm and i am sure that would be the case and john chapman is a very respected lawyer for many years who i am sure -- however, in light of what we know now, when i and the management could see that file we felt from our perspective, new information that we had in the past and we had lately. >> it wouldn't be a very good question. thank you. why did john chapman leave news international? >> you heard in the previous session that john chapman wanted to leave. we felt under the circumstances that was the right action. >> john salmons can now strongly before this session. >> at the time i st. john

chapman who is a corporate lawyer and daniel quote who was head of 8 are --hr leaders and lived there were called to this committee in their experience and knowledge, when they looked at files and they felt the harbuckle & lewis letter was correct. >> from final questions. -- the funds in several newspapers the liberal the guardian and the new york times, in coverage of this affair. can you remember after the guardian story in dubai of 2005 to discuss how they might cover the story?

>> in 2005. >> the guardian broke the story. do you remember calling editors -- [talking over each other] >> not to give the story any play. >> he and i would talk about industry matters on occasion. what i read -- >> final question. do you recall a conversation with boris johnson during which he asked you and your response was -- go down on his knees and they forgiveness? do you recall that conversation? thank you. >> and 11.

and 11 had the 11 >> he referred to part of the news of the world suggesting they wrote that there was a message after the 13-year-old on march twenty first milly when dismissing given the importance of the story and the seriousness of that there are a lot of questions about how you got that information. >> the most important thing in the case of lily milly dowler is to get to the truth of these allegations as quickly as

possible. those two were cognizant of that if those actions should be true. not just opprobrious but correct in the legal system. i am very mindful that i have to be careful what i say because of what i know in the investigation. the fact is i can only keeps a the suggestion that milly dowler has voicemail lozenges of the by someone on news of the world was unknown to me. that is all i can tell you. >> i accept that. >> the fact that there is specific references story i am surprised these questions were not -- i accept --

>> nine years ago and i am told there was a single column on page 9. i am sure questions were asked about where that information came from. it was asked of the reporter, the 9 -- the lawyer would have checked them and there would be a process around any story whether a single column or the front page, where that information and came from and i can tell you it would not have been the case that someone said that came from an illegal voice mail interception. it seems now it is inconceivable that people didn't know of this was the case but at the time it wasn't the practice that was saying daddy "news of the world"

by my readership. >> talking about suggesting you were present at a meeting with scott and the yard and a murder investigation of new evidence your newspapers -- you particularly mention the name of another senior executive, mar h maricheck and metropolitan news that -- partly on "news of the world" and the police officer and his wife. tell us more about that meeting. >> i can tell you something about it. i was asked to recall the meeting at scotland yard in 2002. i was off recently by channel 4 about the story. my information, my recollection of that meeting was entirely

different. my recollection is the meeting was on a completely different subject. i am only going on what i was told by channel 4. the meeting in november, that was what was put to me. i checked my diary as much as possible. no meeting in november. but subsequently, very early january it may be that meeting was not my recollection of the meeting. on the other hand, i did have some regular meetings. >> rupert murdoch said he relied on lieutenants that he trusted. who would you trust? >> the news room at any newspaper is trust.

if you think about -- i am sure paul farrelly would agree. think about way a story gets published it depends on trust. you rely on people that work for you to behave in a proper manner and you rely on the information you are given at the time. that is why i am with the committee today about the interception of milly dowler's voicemail not commenting on what other people knew at that time. when you say who do i trust, the whole newsroom is based on trust. for example at the sun, my political editor came to me with a story. i knew it to be true. i didn't need to ask which cabinet minister leaked the story. just needed to be true because of the standing he had and his

experience as a journalist. that is how it works. >> mr mulcaire implicated himself in several statements. who else from what you now know or didn't know before, people convicted of crimes? [talking over each other] >> none of us should be judge and jury. [talking over each other] [inaudible] >> what you now know, working at a news international or the last month. it seems it was called together. could you say that? >> the process of the criminal

