the public sees them as science of success and what we're not doing right. we could recapture the public's confidence and willing to invest and we have to do a couple of things for pro the have to have pay put their net first doing the luxury that i think would be good the we have to be willing to program back to the basic of what we might do. i think we've put with that. >> to read and how the revenue at this time. g4 -- . . .

consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, james madison, the father of the constitution, warned the means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home. abraham lincoln had similar thoughts saying "america will never be destroyed from the outside if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." during war, there has always been a

struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. during the civil war, the right of habeas corpus was suspended. newspapers were closed down. fortunately, these rights were restored after the war. the discussion now is to suspend certain rights of due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. rights given up now cannot be expected to return. so we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that these rights that we give up now may never be restored. my well-intentioned colleagues' admonitions in defending provisions of this defense bill say that we should give up certain rights, the right to due process. their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely without due process or trial people suspected of an association with

terrorism. these would include american citizens apprehended on american soil. i want to repeat that. we are talking about people who are merely suspected of terrorism or suspected of committing a crime and have been judged by no court. we are talking about american citizens that could be taken from the united states and sent to a camp at guantanamo bay and held indefinitely. this should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today because it puts every single american citizen at risk. there is one thing and one thing only that is protecting american citizens, and that's our constitution. the checks we put on government power. should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.

detaining citizens without a court trial is not american. in fact, this is an alarming arbitrary power that is reminiscent of what egypt did with its permanent emergency law. this permanent emergency law allowed them to detain their own citizens without a court trial. egyptians became so alarmed at that in the last spring that they overthrew their government. recently justice scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the ham did i case our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or another crime. scalia concluded by saying the very core of liberty secured by our anglo-saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive. justice scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.

as franklin wisely warned, those who give up their liberty for security may wind up with neither, and really, what security does this indefinite detention of americans give us? the first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misnamed patriot act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. this is simply not borne out by the facts. congress long ago made it a crime to provide or conspire to provide material assistance to al qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations. material assistance includes virtually anything of value -- legal, political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. the supreme court sustained the constitutionality of this sweeping prohibition. we have laws on the books that can prosecute terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism. al qaeda adherence may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to

violate the material assistance prohibition. in fact, we have already done this. jose padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenceed to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al qaeda. the criminal law does require and can prevent crimes from occurring before they do occur. indeed, conspiracy laws and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11 to thwart embryonic international terrorism. in fact, from the bush administration, michael chertoff, then head of the justice department's criminal division and later secretary of the department of homeland security, testified shortly after 9/11, he underscored the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concern about classified

information. we can prosecute terrorists in our courts and have done so. it's the wonderful thing about our country, is that even the most despicable criminal, murderer, rapist or terrorist, our court systems do work. we can have constitutional liberty and prosecute terrorists. there is no evidence that the criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. additionally, miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of the interrogation is public safety. the authors of this biller antly maintain that the -- bill errantly maintain that the bill would not reverse people held indefinitely. i believe this is simply not the case. the current authorization for the use of military force combines the universe to persons implicated in 9/11 or who harbored those who were.

this new detainee provision will expand the universe to include any person said to be part of or substantially supportive of al qaeda or taliban. but remember, this is not someone who has been included at trial to be part of al qaeda. this is someone who is suspected. if you are suspect in our country, you are usually afforded due process. you go to court, you are not automatically guilty, you are accused of a crime. we are now saying someone accused of a crime could be taken from american soil, an american citizen accused of a crime, a suspect of a crime could be taken to guantanamo bay. these terms are dangerously vague. more than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either al qaeda or other terrorist organizations. it's an accusation and sometimes difficult to prove. some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack, we must fight

terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. for combatants captured on the battlefield, i agree, but these are people captured or detained in america, american citizens. 9/11 didn't succeed because we granted terrorists due process. in fact, 9/11 did not succeed because al qaeda was so formidable but because of human error. the defense department withheld intelligence from the f.b.i. no warrants were denied. the warrants weren't even requested. the f.b.i. failed to act on releaseed pleas from its field agents who were in possession of a laptop that may well have had information that might have prevented 9/11, but no judge ever turned down a warrant. our criminal system didn't fail. no one ever asked for a warrant to look at moussaoui's computer in august, a month before 9/11. these are not failures of our laws. these are not failures of our

constitution. these are not reasons we should scrap our constitution and simply send people accused of terrorism to guantanamo bay, american citizens. these are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. no amount of liberty sacrificed at the altar of the state will ever change that. a full accounting of our human failures by the 9/11 commission has proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or not giving up our liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism. we should not have to sacrifice our liberty to be safe. we cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. the rules, the binding chains of the constitution were written so that it didn't matter who was in power. in fact, they were written to protect us and our rights from those who hold power with good intentions. we are not governed by saints or ache -- angels.

occasionally, we will elect people and there have been times in history when those who come into power are not angels. that's why we have laws and rules that restrain what the government can do. that's why we have laws that protect you and say you are innocent until proven guilty. that's why we have laws that say you should have a trial before a judge and a jury of your peers before you're sent off to some prison indefinitely. finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom. they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the united states. no benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al qaeda, taliban or other foreign terrorist organizations. in fact, this bill explicitly says that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization of force. when will the wars ever end? when will these provisions end? no congressional view is allowed or imagined. no victory is defined.

no peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition. to disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the president to continue war forever at whim, i will offer an amendment to this bill that will deauthorize the war in iraq. we're bringing the troops home in january. is there any reason why we should have an open-ended commitment to war in iraq when the war is ending? if we need to go to war in iraq again, we should debate on it and vote on it. it's an important enough matter that we should not have an open-ended commitment to war in iraq. the use of military force must begin in congress. our founding fathers separated those powers and said that congress has the power to declare war, and it's a precious and important power. we shouldn't give that up to the president, we shouldn't allow the president to unilaterally engage in war. congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters and must reclaim its

constitutional duties. these are important points of fact. no good did -- know good and well that someday there could be a government in power that is shipping its citizens off for disagreements. there are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist. someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the department of justice. someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. if you are suspected by these activities, do you want to have the government have the ability to send you to guantanamo bay for indefinite detention? a suspect. we're not talking about someone who has been tried and found guilty. we're talking about someone suspected of activities. but some of the things that make

you suspicious of terrorism are having food, having more than seven days of food, missing fingers on your hand, having ammunition, having weatherproofed ammunition, having several guns at your house. is that enough? are you willing to sacrifice your freedom for liberty? i would argue that we should strike these detainee provisions from this bill because we are giving up our liberty. we are giving up the constitutional right to have due process before we're sent to a prison. this is very important. i think this is a constitutional liberty we should not look at and blithely sign away to the executive power or to the military, so i would call for support of the amendment that will strike the provisions on keeping detainees indefinitely, particularly the fact that we could now for the first time send american citizens to prisons abroad. i think that is a grave danger to our constitutional liberty, and i advise a vote to strike these provisions from the bill. thank you, mr. president.

i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i listened to the discussion by senator rand paul and understand his theory. facts are stubborn things. 27% of those who have been released have been back in the fight. that's fact. that's fact. and some of them have assumed leadership positions of al qaeda. that's a fact. and if the senator from kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people are released and go back in the fight and kill americans, that's his right, he is entitled to that opinion, but facts are stubborn things. the facts are 27% of detainees who are released went back into the fight to try to kill americans. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. paul: mr. president, if i might have a moment to respond and suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: does the senator withhold his quorum call? the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: with regard to releasing the prisoners, i'm not asking that we release them. i think there probably have been some mistakes of people who are let go. what i am asking for is only due process. we release some of those people without any kind of process in a flawed process, so we did make a mistake. due process doesn't mean and believing in the process doesn't mean necessarily that we would release these people. due process often convicts. jose padilla was given 17 years in prison with due process. so i don't think it necessarily follows that i'm arguing for releasing of prisoners. i'm just simply arguing that people, particularly american citizens in the united states, not be sent to a foreign prison without due process. mr. mccain: mr. president, in response to that, we're not asking they be sent to a foreign prison. what we're arguing is that they are designated as enemy combatants. when they're enemy combatants,

then they're subject to the rules and the laws of work. again, i point out the fact that there have been a number who have been released, who have reentered the fight. that kind of situation is not something that we want to prevail. so, i mean, as i said, facts are stubborn things. they are designated as enemy combatants and will be treated as such during the period -- mr. paul: will the senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: yes. mr. paul: my question would be under the provisions, would it be possible that an american citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to guantanamo bay and detained indefinitely? mr. mccain: i think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the united states of america should not be allowed to continue that threat. and i think that's the majority of american public opinion,

especially in light of the facts that i continue to repeat to the senator from kentucky. 27% of detainees who were released got back in the fight and were responsible for the deaths of americans. we need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening. that's for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there putting their lives on the line in our armed services. mr. president, i suggest the absence of correct. under the previous order, the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i rise to speak in favor of amendment number 1107. first let me say that i know how hard chairman levin and ranking member mccain have worked to craft a defense authorization act that provides our armed forces with the equipment, the services, and the support that they need to keep us safe. and i want to thank also my colleagues from the armed services committee, a number of whom i see on the floor here

this morning, for their diligence and their dedication to this important work. with that, let me turn to the amendment itself, and i wanted to start, mr. president, by thanking the cosponsors of the amendment. they include the chairwoman of the intelligence committee, senator feinstein; the chairman of the judiciary committee; senator leahy; and our colleague senator webb, former secretary of the navy, and someone i think we all respect when it comes to national security issues. i also want to point out this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. senator rand paul joined as a cosponsor this morning and gave, i think, a very compelling floor speech a few minutes ago. senators wyden and durbin have also recently cosponsored the amendment. i want to recognize their leadership as well. mr. president, again, let me turn to the amendment itself. a growing number of our colleagues have strong concerns about the detainee provisions in this bill. and at the heart of our concerns