investigation started where we have documentation that we have found. all that documentation has been shared with management and family committee and news international that james and rupert rock reported and independent from news international to that reason and obviously the legal team working on this new about it and the police are aware of everything we are aware of. >> to clarify would that include anyone giving evidence argument? [talking over each other] >> the management committee was concerned -- with current management, chief executive would know about it. >> final question from me would

be do you have any regrets -- subject to the spotlight? does it make you regret anything at all? >> i don't think you confined any editor that didn't feel some headlines they had published that they made some mistakes. there have been mistakes. on the other hand, despite if you say being in the spotlight, having read lots of criticism that was totally furious, i would defend the right of the free press through my entire career. it is vital to us and it hasn't been particularly certain. the main reason i wanted to leave was i felt i was

attracting major executives and journalists and all the people that news international. i was attracting their good work. we have a very robust and diverse fred in this country covering all opinions and the freedom of press should be for ever more. >> thank you. >> how many times would you speak to rupert murdoch when you were chief executive of news international? >> i would speak to mr. murdoch and james murdoch more regularly than i did when i was executor. >> once a day or twice a day? >> james murdoch and i had offices next week other but we had travel schedules and wide responsibilities. i would talk to rupert murdoch

quite regularly. >> once a day? twice a day? >> on average every other day but pretty regularly. >> "news of the world," everyone was working hard and i am not sure they didn't -- that is admirable. why is that not something for tom crone? he left employment because these jobs no longer existed at "news of the world". if you are trying to find a job for everybody at "news of the world" y did you not find a job for him? >> there are some people that didn't want a job. in the case of tom crone, he was legal manager and as mr. sheridan pointed out he drove secretaries of many -- in the

case of tom as i explained he worked as manager of "news of the world" and the legal team on all the other newspapers. that was the current situation with tom. [inaudible] >> did you know when you were at "news of the world" -- somebody who was an informant to please? >> no. >> you didn't know? >> exactly. >> in the evening standard -- dated back to 2,000 when he said after a case that the police were interested in the intelligence that was revealed in court and the judge said it

was a substantial volume of information that was useful to the police. and also that sources people at the top of news international were aware of these roles. >> i was not aware of the informant. >> that is a complete shock to you. >> yes -- not even sure what it means. if you are asking me about members of the press and members of the police force, a symbiotic relationship of excessive -- exchange information they did. i am not sure what informant means. >> the allegation is after a substantial volume of information in scotland yard and in return received dozens of items of confidential information from the police

computer. >> i don't know about that. journalists who worked as crime editor or crime correspondence have a working relationship with their particular police force. >> when the report was published in early 2010 when you were chief executive of news international and certain things where obviously we reported we found evidence of the people was totally unsatisfactory. the collective amnesia we referred to in our report. it was inconceivable clive goodman was a road reporter hadn't been passed on with the e-mail for all that stuff. when you were chief executive of news international when that report was published did you

read the report? >> yes i did. i am not saying i read -- i read a large majority of it. i particularly read the criticisms that were addressed to the company. i can only hope from the evidence you heard today that we have really stepped up our investigation. rupert and james murdoch have been open and honest with you as a committee. i was very willing to come despite that and if there are legal issues. i hope you think when we saw the disclosure in december of 2010 we acted swiftly and promptly to deal with it. the police investigation would not be open now or criminal inquiry that hasn't seen information that news international handed over. i am not saying we have the same

stake but the metropolitan police, you heard last week and the committee heard last week they repeatedly said there is no need for further criminal investigation. i think everyone involved in 2007 would say now that the mistakes were made but i hope you feel we have responded appropriately and responsibly to the information in 2010. >> so it isn't -- there are some things here we might not have any evidence on or might not know anything. clearly something is not quite right. did that prompt any activity on your part as chief executive of news international? let's go back over this because something is not right? >> everyone at a news