is the, is the concern that we've not taken enough time to listen to our counterterrorism community. and have not heeded the warnings of the skraurd, the director of -- the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence and the be director of the -- equally concerning, we have not had a hearing to fully understand the implications of our actions. my amendment would take out these provisions and give us in the congress an opportunity to take a hard look at the needs of our counterterrorism professionals and respond in a measured way that reflects the input of those who are actually fighting our enemies. specifically, the amendment would require that our defense intelligence and law enforcement agencies report the congress with recommendations for any additional authorities or flexibility that they need in order to detain and prosecute

terrorists. my amendment would then ask for hearings to be held so we can fully understand the views of relevant national security experts. in other words, mr. president, i'm saying let's ask our dedicateed men and women who are actually fighting to protect americans what they actually need to keep us safe. this is a marked departure, in my opinion, from the current language in the bill which was developed without hearings and seeks to make changes to the law that our national security professionals do not want and even oppose, as i pointed out. like other challenging issues we face here in the united states senate, we should identify the problem, hold hearings, gather input from those affected by our actions and then seek to find the most prudent solution. instead, we have language in the bill, while well intended -- of that, there is no doubt -- that was developed behind closed doors and is being moved rather quickly through our congress. the secretary of defense is

warning us that we may be making mistakes that will hurt our capacity to fight terrorism at home and abroad. the director of national intelligence is telling us that this language will create more problems than it solves. the director of the f.b.i. is telling congress that these provisions will erect hurdles that make it more difficult for our law enforcement officials to collaborate in their effort to protect american citizens. and the president's national security staff is recommending a veto of the entire defense authorization bill if these provisions remain in the bill. now, with this full spectrum of highly respected officials and top counterterrorism professionals warning congress not to pass these provisions, we are being asked to reject their advice and pass them anyway, again without any hearings or further deliberation. i don't know what others think but i don't think this is what the people of colorado expect us to do, and it's not how i

envision the senate operating. the provisions would dramatical ly change broad counterterrorism efforts by requiring law enforcement officials to step aside and ask the department of defense to take on a new role they are not fully equipped for and do not want, and by taking away the flexible decisionmaking capacity of our national security team by forcing the military to now act as police, judge and jailer, these provisions could effectively rebuild walls between our military law enforcement and intelligence communities that we have spent a decade tearing down. the provisions that are in the bill to me and many others appear to require that the d.o.d. shift significant resources away from their mission to serve on all fronts all over the world. this has real consequences, mr. president, because we have limited resources and limited

manpower. and again, i just want to say i don't think we would lose anything by taking a little bit more time to discuss and debate these provisions, but we could do real harm for our national security efforts by allowing this language to pass, and that's exactly what our highest ranking national security officers are warning us against doing. mr. president, you will note i'm speaking in the broadest terms here but i did want to speak to one particular area of concern just to give viewers and my colleagues a sense of what we face. the provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of american citizens who are suspected of involvement in terrorism, even those captured here in our own country, in the united states, which i think should concern each and every one of us, these provisions could well represent an unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties. let me explain why i think that's the case.

i agree that if an american citizen joins al qaeda and takes up arms against the united states, that person should be subject to the same process as any other enemy combatant. but what is not clear is what we do with someone arrested in his home because of suspected terrorist ties. these detainee provisions would authorize that person's indefinite detention, but it misses a critical point. how do we know, mr. president, how do we know that a citizen has committed these crimes unless they are tried and convicted? do we really want to open the door to domestic military police powers and possibly deny u.s. citizens their due process rights? if we do, if we do, i think that's at least something that is very worthy of a hearing and the american people should be made aware of the changes that would be forthcoming and the way we approach civil liberties.

but since our counterterrorism officials are telling us these provisions are a mistake, i'm not willing to both potentially limit our fight against terrorism and simultaneously threaten the constitutional freedoms americans hold dear. as i begin my remarks, mr. president, i hope i have projected my belief that we have a solemn obligation to pass the national defense authorization act, but we also have a solemn obligation to make sure that those who are fighting the war on terror have the best, most flexible, most powerful tools possible. to be perfectly flank, i am worried that these provisions will disrupt our ability to combat terrorism and inject untested legal ambiguity into our military's operations and detention practices. we will hear some of our colleagues tell you not to worry because the detainee provisions

are designed not to hurt our counterterrorism efforts. we all know that the best-laid plans can have unintended consequences, and while i'm sure the drafters of this language intended the provisions to be interpreted in a way that does not cause problems, the counterterrorism community disagrees and has outlined some very serious real-world concerns. stating in the language that there will not be any adverse effects on national security doesn't make it so. these are not just words in a proposed law, and those that will be chartered to actually carry out these provisions are urging us to reject them. shouldn't we listen to their serious concerns? shouldn't we think twice about passing these provisions? i have not received a single phone call from a counterterrorism expert, a professional in the field or a senior military official urging

us to pass these provisions. we have heard a wide range of concerns expressed about the unintended consequences of enacting these detainee provisions but not a single voice outside of congress telling us that this will help us protect americans or make us safer. mr. president, in a-- addition to our national security team who are urging us to oppose these provisions, other important voices are also asking us to stop, slow down and consider them more thoroughly. the american bar association, the aclu, the international red cross, the american legion and a number of other groups have also expressed a wide range of serious concerns. again, i want to underline although the language was crafted with the best of intentions, there are simply too many questions about the unintended consequences of these provisions to allow them to move forward without further input

from national security perts through holding hearings and engaging in further debate. mr. president, i am privileged to be a member of the armed services committee, i'm truly honored. as i have implied and i want to be explicit, i understand the importance of this bill. i understand what it does for our military, which is why in some -- what i'm going to propose with my amendment is that we pass the ndaa without these troubling provisions but with a mechanism by which we can consider in depth what is proposed and at a later day include any applicable changes in the law. it's not only the right thing to do policywise, it may very well protect this bill from a veto. the clearest path towards giving our men and women in uniform the tools they need is to pass this amendment and then send a clean national defense authorization act to the president. in the statement of administration policy, the president says the following.

i should again mention in the statement of administration policy, there is a recommendation that the president veto the bill. quote -- we have spent ten years since september 11 breaking down the law between military and intelligence officials. congress should not now rebuild those calls and make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult." these are striking words. they should give us all pause as we face what seems to be a bit of a rush to pass these untested and legally controversial restrictions on our ability to prosecute terrorists. so, mr. president, i want to begin to close and in so doing urge my colleagues to think about the precedent we would step by passing these provisions. we are being told that these detainee provisions are so important that we must pass them right away without a hearing or further deliberation. however, the secretary of

defense at the same time along with the director of national intelligence, the director of the f.b.i. are all urging us to reject the provisions and take a closer look. do we really want to neglect the advice of our trusted national security professionals? i can't think of another instance where we would rebuff those chartered with keeping us safe. if we in the congress want to constrain the military and give our service members new responsibilities, as these provisions would do, i believe we ought to listen to what the secretary of defense has had to say about it. secretary panetta is strongly opposed to these changes, and i think we all know that before he held the job he has now, secretary of defense, mr. panetta was the director of the c.i.a. he very well knows the threats facing our country and he knows we cannot afford to make any mistakes when it comes to keeping our citizens right. we have to be right every time

the bad guys only have to be right once. so this is a debate we need to have, it's a healthy debate, but we ought to be armed with all of the facts and expertise before we move forward. the least we can do is to take our time, be diligent, and hear from those who will be affected by these new significant changes in how we interrogate and prosecute terrorists. so as i have said before, it concerns me that we would tell our national security leadership, a bipartisan national security leadership, by the way, that we would not listen to them and that congress knows better than they do. it doesn't strike me that that's the best way to secure and protect the american people. that's why i filed amendment number 1107. i think my amendment is a commonsense alternative that will protect our constitutional principles and beliefs while continuing to keep our nation safe. the amendment has a clear aim, which is to ensure we follow a

thorough process and hear all views before rushing forward with new laws that could be harmful to our national security. it's straightforward, it's common sense, and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. mr. president, i thank you for your attention. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from michigan. mr. levin: we have approximately a half-hour on each side. i'm wondering how much senator graham needs. mr. graham: ten minutes. is that too much? five minutes? mr. levin: we have seven speakers on this side. try for eight minutes? mr. graham: i will try to do it as quick as i can. okay. mr. mccain: we have had plenty -- a long time from the previous proponent of the bill. we have had ten minutes from the senator from illinois. i yield the senator from south

carolina ten minutes. mr. levin: the senator from arizona will control, if this is all right with the senator, half of our time, would that be all right? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. can you let me know when five minutes are passed because there are a lot of voices to be heard on this issue and i want them to be heard. i'm just one. and let me just start with my good friend from colorado. i respect you. i know what you are -- i know your concerns, i just don't agree. i can remember being told by the bush administration we don't need the detainee treatment act. everybody said we didn't need it, but they were wrong. i remember being told by the vice president's office during the bush administration it's okay to take classified evidence, show it to the jury, the finder of fact, and not share it with the accused, but you can show it to his lawyer. how would you like an american soldier tried in a foreign land where they are sitting there in the chair wondering what the jury is talking about, can't even comment to their own lawyer about the allegations against

them? i have been down this road with administrations and we worked in a bipartisan fashion to change some things that the bush administration wanted to do, and i'm glad we did. we're working in a bipartisan fashion to change some things this administration is doing, and i hope we're successful because if we fail we're going to be worse for it. here are the facts: under this provision of mandatory military custody for someone captured in the united states, if you're an american citizen, that provision does not apply to you. but here's the law of the land right now. if you're an american citizen suspected of being, joined al qaeda, being a member of al qaeda, you can be held as an enemy combatant. the padilla case in south carolina, where the man was held for five years as enemy combatant, went to the fourth circuit court of appeals and here's what the court said. you can interrogate that person in an intelligence-gathering situation. the only thing you have to do is provide them a lawyer for their

habeas appeal review. so here's the due process rights. if our intelligence community military believe that an american citizen is suspected of being a member of al qaeda, the law of the land as it is today, an american citizen can be held as enemy combatant and questioned about what role you play in helping al qaeda, and you do get due process. everybody held as an enemy combatant here, at guantanamo bay, captured in the united states goes before a federal judge, and the government has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is in fact an enemy combatant. there is due process. we just don't hold someone and say good luck, you have to go before a judge, a federal court, and prove your case as the government. and here's the question for the country: is it okay to hold an american citizen who is suspected of helping al qaeda under military control? you better believe it's okay. now, my good friend from

colorado said this appeals the posse come cat tuesday act. , the posse comita t*us is a prohibition on our military and goes back to reconstruction. this is the central difference between us. i don't believe fighting al qaeda is a law enforcement function. i believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home and abroad. and the idea somehow allowing our military to hold someone captured in the united states is a repeal of posse comitatus act, you'd have to conclude that you view that is a law enforcement function where the military has no reason or right to be there. that's the big difference between us. i don't want to criminalize the war. to senator levin, thank you for helping us this time around craft a bipartisan solution to a very real problem. the enemy is all over the world,

here at hoefplt and when people -- here at home. when people take up arms against the united states and captured within the united states, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity? the only way you can do that is hold them in military custody, and this provision can be waived. it doesn't apply to american citizens. but the idea that american citizen helping al qaeda doesn't get due process is just a lie. you go before a federal court, and the government has to prove that you are part of al qaeda. and let me ask this to our colleagues on the other side: what if the judge agrees with the military or the intelligence community making the case? are you going to require us to shut down the intelligence-gathering process, read them their rights and put them in federal court? that's exactly what you want. and that will destroy our

ability to make us safe. if an american citizen is held by the intelligence community, the military, and a federal judge agrees that they are in fact a part of the enemy force, that american citizen should be interrogated to find out what they know about the enemy in a lawful way. and you should not require this country to criminalize what is an act of war against the people of the united states. they should not be read the miranda rights. they should not be given a lawyer. they should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us. so this provision not only is necessary to deal with real-world events. it is written in the most flexible way possible. and to this administration, the reason we're on the floor today, it was your idea to take khalid sheikh mohammed and put him in new york city and give him the

rights of an american citizen and criminalize the war by taking the mastermind of 9/11 and making it a crime, not an act of war. the presiding officer: the senator has spoken for five minutes. mr. graham: thank you. i am wrap up. to senator levin and senator mccain, what they're accusing you of doing is not true. you're codifying a process that will allow us to intelligently and rationally deal people who are part of al qaeda, not political dissidents. if you don't like president obama, we're not going to arrest you. you can say anything you want to about the president or me. you just can't join al qaeda and expect to be treated as if it were a common crime. when you join al qaeda, you haven't joined the mafia. you're not joining a gang. you are joining people who are bent on our destruction and are a military threat. and if you don't believe they're a military threat, vote for senator udall. if you believe al qaeda represents a threat to us at home and abroad, give our

intelligence and military agencies statutory guidance and authority to do things that need to be clear rather than uncertain. we're ten years into this war. congress needs to speak. this is your chance to speak. i am speaking today. here's what i'm saying to my colleagues on the other side and to the world at large. if you join al qaeda, you suffer the consequences of being killed or captured. if you're an american citizen and you betray your country, you're going to be held in military custody and you're going to be questioned about what you know. you're not going to be given a lawyer if our national security interests dictate that you not be given a lawyer and go into the criminal justice system because we're not fighting a crime. we're fighting a war. there's more due process in this bill than any other time in any other war. i am proud of the work product. there are checks and balances in this bill that have been working on for ten years. the mandatory provisions do not apply to american citizens. they could be waived if they

impede an investigation. we're trying to provide tools and clarity that have been missing for ten years. this is your chance to speak on the central issue ten years after the war. the attacks of 9/11. are we at war? are we fighting a crime? i believe we're at war, and the due process rights associated with war are in abundance and beyond anything ever known in any other war. what this amendment does, it destroys the central concept that we're trying to present to the body and to the country, that we're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organization who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life. let's give our law enforcement and mitt romney community the -- law enforcement and military community the clarity be they have been seeking and i think now they will have. and to the administration, with all due respect, you have engaged in one episode after another to run away from the fact that we're fighting a war,

not a crime. when the bush administration tried to pass policies that undercut our ability to fight this war and maintain our values, i pushed back. i'm not asking any more of the people on the other side than i ask of myself. when the bush administration asked me and others to do things that i thought undercut our values, i said "no." now you've got an opportunity to tell this administration, we respect your input, but what we're trying to do needs to be done not for just this time, but for the future. ladies and gentlemen, either we're going to fight this war to win it and keep us safe or we're going to lose the concept that there's a difference between taking up arms against the united states and being a common criminal. in conclusion, khalid sheikh mohammed and all those who buy into what he's selling present a threat to us far different than

any common criminal. and our laws should reflect that. senator levin and mccain, you've created a legal system for the first time in ten years that recognizes we're fighting a war within our values. i hope we get a strong bipartisan vote for the tools in this bill. with that, i yield. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: how much time do we have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has 15 1/2 minutes. mr. udall: before i recognize senator durbin for eight minutes, i want to respond to my friend, the senator from south carolina. mr. mccain: question: how much time on this side? the presiding officer: five minutes remain. mr. udall: the senator from south carolina is broadly admired in the united states senate. if i'm ever in court, i want him to be my lawyer. i would point out what i'm proposing wouldn't destroy the system we have in place, a

system that resulted in the convictions of numerous terrorists with life sentences. what i am asking is to listen to those who are on the front lines fighting against terrorists and terrorism who said they have concerns about this new proposal and would like a greater amount of time to vet it and consider it. i'd like to yield to the senator from illinois, eight minutes. mr. levin: mr. president, i just have a unanimous consent request which senator durbin said i could interrupt to make. i have two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today, during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have the greatest respect for senator carl levin and senator john mccain. they have done an extraordinary job on the defense authorization

bill. i would say this bill would not have engendered the controversy that brings us to the floor today but for this provision because it is a critically important provision which has drawn the attention not just of those in the military community, which they of course would expect in a defense authorization bill, but also the attention of those in the intelligence community and the law enforcement community across the united states as well as the president of the united states. the provision which they include in this bill is a substantial and dramatic departure in american law when it comes to fighting terrorism. i salute senator udall for bringing it to the attention of the committee and now to the floor that before we take this step forward, we should reflect and pass the udall amendment which calls for the necessary agencies of of government -- law enforcement, intelligence and military -- to reflect on the impact of this decision, not just on the impact of america's security but on america's commitment to constitutional principles. this is a fundamental issue

which is being raised here, and it should be considered ever so seriously. and we need to ask ourselves why ten years after 9/11 are we prepared to engage in a rewrite of the laws on fighting terrorism. thank god, we meet in this chamber today with no repeat of 9/11. through president george w. bush and president barack obama, america has been safe. yes, there are people that threaten us and they always will. but we have risen to that challenge with the best military in the world, with effective law enforcement and without giving away our basic values and principles as americans. take a look at the provision in this bill which senator udall is addressing. who opposes this provision? i'll tell you who opposes it. secretary of defense leon panetta, who passed out of this chamber with a 100-0 vote of

confidence in his leadership has told us don't do this. this is a mistake in this provision. secondly, the law enforcement community, from attorney general eric holder to the director of the federal bureau of investigation, have told us this is a mistake to pass this measure, to limit our ability to fight terrorism. and the intelligence community as well. the director of national intelligence tells us this is a mistake. so is it any wonder that senator udall comes to the floor and others join him from both sides of the aisle saying before you make this serious change in policy in america, ask ourselves, have we considered the impact this will have on our nation's security, our ability to interrogate witnesses and our commitment to constitutional principles? when i take a look at the letter that was sent to us by the director of the federal bureau of investigation, robert mueller, i have to reflect on the fact that director mueller was appointed by president george w. bush and reappointed by president barack obama.

i respect him very much. he has warned this senate, do not pass this provision in the defense authorization bill. it may adversely impact -- and i quote -- "our ability to continue ongoing international terrorism investigation." if this provision had been offered by a democrat under republican george w. bush, the critics would have document floor and said how could you possibly tie the hands of the president when he is trying to keep america safe? the director of the federal bureau of investigation has made it clear that the passage of this provision in this bill will limit the flexibility of the administration to combat terrorism. it will create uncertainty for law enforcement, intelligence, and defense officials regarding how to handle suspected terrorists and raise serious constitutional concerns. listen. all of those things are worthy of debate. were it not for the record that for ten years america has been safe, it has been safe because

of a republican president and a democratic president using the forces at hand to keep us safe. if we were coming here with some record of failure when it comes to keeping america safe, it's one thing, but we have a record of positive success. and this notion that there is no way to keep america safe without military tribunals and commissions defies logic and defies experience. since 9/11, over 300 suspected terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in article 3 criminal courts in america. yes, they have been read their miranda rights and yes, they have been prosecuted and sent to prison. the most recent being the underwear bomber who pled guilty just weeks ago in the article 3 criminal courts. during this same period of time when it comes to military commissions and tribunals, how many alleged terrorists have been convicted? six. the score, my friends, if you're paying attention, is 300-6.