international has great respect for this committee and to be criticized by your report was something we responded to, look at the report but only when we had the information in december of 2010 that we did something about it. you heard today from rupert murdoch that it is the most humble day. we try to explain openly and honestly what happened and we were very unhappy with the criticisms from the company. we aspire daily to have a great company. the criticisms were felt. >> tell us how often you spoke to various prime minister's, editors of news -- "news of the world" or chief executive of

news international. how often would you meet tony blair or gordon brown and david cameron respectively? >> prime minister david cameron, i read the other day that we met 26 times. i don't know if that is correct. -and do my best to come back to you on an exact number. i am sure it is correct but i have never been to downing street when david cameron was prime minister. prime minister gordon brown and tony blair -- >> how regular is regularly? >> on prime minister gordon brown in the time he was in downing street and when he was

chancellor i would have gone six times the year. >> tony blair? >> probably similar. in the last few years a little more. if you want me to cite numbers i can do my best to get that. strangely it was under labor prime ministers that i was executive at downing street and not the current administration. >> do you think there was a change of events when you were chief executive of news international? it struck me that "news of the world" -- anti-establishment kind of publication. always seemed to me this was a paper on the side of the little person fighting the establishment. would you say when you became editor and your relationship with those prime ministers there

was a shift and news international became part of the establishment as opposed to being amateur establishment? >> the complaint i used to get from both prime ministers about the coverage. i would never think -- that is not the case. throughout my internship one of the main campaigns we had is help for heroes. absolutely pay for the military and that is very uncomfortable conversation particularly with prime minister gordon brown. one of the issue that is apparent today is lack of awareness of other aspect of the media and those who acknowledge currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and people don't seem to forget that. i would not say any prime

minister is not fighting for the right people. continues to fight for the right people. >> how would any of those prime ministers ask as editor or chief executive how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? would they ask you to spike a story? would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion of prime minister asked that. >> politicians generally do that? >> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet minister or politician or prime minister was very unhappy with stories we were running and -- not that they would ask us not to. >> if they had you would have been interested anyway? >> if the story was true and accurate, no reason for a prime minister -- that is why we have

a free press. >> final question. still a feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the allegation seems to be is no different -- the benefit of what people need to see. you have a close relationship with the prime minister. that was helpful to him and news international helped him politically so that return news corp. were hoping in some way to reach the takeover of these kinds of people. was there any of that part of the wider strategy of news corp. when you get close to the prime minister? >> not at all. i have read many allegations

about my current relationship with prime minister david cameron including my extensive sports writing with him every weekend. i have never been caught writing with the prime minister. i don't know where that story came from. i was asked three days ago to disclose the race course with the prime minister which i do not and i was asked a week ago to explain why i own some land with the prime minister which i do not. i am afraid in this current climate many of the allegations put forward that i tried to answer honestly but there is a lot out there that just isn't true. particularly around my relationship with david cameron.

the truth is he is a neighbor and a friend. diet been the relationship to be wholly appropriate and at no time have i had any conversation with the prime minister that anyone would disapprove of. >> adrian sanders. >> newspaper reports the other day advised david cameron as a press spokesman. >> i read that. >> what was your reaction to that? >> it is a matter of public knowledge that it was george osborn's idea that when andy coulson left "news of the world" they should start discussions with him on whether he was the appropriate person going to tory

hq. first time i heard of him being approached was from andy coulson and not the prime minister. >> you had no conversation with david cameron? >> the answer is the allegation i have read is that are told the prime minister to ira andy coulson and that was never true. the idea came -- >> you have no conversation with david cameron about andy coulson? >> no. >> none whatsoever? >> obviously before his appointment. >> you presumably in a social context where with david cameron. that could -- having been obtained by illegal means.

are you satisfied with david cameron before and after the prime minister what you might share -- [inaudible] >> i hope my earlier assurance that any social encounter with the prime minister, any conversations were wholly appropriate, as the sun or chief executive. >> did you approve the subsidizing of andy coulson's salary after he left? >> that is not true. i didn't approve it. >> so the news report like