president bush and president obama used our article 3 criminal courts effectively to keep america safe, and in those instances where they felt military tribunals could do it best, they turned to them with some success. and i might add to those who want to just change the law again when it comes to military tribunals, this is the third try. twice we have tried to write the language on military tribunals and commissions. it's been sent ultimately across the street to the supreme court and rejected. they told us start over. do we want to risk that again? do we want to jeopardize the prosecution of an alleged terrorist because we want to test out a new legal and constitutional theory? i hope not. i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the director of the f.b.i. be made part of the record in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: let me also say, section 1031 of this bill is one that definitely needs to be

changed if not eliminated. it will for the first time in the history of the united states of america authorize the indefinite detention of american citizens in the united states. i have spoken to the chairman of the committee who said he is open to language that would try to protect us from that outcome, but the language as written in the bill unfortunately will allow for the indefinite detention of american citizens for the first time. the administration takes this seriously. we should, too. they have said they will veto the bill without changes in this particular provision. i hope that we will step back and look at a record of success in keeping america safe and not try to reinvent our constitution on the floor of the united states senate. i think we ought to give to every president, democrat and republican, all the tools and all the weapons they need to keep america safe. tying their hands on the floor of the united states senate may give us some satisfaction for a moment, but it won't keep america safe. i reserve the balance of my time

and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i yield myself ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: there have been so many misstatements of fact that have been made, it's hard to keep up with them, but let me just take the last statement that the senator from illinois made about changing military tribunal law. there is no change in military tribunal law whatsoever which is made in this bill. now, i'm going to address the other misstatements that have been made by my friends and colleagues, but that one is the most recent so i want to just take on that one first. now, in terms of constitutional provisions, the ultimate authority on the constitution of the united states is the supreme court of the united states, and here is what they have said. in the hamdi case about the issue which both our friends have raised about american citizens being subject to the law of war.

a citizen, the supreme court said in 2004, no less than an alien, can be part of supporting forces hostile to the united states and engage in armed conflict against the united states. such a citizen, referring to an american citizen, if released would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict. and here is the bottom line for the supreme court. if we just take this one line out of this whole debate, it would be a breath of fresh air to cut through some of the words that have been used here this morning, one line. there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. okay? that's not me, that's not senator graham, that's not senator mccain. that's the supreme court of the united states recently. there is no bar to this nation's

holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. mr. graham: would the senator yield for a question? mr. levin: i would rather not at this point. now, there are a number of sections in this bill. my dear friend senator udall says these sections as though it is a whole bunch of sections which are at issue. there is really only one section which is at issue here, and that's section 1032, and that's the so-called mandatory detention section that has a waiver in it. section 1031 was written and approved by the administration. okay? section 1031, which my friend from illinois has just said is an abomination, was written and approved by the administration. now, section 1031 is the

authorities section. this authorizes. it doesn't mandate anything with the waiver, the 1032 does. section 1031. and now i'm going to use the words in the administration's own so-called s.a.p. or statement of administration policy. this is what the administration says about section 1031. "the authorities codified in this section already exist." so they don't think it's necessary, 1031, but they don't object to it. their words. the authorities in 1031 already exist. they do. what this does is incorporate already existing authorities

from section 1031. unnecessary in the few of the administration, yeah, but they helped write it and they approved it. we made changes in it. we have made so many changes in this language to satisfy the administration, i think it all comes down to one section, 1032. 1032 is the issue. not all the sections, by the way, which would be stricken by the udall amendment. the udall amendment would strike all the sections, but it really comes down to section 1032. 1032 is the so-called mandatory provision, which, by the way, does not apply to american citizens. i better say that over again. senator graham said it, but let me say it over again. the most controversial provision, probably the only one in this bill, is section 1032. section 1032 says that the

requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the united states. i guess that's the second thing that i would like for colleagues to take away from what i say, is that section -- and senator graham said the same thing -- section 1032, the mandatory section that has the waiver in it, does not by its own words apply to citizens of the united states. it has a waiver provision in it to make this flexible, and the way in which 1032 operates is that it says that if it's determined, if it's determined that a person is a member of al qaeda, then that person will be held in military detention, they are at war with us, folks. al qaeda is at war with us.

they brought that war to our shores. this isn't just a foreign war. they brought that war to our shores on 9/11. they are at war with us. the supreme court said -- and i'm going to read these words again -- there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. they brought this war to us, and if it's determined that even an american citizen is a member of al qaeda, then you can apply the law of war, according to the supreme court. that's not according to the armed services committee, our bill or any one of us. that's the supreme court speaking. who determines it? what we say to give the administration the flexibility that they want, the administration makes that determination, the procedures to make that determination. who writes those procedures? we don't write them. by explicitly, the executive branch writes those procedures.

can those procedures interfere with an ongoing interrogation or investigation? no. by our own language, it says that they shall not interfere with interrogation or intelligence gathering. that's all in here. the only way this could interfere with an operation of the executive branch is if they decided to interfere themselves in their own operation. they are given explicitly the authority to write the procedures. i think we ought to debate about what is in the bill, and what is in the bill is very different from what our colleagues who support the udall amendment have described. yes, we are at war and yes we

should codify how we handle detention, and this is an effort to do that, and as the administration says itself, we are not changing anything here in terms of section 1031, we are simply codifying existing law. the issue really relates to 1032. and that's what we ought to debate. should somebody when it's been determined by procedures adopted by the executive branch, been determined to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war, and the answer is yes. but should flexibility be in here so the administration can provide a waiver even in that case? yes. and finally, about civilian

trials, i happen to agree with my friend from illinois, and he is a dear friend of mine. civilian trials work. there is nothing in this provision that says civilian trials won't be used, even if it's determined that somebody is a member of al qaeda. not only doesn't it prevent civilian trials from being used, we explicitly provide that civilian trials are available in all cases. it's written right in here. i -- i happen to like civilian trials a lot. i participated in a lot of them, and they are very appropriate, and we have a very good record. in the case that you mentioned, the senator from illinois mentioned, excuse me, that case was a michigan case. i know a lot about that case. it was the right way to go. i prefer civilian trials in many, many cases. this bill doesn't say that we're going to be using military

commissions in lieu of civilian trials. that is a decision which we leave where it belongs, in the executive branch, but we do one thing in this bill in section 1031, which needs to be said. we are at war with al qaeda and people determined to be part of al qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us. but even with that statement, we give the administration a waiver. that's how much flexibility we give to the executive executive. how much time have i used, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator has three and a half minutes remaining. mr. levin: i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president, how much time remaining on both sides? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona has just over five minutes. the senator from colorado has

eight minutes. mr. udall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i want to clarify for the record before i recognize senator webb for five minutes that some here have claimed that the supreme court's hamdi decision upheld the indefinite detention of u.s. citizens captured in the united states. it did no such thing. hamdi was captured in afghanistan, not the united states, and justice o'connor, the author of the opinion, was very careful to say that the hamdi decision was limited to -- quote -- "individuals who fought against the united states in afghanistan as part of the taliban." end of quote. i think that's important to be included in the record. let me recognize, yield to senator webb for five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to say that i believe that the senator from colorado has a good point here, and i say

that as someone who is a strong supporter of military commissions who in many, many cases has aligned myself with my good friend, the senator from south carolina and senator mccain as well on these issues. to me this is not a jurisdictional issue and it's not an issue about whether we should be holding people under military commissions under the right cases or under military detention under the right cases. my difficulty and the reason that i support what senator udall is doing is in the statutory language itself. i say this as one who has spent a number of years drafting this kind of legislation as a committee council -- counsel. i have gone back over the last two days again and again reading these sections against each other, 1031, 1032

particularly, and i'm very concerned about how this language would be interpreted not in the here and now as we see the stability that we brought to our country since 9/11, but if something were to happen. and we would be under more of a sense of national emergency and this language would be interpreted for broader action. and the reason that i have this concern is twheer really -- that we're really talking here about the conditions under which our military would be sent into action inside our own borders. and in that type of situation, we need to be very clear and we must very narrowly define how they would be used and quite frankly, if they should be used at all inside our borders. and i think that's the concern that we are hearing from people like the director of the f.b.i.

and the secretary of defense. and i'm also very concerned about the notion of the protection of our own citizens and our legal residents from military action inside our own country. i think these protections should be very clearly stated and in this language there's a lot of vagueness. and what the senator from colorado is proposing is that we clarify these concepts, that we take this provision out, clarify the concepts, protections are in place in our country, we're not leaving our country vulnerable -- in fact, i think we're going to make it a much more healthy legal system if we do clarify these provisions. so that is the reason i'm here on the floor to support what senator udall is saying and i know the emotion and the energy

that senator levin has put into this and i respect him greatly. i just happen to believe that we should do a better job of clarifying our language. and i spent 16 years on and off writing in hollywood, and one of the things that came -- came to me when i was comparing this, this is kind of the danger that you get when you get the fourth or fifth screenwriter involved in a story. where you tend to want to fix one thing and you're not fixing the whole thing. i greatly respect the legitimacy of the effort that is put into this but when you read section 1031 against section 1032, there are questions about what would happen to american citizens under an emergency. let's take frins what happened in this country -- for instance what happened in this country

after hurricane katrina. it's an direct parallel but you can see the extremes that people went to under a feeling of -- of emergency and vulnerability. we had people who were deputized as marshals in new orleans, you could see them on cnn, going into people's houses, making a decision that later was rescinded that they're going to take people's guns away from them. the vagueness in a lot of this language will not guarantee against these types of conduct on a larger scale if a situation were more difficult and dangerous than it is today. section 1031, which senator levin mentioned, may be clear from the administration, it's not that clear to me when they talk about cooferred person. this isn't -- a covered person. this isn't simply al qaeda, depending on how you want to interpret it in time of national

emergency, it says a person who is part of or substantially supported al qaeda, the taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the united states or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act. we might be able to agree what that means here on the senate floor today, but you don't know how that might be interpreted in a time of national emergency. i'm not being -- i'm not predicting that it will. i'm saying we should have the certainty that it will not. similar -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator has consumed five minutes. mr. webb: similar concerns also revolve around the definitions in terms of the applicability of united states citizens and lawful residents, aliens, when you go to the word "requirement" does not extend, what about an option? these are the types of concerns i have. we should have language that

very clearly makes everyone understand the conditions under which we would be using the united states military inside the borders of the united states. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan has four minutes. mr. levin: i'll yield and -- we'll do one of your folks. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to yield two minutes to the senator from new hampshire, followed by the time from senator levin for the senator from connecticut and then what time i have remaining for the senator from georgia. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i first of all want to thank

chairman levin and ranking member mccain and remind everyone that this particular amendment addressing the detainee provisions passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis from the armed services committee. and the reason that we addressed this issue was because we heard witness after witness in a series of months before the armed services committee from our department of defense tell us for example when i asked the commander of africa command saying he'd need lawyerly help on how to answer what to do with a member of al qaeda who was captured in africa. this is an area that cried out for clarification, and that's the genesis of this amendment which is a very, very important amendment. just briefly, two issues: number one, on 1031, the arguments that have been raised about 1031, the statement of authority, this is a red herring. this provision was drafted as senator levin said very

clearly, based upon what the administration wanted. and also really codifies existing law on what the statement of authority is in terms of -- of the fact that we are at war with al qaeda. and if people want to disagree with that, that's certainly a policy discussion that we can have. but we were attacked on our soil in 9/11 and this codifies the fact that we are at war with members of al qaeda. 1032 is the military custody provision. let's be clear on what it does and it doesn't do. number one, it's very clear on who it applies to. it only applies to members of al qaeda or an associated force who are planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the united states or its coalition partners. it does not apply to american citizens. we're only saying that if you're a member of al qaeda and you

want to attack the united states, we're going to hold you in military custody. why? i prosecuted cases in the criminal system. the presiding officer: the senator's two minutes have expired. ms. ayotte: i would say we don't want to tell a terrorist you have the right to remain silent. that's the issue here. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the senator from connecticut. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and thank my friend, the chairman of the armed services committee. i rise respectfully to oppose the amendment that the senator from colorado has offered, though in some measure i thank him because for -- for offering it because this has been an important and good debate. my own position stated briefly on this is that as senator levin has said we're a nation at war

and as such --, we were attacked on 9/11/01. we adopted in this chamber the authorization for the use of military force. that's about as close to a declaration of war as we've done since the second world war and the comparison is not -- is exact because what happened to us on 9/11 was -- in some ways was even worse than what happened in december of 1941 when weer we were attacked at pearl harbor. a nation at war who seizes those who have declared themselves to be part of enemy forces and have attempted to attack the american people or america should be treated as enemy combatants, as prisoners of war. according to the law of war. to me, that's just a matter of principle. regardless of what statistics one could cite about how well prosecutions have gone in

article 3 courts, that's to me not ultimately the point. if we're at war, the people who are fighting against us all to be treated as prisoners of war. in fact, we are without a policy now as senator ayotte said, and one of the -- the main reason i oppose what senator udall is proposing here is he would remove the sections of the current bill that create a policy and send us back to where we are now where our forces in the field don't know what to do if they capture a member of al qaeda. mr. president, if i had my way, the provisions in this proposal on detainees would not have the waivers that the president has. would simply say if you're apprehended, if you're a foreign member of al qaeda and you're captured planning or executing attacks against americans or our allies in this war, you are put in military custody and you're tried at a military tribunal. this is not the law of the jungle.

this is according to american law, it's -- these are the same courts in which american soldiers are tried when charges are brought against them and of course we accept and abide by other provisions of the geneva convention. but that was not the will of the armed services committee. the armed services committee in a good, reasonable, bipartisan compromise, has created a system here where the full position, the initial position is to transfer these enemy combatants to military custody. it's a good compromise. it's the kind of compromise -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator's three minutes have expired. mr. lieberman: that doesn't happen around here enough. i didn't get everything i wanted out of it but it's a lot better than the status quo and therefore i support the language in the bill and oppose the to t.

>> the autumn statement, e to t.

chancellor of the exchequer. >> let me start by placing squarely before the house of commons and the public the economic situation facing our country. much of europe now is heading into a recession caused by chronic lack of confidence in the ability of countries to deal with their debt. we will do whatever it takes to protect britain from this debt storm while doing all we can, all we can to build the foundation of future growth. today we set up how we will do that by demonstrating that this country has the will to live within its means and keep interest rates low. by acting to stimulate the supply of money and credit to make sure interest rates on the families and businesses. matching the determination on the deficit with an active

enterprise policies for business and lasting investment in our infrastructure and education so that britain can pay its way in the future and every opportunity helping families with the cost of living. the central forecast published today from the independent office of budget responsibility does not predict a recession here in britain. but they have not surprisingly resolves -- revise their short-term prospects for the country, for europe and the world. they expect gdp in britain to grow this year by 0.9% and by 0.7% next year. they than forecast 2.1% growth in 2013 -- [inaudible] -- 3% in 2015 and 3% again in 2016.

this central forecast assumes in their words that the euro area finds the way for the current crisis and policymakers find a solution to deliver sovereign debt. if they do not, there could be a much worse outcome for britain. we hope this can be averted. if the rest of europe heads into recession it may prove hard to avoid in the u.k.. we are now undertaking extensive contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis. so they cite the chilling effects of the current instability of one of this and for reasons for reduction in net growth forecast and i want to thank robert coates and his fellow committee members and their team for the rigorous work that they have done.

i think there forecast today demonstrates beyond any doubt that independence. if we expect their numbers it is an important point for the house. we must also pay heed to their analysis. addition to the euro zone crisis, it gives two further reasons for the weaker forecast. first, when they call the external inflation shot, result in their words of unexpected rises in energy prices and global agricultural commodity prices. they're analysis is this explains the slowdown in growth in britain over the last 18 months. second, the independent obi are -- >> statement by the chancellor should must be heard and he should not have to fight to be

heard. >> second, mr. speaker. the 0 we are today shows new evidence that an even bigger component of the growth that preceded the financial crisis on an unsustainable boom, the bust was deeper and had a greater impact on our economy than previously thought and the result of this analysis is the ob are have reduced their assumptions about the economy and trend rate of growth. this increases estimates of the proportion of the deficit that is structural. the path of the deficit that doesn't disappear even when the economy recovers. so our debt challenge is greater than we thought because the boom is bigger and the bust is deeper and the effects large even longer. britain has had the highest structural budget deficit of any major economy in the world and

the highest deficit in the entire history of our country outside of work. and the last government left it to this government to sort that mess out. mr. speaker, this bogey our analysis is directly through to boring numbers that are falling but not at the rate forecast. in 2009/10 less government was borrowing 1 fifty six billion pounds the year. during the first year of this government that all to 1 thirty-seven billion pounds. this year they expected to pull 1 twenty-seven billion. 1 twenty billion next year followed by 1 hundred billion in 2013 the from 14, seventy-nine billion in fourteen-15 and sixty-three billion in 2015-16, twenty-four billion a year by 2016-17. however i can report the cost of lower market interest rates we

secured for britain, dentist payments forecast to be twenty billion pounds less than predicted. the house might also like to know given the economic events described by the office of budget responsibility what would have happened to borrow win without the action this government has taken? borrowing by 2014-15 would have been running well over -- >> the chancellor is proceeding but the chancellor at statement must be heard. there are strong passions on the subject and plenty of time for people to come in on the back of the statement that the statement must be heard. the chancellor of the exchequer. >> by 2014-15 borrowing would be over 1 hundred billion pounds a year more and britain would bar 1 hundred billion pounds total over the period.

if we pursue that half we would now be in the center of the sovereign debt storm. the crisis we see unfolding in europe has not undermined the case of the difficult decisions we have taken has made the case stronger. we held the deficit reduction budget on our terms last year. not on the market turned this year as so many others have been forced to do. in that budget we set out a tough fiscal matters that we would eliminate the current structural deficit over the five year forecast horizon and supplemented the mandate with a fixed debt target that we would get national debt as a proportion of income by 2015-16. and set plans to beat these budget rules one year early. that head room has disappeared. i am clear that our rules must be adhered to and i am taking action to insure that they are.

as a result the capital of central protection is we will meet both the fiscal mandate and the debt target. current structural deficit is forecast to fall from 4.6% to gdp this year to a current structural substance of 0.5% in five years time and the debt to gdp ratio which is forecast to stand at 67 this year is now set to peak at 78% in 2014-15 and falling but the end so borrowing is falling and debt will come down. it is not happening as quickly as we reached -- which because of damage to the economy because of the ongoing financial crisis but we are set to meet our budget rules and we are going to see britain through the debt storm. mr. speaker, berri a suggestion from some in this house that if you spend more you will borrow less. this is something for nothing economics. the house should know what we

would be running. last april the absence of incredible deficit plan meant that credit rating was a negative outlook and our market interest rates were higher than italy's. 18 months later we are the only major western country that had its credit rating improved. italy's interest rates are 7.2% and less than 2-1/2%. we were even borrowing money more cheaply than germany. and those -- at risk by deliberately adding to our deficit must be explained. just a 1% rise in market interest rate would add ten billion pounds to mortgage bill every year. 1% would mean the average family with a mortgage would pay 1,000 pounds more. 1% increase cost of business by seven billion pounds. 1% would fall to taxpayers to find twenty-one billion pounds

in debt in trust payments much of it going to our foreign creditors. in other words 1%, extra government spending or tax cuts foreign debt by borrowing what is proposed today. that is the cost of about 1% rise. italy's rates have gone up 3% in the last year alone. we will not take this risk in the solvency of the british economy and security of the british family. mr. speaker, the current environment requires we take further action to ensure britain continues to live within its means. this is what we propose to do. there is no need to adjust the overall total set out in the spending review. taken altogether the measures i will set out to they require no extra borrowing and provide no extra statement across the spending period. second announcing significant savings in current spending to make a fiscal position more

sustainable in the medium and long-term but in the short term over the next three years we will use these savings to fund capital investment in infrastructure, regional growth and education as well as health for young people to find work. every pound spent in this way will be paid for by a pound saved permanently. this includes saving from for the restraint of public sector pay. some work forces the two year pay freeze will be coming to an end next spring and for most during 2013. in the current circumstances the country cannot afford the 2% rise from some government departments. instead we will set public sector to an average of 1% each of the two years after the pay freeze ends. many are helped by paper aggression. annual increase in salary grade even when pay is frozen, is one

of the reasons public sector pay has risen at white race of public sector pay in the last four years. while i accept a 1% average rise is tough it is also fair to those who work to pay taxes. mr. speaker, i am also announcing that we are asking of the independent paper review body to consider how public sector pay could be made more responsive to local labor markets and we ask them to report back by july next year. this is a significant step towards a more balanced economy in the region of our country that does not squeeze out the private sector. mr. speaker, mr. speaker the budgets will be adjusted in line with a pay raise as i announced with the exception of the and h

s and the school budget where the money saved will be returned to protect those budgets in real terms. this policy will save 1 billion pounds in current spending by 2014-15. the deal we offer on public sector pensions is fair to pack the rest taxpayers and public service. the reforms are faced on the independent report of john hutton, former labor secretary who says that it is hard to imagine a sector deal like this. and i would once again ask the union why they are damaging our economy at a time like this and putting jobs at risk. call off the strike tomorrow. come back to the table. complete the negotiations and let's agree generous pensions that are affordable to the

taxpayer. let me turn to other areas of public spending starting with overseas. this government will stick by the commitment it has made. the poorest people in the world by increasing our international development budget and all whole house should be proud of the help our country is providing to eradicate disease, save lives and educate children but the spending plans of the department of international development meant that the u.k. was on forced to exceed 27% national income in 2013. that i don't think can be justified. we are adjusting those plans so we don't overshoot the target. turning to welfare payments the annual increase in basic state pension is protected by the 888-introduced to guarantee a rise in earnings, prices or

2-1/2%. whichever is greater. the basics than pension will make vaporize 55 found 30 to 110 pounds 45. the largest ever catch rise in the basic state pension and tormented -- commitment of fairness to those who worked hard all their lives. hy wanted to make sure the pensioners did not see a smaller rise in their incomes so i can confirm we will also upgrade the pension credit by 5 pound 35 and pay for this with an increase in the threshold of savings credit. also want to protect those who are not able to work because of disabilities and those who through no fault of their own have lost jobs and are trying to find work so icahn confirmed we will upgrade working age benefits in line with september cpi inflation number of 5.2%. this will be a significant boost to the incomes of the poorest especially when inflation is

forecast considerably less than that by next april and we will upgrade with prices the disability elements of tax credits and increase the element of the child tax credit by 135 pounds in line with inflation too but we will not operate other elements for working taxpayers this coming year and given the size of the upgrade this year we will no longer go ahead with the additional 110 pound rise in the charles a element over and above inflation that was planned. by april of 2012 the tax credit will have increased by 390 pounds since the coalition came into power. best way to support low-income working people is to take them out altogether and our increases in the income tax personal allowances this year and next will do that for 1 million people. let me turn to future public spending, mr. speaker. today i am setting expenditure

totals for two years following the end of the spending review period. 2015-16 and 2016-17. co-manage expenditure will fall during that period by zero.9%, same rate that set out existing period of the spending review with a baseline that excludes the additional investment in infrastructure also announced today. these are large savings and will work on different areas of government. i am also announcing a measure to control spending which is not today or next year or the next decade but directly addresses long-term challenge britain and so many other countries face with an aging population. our generation has been warned the cost of providing decent state pensions are going to become more affordable and -- unless we take further action. let's not leave it to our children to take emergency

action to rescue the public. let's think and take responsible, sensible debt now. so starting in 2026 we will increase the pension age from 66-67 so we can go on paying a decent pension to people who are living longer. australia, america and germany have taken similar steps. this will not affect anyone within 14 years of receiving their state pension and by saving sixty-nine billion pounds it will mean a long term future for the basic state pension. we are showing a world skeptical that democratic western governments can take up positions that britain will pay its way in the world. mr. speaker, that is the first thing the government can do in the current environment. keep interest rates lower and protect our country from the worst of the debt storm. but we need to make sure that

low interest rates are available to families and businesses. it is monetary and credit policy, principal and most powerful tool for stimulating demand. bank of england monetary policy committee decided to undertake -- authorized an increase in the ceiling on asset purchases to two seventy-five billion pounds. this will support demand across the economy but we must do more to help those small businesses who can't get access to credit at an affordable price. we already extended the last government enterprise finance guarantee scheme and expanded to include business with annual turnover of forty four million pounds and accrediting new things like metro bank. this scheme is not ambitious enough and never will be within the constraint of state rules. the government is launching a program of credit easing to help small business. we have set a feeling of forty

billion pounds. at the same time i agree with mervyn king that we will reduce by forty billion pounds the asset purchase ability of the previous government gave the bank to buy businessland. only a small proportion of that facility was ever used and i am publishing my exchange with the governor today. we are launching our national loan guarantee which will work on the simple principle that we use a hard one low interest-rate the government can borrow at to reduce the interest rate to small businesses. we're using credibility on international markets to help on domestic economy. new loans and overdraft business turnovers of less than fifty million pounds will be eligible to stay focused on smaller companies. we expect it will lead to reductions of 1% in the rate of interest in charging companies show business facing a 7% interest rate gets a five

million pound loan. we developed with the bank of england a mechanism to allocate funding for different banks based on how much they increase -- that is a clear audit trail to the shore banks comply. we will use the experience of european investment banks in the u.k. to ensure that it works. state approval so that the national loan guarantee scheme will be up and running in the next few months. initially twenty billion pounds of these guarantees will be available next few years. we are also watching the 1 billion pound finance concert ship in britain's midsize company. crucial part of the economy neglected too long and intensified by the director general and others as a future source. government will invest directly to these businesses in partnership with other investors like pension funds and insurance companies. it will give these mid cap companies a new source outside

the traditional banks and the business finance partnership cakes of ice stand ready to increase its size and we will develop further partnership ideas to the new bond issuance to help small and medium-sized companies. no government has attempted anything as ambitious as this before. we will not get every detail perfect the first time around but we don't want to make the best the enemy of the good which is a strain on the financial increase. the important thing is to get flowing credit to britain. mr. speaker, the government can use low interest rates to help young families too who want to buy a home but can't afford the large -- banks are now demanding. we will use mortgage indemnity to help 100,000 such families to buy newly built homes. we will help construction firms that can't get bank financing four hundred million pound some that will kick stop projects that have planning and we are

going to reinvigorate the right to buy. this is one of the greatest social policies of all time. homeownership within the reach of millions of aspiring families. it will slowly and still fully strangled by the last government as discount for cut and cut again. we will bring it back to life. families in social housing will buy their own homes at a discount of up to 50% and we will use the receipts to build every home purchase a new additional affordable home as well. so new homes for families that need them. new homeownership for families who aspire to a. new jobs in the construction industry, that is what the new right to buy will bring. mr. speaker, it is leading up to the crash. our economy became dangerously

overdependent on the success of a poorly regulated london. meanwhile, employment by business in a region like this fell during this period. by 2007 the previous government was relying on finance for one in every eight pounds raised in taxation. that left britain completely exposed when the banks failed and i confirm that the next we will publish a response to the report we commissioned from john dickens to protect taxpayers better. it is this government's policy to ensure we remain the home of global banks. london is the world's preeminent financial center. that is why we will not agree to the introduction of an e you financial transaction. it is not a tax for bankers but attacks on people's pension. instead we introduced a permanent bank levee to make sure the banks pay their fair

share. i have always said we wish to raise 2.5 billion pounds each and every year for this levy to insure we do that. i need to raise the rate of a levee to 0.088%. this will be effective from the first of january next year and we will also take action to stop large firms using complex asset backed for a pension fund there arrangements that claim double the tax relief that was intended. this will save the exchequer half a billion pounds a year. mr. speaker, financial services will always be an important industry to the u.k.. but we have to help the private sector and other parts of the country grow. that means and congested roads and railways for business to move products that cannot be reduced to a screen and a city trading floor. it means providing secure power

sources at reasonable prices and breaking new superfast digital networks to companies across the country. these do not exist today. see what countries like china or brazil are building and you will see why we risk falling behind the rest of the world. we are publishing the national infrastructure plan today. for the first time we are identifying over 500 infrastructure projects. we want to see built to the next decade and beyond. roads, railways, power stations, waste facilities, broadband networks and mobilizing finance meetings to deliver them too. the savings have announced in the current budget have enabled me to fund pound for pound, five billion pound of additional spending on infrastructure over the next three years. new spending guarantees by the government will bring a billion pounds forward. and we are committing a further five billion pounds to future

product in the next period southern planning and start now. this is public money and by exploring guarantees and letting city mayors borrow against future tax we are looking at new ways to deploy it. we need to put to work for many billions of pounds the british people save in british funds and get those savings invested in british projects. you could call it british savings or british jobs, mr. speaker. the job and negotiated an agreement with two groups of british pension funds to unlock an additional twenty billion pounds with private investment in more than infrastructure. and it is a go ahead. around the country to 35 new roads and rail schemes to support economic development. in the northwest we will electrify the express so it will include link roads and on the murky side for the addition of the atlantic gateway into a

reality. there will be new stations and new tram capacity and we will hold them on the hamburg bridge. i want to pay tribute to my hon. friends and other mobile m ps his campaign to make this happen under this government and in the northeast we will bring forward investment on the metro and in the 845 and 843 and 8453 there are going to be improved and in the southwest, the brits road and a free 85 will go ahead. for families across the southwest facing of the highest water charges in britain the government will kick up the household bills of all southwest customers by 50 pounds a year. we are going to make immediate improvements to the a 14 and in the southeast we will build a new railway link between oxford

and milton keen that is 12,000 new jobs. we will start working on a newer crossing of the lower thames and explore all the options that make the hub status with the exception of a third runway at heathrow. right here in london we will work with the mayor of options on river crossings regarding silver towne and support the extension of the northern -- could bring 25,000 jobs to the area. for the administrations in stalin the bleeders and wales and northern ireland will get their share and working with the link between in the m 4 in south wales to north of the border. this all amounts to a huge commitment of overhauling the physical infrastructure of our nation. and we will match it by

overhauling the digital infrastructure. the government is funding plans to bring that to 90% of homes and businesses across the country and extend mobile phone capacity to 95% capacity to a great at economically vibrant countryside but our great cities are the heart of the regional economy and we will help bring world leading broadband and wi-fi connections to ten of them including the capital of all four nations. we will go with the 22 enterprise zones already announced with two thirds in the like a sure component and i can confirm the capstone allowance of 100% will be available to encourage manufacturing other industries in zones in liverpool, sheffield, hamburger and a black country. those will allow the northeastern enterprise zone and we will continue extending to

create private-sector jobs there too. mr. speaker, this government's new regional growth has allocated 1.4 billion pounds to 169 project around the country. for every one pound we're putting in we are tracking 6,000 private-sector money alongside it. i am putting in a further 1 billion pounds over this parliament and to the regional growth for england with support for the administration. if we don't get the private sector to take a greater share of economic activity in the region our economy will become more and more unbalanced as it did over the last ten years. government should not assume this will happen by itself. we must tell business to grow and succeed and do that at a national level too with our

commitment for example to british science. at a time of difficult choices we made last year when committed to excessive -- we are confirming half a billion pounds through a scientific project from supercomputing and satellite and government can encourage many more small firms to export overseas for the first time to doubling to 50,000 the sectors we are helping and extending support to british mid cap who lack the overseas german equivalents. we will make it easier for u.k.-based to compete for a government determined and make new applications out of government data and provide funds for smaller technology firms in britain to find it difficult to send innovations into commercial success and listen to the ideas from business groups about encouraging innovation in larger companies and introduce a new above the line are and the tax

credit in 2013 that will increase the generosity. and we will give particular help to our energy intensive industry. i have not shied away from sensible steps to reduce this country's dependence on a volatile oil prices and reduce our carbon emissions. the chancellor who founded the first investment bank and infuse the carbon price. our deal will help people insulate their homes and their heating bills but i am worried about the combined impact the green policies adopted not just in britain but by the european union on our every energy intensive industries. we are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills and manufacturers. all we will be doing is

exporting valuable jobs so we will help with the cost of the e.u. trading scheme to increase climate change levee release and reduce the impact the reforms these businesses do. this amounts to a two fifty million pound package over the parliament. >> keep industry in britain. mr. speaker, it is a reminder that we should not price british business out of the world economy. if we burden them with endless social and environmental goals however worthy in their own right not only will we not achieve those goals and the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost. our planning reform strike a balance between protecting our country -- permitting economic development but we need to go

further through lengthy delays and new responsibilities. we will make sure that the goal facing eu rules on habitats are placing ridiculous costs on british business. planning laws need reform. >> the house needs to calm down. one hon. member probably shouted enough for one day. chancellor of the exchequer. >> mr. speaker. planning laws need reform. so too do employment rules. we know many firms are afraid to hire new staff because of their fear of the cost involved and it doesn't work out. we are doubling the period before an employee could bring an onside dismissal play and introducing fees. we will call for evidence on further reform to make it easier

to hide including changing the kewpie regulation, refusing delay and uncertainty in the redundancy process and introducing the idea of compensated no-fault dismissal for review of the attendant employees. we look at the burden of health and safety rules on small firms because we have a regard for the health and safety of the british economy too and this government has introduced flexible working practices. we are committed to their rights for employees but what about the right to get a job in the first place for the right to work all are running a small business and not be sued out of existence armacost of an employment? by the cost of an employment? no good comparing ourselves with other european countries. the entire european confidence is pricing itself out of the world economy. the same is true of taxes on

business. we tax firms out of existence or out of the country there won't be any tax revenue for anyone. we set the goal of giving this country the most competitive tax in the g 20. our corporate tax rate has fallen from $0.28 to 26% and i can confirmed it will again next april to 25%. we are undertaking major simplification for business and individuals including this consulting on ideas emerging the administration on income-tax and national insurance. we are publishing next week will on taxation of foreign profits to the multinational stop leaving bryn and again start coming here and we will end low value consignment release on the channel islands that his continued by large companies to undercut our high streets. we support enterprise by increasing generosity of the enterprise investments team and extending this scheme specifically to help new startup

businesses get the investment they need even when they struggle to get the finance and in the current credit positioned the struggle too often ends in failure. from april of 2012 anyone affecting 100,000 pounds in qualifying new start of business will be eligible for income tax relief of 50% regardless of the rates paid in tax and to get people investing in start up britain in 2012. we will also waive tax on capital gains invested through the new scheme. we can afford this with a freeze on the general capital gains tax for the next year. i want to help existing small-business who find current economic conditions tough. business radar at disproportionately large part of their fa fixed costs. are provided a holiday for october next year. i am today extending that holiday until april of 2013.

over half a million small firms including one third of all shops would have reduced work in the rate bills for the end of the year ended hole of the next financial year too. to help all business including larger ones with next year's rise in business rates i will all of them the first sixty% of the increase in their bills for the two following years. are will also want them to help any business -- want to help any business seeking to employ at a young person who is out of work. the o p r forecasts as unemployment rises 8% this year to 8.7% next year before falling to 6.2% an end forecast. and employment has been rising for seven year and is unacceptably high. it is little comfort that this problem is affecting all western nations today. the problem is primarily a lack of jobs but it is made worse by

a lack of -- too many children. too many children are leaving school after 11 years of compulsory education without the basics they need for the world. the new use contract addresses both problems. with the offer private sector experience every young person after five months will be weekly signing on. after nine month's pay for job efforts and apprenticeship in a private business. some 200,000 people will be helped in this way but as deputy prime minister said this is a contract. young people who don't engage with it will be considered mandatory work activity and those that drop out without good reason will lose their benefit. are going to tackle the economic performance of this country and attacked decade-long products we

will transform the school system too so children leave school prepared for the world of work. more right hon. friend the secretary of state for education is doing more to make that happen than anyone who has ever had this job before. the last government took six years. he has created 1,200 academies 18 months purported his education reform as a central plank of my economic policy. so today with the savings we may i am providing an extra 1.2 billion as part of the additional investment in infrastructure to spend on our schools. half of it will go to help local authorities with the great basic need for school placement. the other six hundred million will support my right hon. friend's reform and 100

additional free schools. these schools will include new math skills for 16 to 18-year-olds and give our most talented mathematician the chance to flourish. .edu -- new university technical challenges these are what britain needs to match our competitors and produce more of the engineering and science graduates for long-term economic success. and to insure that children born into the poorest families have a real chance to become one of those graduates will take further steps to improve early education. last year it was this coalition government that not only expanded free nursery education for all 3 and 4-year-olds but gave children from the poorest families a new right to 15 hours of nursery care at the age of 2 years old. i can tell the house today we have the number of children receiving this -- 40% of

2-year-olds. original 260,000 children from the most disadvantaged families to get this support in the early years. education. early years learning. this is how you change the life chances of our least well off and genuinely let children out of policy. that is how you build an economy ready to proceed in the world. it will take time. the damage we have to repair is great. people know how difficult things are. how little money there is. but where we help with the rising cost of living we will. i have already offered counsel to resources for another year's freeze in the council tax and that will help millions of families. but i want to do more. commuters often travel long distance to go to work and bring in come home. train fares are expensive and well above inflation to pay for the much-needed investment in the new rail and trains we need but it is too much.

the government will fund a reduction in increased to 1% and this will apply across national rail regulated affairs across london buses and will help millions of people in trains. so mr. speaker, millions more use their cars as a way to get to work and pick up their children from school. it is not a luxury for most people. it is a necessity. in the budget and cut fuel gp by 1 penny. the plan was it to be 3 pens higher in january and 5 by august next year. that would be problem for working families. despite the constraints that are upon us we will cancel a increase planned for january and with a view of each from august 3rd higher than it is now. taxes will be a full 10 pence lower than it would have been with our action in the budget.

families will save 144,000 for filling the average family car by next year. in this tough time we are helping where we can. mr. speaker, all we are doing today, speaking to our deficit plan peak interest rates as low as possible. increasing the supply of credit to pass those low rates on families -- rebalancing our economy with an active enterprise quality and new infrastructure. held with cost-of-living, fuel and rail. all this takes britain in the right direction. it cannot -- [shouting] -- it cannot transform our economic situation overnight. people in this country understand the broad problems britain faces. they can watch the news and the night of the week and see for themselves the crisis in the euro zone and the scale of the

debt burden we carry. and people no, people know that the promises of quick fixes and more spending this country can't afford at times like this are like the promises of a quack doctor selling miller quote york--miracle cure. we are saying the government that has a plan to deal with carnation to keep interest rates low. a government determined to support business and jobs. a government committed to take britain faithfully through the storm. leadership for tough times. that

[inaudible conversations] >> next witness is jk rowling.

[inaudible] emacs it down. make yourself comfortable. what i'm going to provide you to do is confirm your witness statement and that's right in front of you. it runs over 33 page is and at the you'll see your name, your signature, a date on the second of november and the usual statements. this is your evidence. thank you. ms. rolling, you might have heard me to say two other witnesses that i am grateful to

them for giving up the time and putting efforts into volunteering into the inquiry. i appreciate you talking about things i very clearly understand you wish to remain private. and by talking about them, you are to some extent blowing on that wish. i understand that, but i hope you do realize what i am trying to do and clearly to because you're here. if you want to break at any stage, you are entitled to say just five minutes, please. i appreciate it's a very mutual environment. >> thank you very much. >> your witness doesn't really need any introduction at all. we know your books published a return here. your seventh and last book in

thousand seven. three of your witness statements. you make it clear that you have no personal vendetta at all. what are your views about freedom of the press, please click >> i believe very strongly in freedom of expression. i would like to make it clear from the start alongside the kind of journalism will talk about today i think there is truly heroic journalism. i suppose maybe he was that we have one end of the spectrum to expose the truth and the revolution and at the other end we have behavior that the league and intrusive. so i wonder why sometimes they can at the same name and call it the same thing.

>> in paragraph 4 of your witness statement, you recognize at least at the start of your career, you can interest >> i'd say it's a very interesting question with regard to harry potter in particular because in 1997, when the first book was published, the traditional media was really the only game in town for creative person was to say they'd written it for film or anything of that sort. during that tenure is that harry potter was published, the internet became a cute game changer. and my fans are primarily young people who are very internet savvy. to the internet became for harry potter arguably as great if not greater. bs in the beginning, certainly. >> so i think that is where the

good side of journalism is. paragraph 5 you immediately remove to what you describe is a different kind of journalistic activity as you explain and you're literally being driven out of your first house. can you give us an approximate date for that, please? >> i was the first house i ever owned. i perceived on the first harry potter book, particularly from america. we moved into that house in 97. we left that house. so during this two years it had really become untenable to remain in the house. >> and there was faster what which made it untenable? >> door stepping, photographs being published that showed not only the numbers, but the name

of the street would happen to be on the building where i was living. so i really was a sitting duck for anyone who wanted to find me. journalists would sit outside in cars and sell on. when i bought the house i didn't know what was coming. i didn't know i was going to make the conceptual thought of money. i really couldn't have chosen a worse property. so some of them are going to receive that kind of press attention. >> you explain quite generally to detail later in paragraph 7 if you have no choice but to take action against the prospects of the pcc come in the press complaints commission on the quarter. and the number of times you try to engage solicitor's than this is the numbers of about 50, is

that right click >> probably, yes. >> is that covert pcc and litigation clinic >> it might be more. but as far as i can tell. >> the main concern you wish to express relates to not just the foremost concern is the privacy of your children in the privacy of your home and the border issue that treatment, is that correct? previously your children first please. you deal with it in paragraph 9. and when your first novel came out and if you don't mind me stealing, you're a single mother. what was your attitude or strategy if you had one in relation to any publicity first as regards to the book and

secondly protection of your child. >> well, i took the view then i would like to say that i am not -- certainly would like to be seen standing in judgment because there are people i know and respect have taken a different view on this. but it is my belief that remained my belief that children do best when they are kept out of the public eye in their home life is secure and it feels that the place of safety and i think that means private. so from the very first to draw a very clear line between what i consider an unwarranted intrusion was largely my tattered. for instance, i visibly remember a woman's magazine he wanted to take a photograph of me was made her up and down typewriter and my daughter on my knee. and when i said that's

absolutely not happening, they said were going to do the interview. it was the last to me. i did not want that to happen. one reason i agree and it's something i feel very strongly. when you become well known canosa shot to me and became so well-known so quickly. and i will give you a guide book. there's nothing handed to you that says a see. you have to make it out to an extent yourself. and i have heard from the press says offered justification for photographs of people families that justification was so frequently where you have solved your family life he's invited them into their home and not photographers to take pictures of your children. you have used your family as a promotional tool. so i inferred that if i do not

do those things that the privacy of my children and at that time i only child will be respected. so i was trying hard to abide by what i thought would be unwritten code. and i would say i think the significant section that respect is my stance on that, but a significant section of the press in my view so that is almost a challenge. so i tried hard to abide by what i thought was the rules and a failed. >> you mention one occasion that is an early occasion, paragraph 10 of your statement where you took your daughter along to an awards ceremony to get photographed and not ever happen again. >> i never took her do anything like that again. i vividly remember that occasion. i was thrilled with the award

and i took her. i knew of their children were going to be there. it's not that i don't want my children to share visitations with me, but that experience taught me that can't happen because as i say she was marched into a shot and i physically said no i don't want that to happen and i took her away. after that i decided clearly the way forward is not to take my children to these kinds of events. >> in paragraph 12, you deal with three causes that you support. would you like to cover those specifically? >> yes. i think it is relevant to say that i have on occasion discussed my own -- not my children's, but my own life and i suppose broadly speaking there are three areas of my life that

are quite private that i have discussed. and when i wrote the first book as a single parent and that was common knowledge and i wasn't ashamed of that and i discussed the fact that we lived on benefits for a time and it was difficult to find work can find child care. all the things i did talk about. unless they try to parlay that into doing something meaningful because they behave an ambassador for charity that campaigns are loving parents. i also said in my statement that i for quite a long time as a patient in the ms society on reese urged to raise funds for ms. my mother died of complications or multiple sclerosis. it's not some and i relish talking about, but i talk about it with a purpose and i think that's one of the upside if you you would like the well-known that she can become a spokesperson for those kinds of

charities. the last thing an eyewitness statement is i have taught openly about the fact that i suffered from depression. i think originally i discussed this in the context of my work. i made to feel quite strongly interrater for any kind of creative person, your life becomes such an important fact during your work. so there are things and my work that relate to bereavement or depression are things have also experienced. so in other words i was talking about depression not trained to gain sympathy or pity, that there is a purpose. i'd created certain creatures in the harry potter books have had the effects of depression almost being counted. i don't in any sense regret talking about depression because as i cma statement i've received a number of letters particularly

for young people have been depressed to find it helpful that people don't treat that is something to be ashamed of. so yes, i have discussed the matter is, but i would say firstly that i think our cultural life would be greatly diminished if people weren't allowed to say whether they received inspiration or ideas as they secondly i don't think any reasonable person could decide that because i discussed these things my children. a reasonable person would see a clear division. >> thank you. in paragraph 13 you've are detached on importance of a normal childhood for your children. you mentioned one incident where there was a note from a journalist slipped into your daughter schoolbag. could you give us a little more

context? >> yes, this is my oldest daughter. so this would have been when i was really in my first with the teachers surrounding me. she is in her first year of primary school and among the usual school that every child generates, i found an address to me and a journalist. that is from a journalist. so it's my recollection that the letter said that he intended to ask the mother at the school to put it in my totters back. i don't know what. that happened to go in my daughter schoolbag or not. i can only say this sends that i fell such as sun of invasion

that might totters back -- it's very difficult to say how angry and how angry i felt that my 5-year-old daughter's school was no longer a place of complete security for journalists. >> paragraph 14. your position is very clear. in the second line, my husband and i have taken every step we could take a 2% of children from being photographed by photographers. and then. mnu outlines some of the measures you take in. some are quite general and some are quite specific. would you care to elaborate on any of those pleas for us? >> well, i say in our statement, for example, we didn't take immediately after.

we were married because we had previously taken holiday together before we were married and that was the case in which we were having my daughter. the press center since it appears so we decided we took -- he went to great ensure that a wedding was private. there are many things you can do. and we have tried to do all of them. we have really tried to do offense to prevent the children from being photographed. >> paragraph 15, education slurped paparazzi have been outside your house. outside on occasion used hide your children blanket. >> there were two particular areas where it really was like being under seizure being hostage. for a week it was impossible for me to leave the house without being photographed unless i want

to be photographed or lost by one of the children photograph. on both of those occasions they took our permanent residence outside her house and my husband was going to work and he was going in and out being photographed, but i felt completely trapped in the house. and of course i had a massive effect on the children. >> you have made it clear you clearly state in paragraph 17, press photographers, perhaps more importantly newspaper magazines and media -- have you done this by making statements to them? or how is this being achieved? >> i think i've gone to such lengths to try to prevent and that they can be in no doubt and i've complained to the pcc and is in the state and i've been to

court. i would like to say that particularly with regard to photographers outside her house, i think a good example of this is journalist from a scottish tablet took residence outside her house in a car at a time when i was absolutely unaware that there is particular interest to me. i did not have a book coming out. i hadn't just given birth. they were just sitting there. so yeah someone i worked for for the public relations company to please ask them what they wanted. and the response she received was its a boring day at the office. so my family and i were literally under surveillance for their amusement. there wasn't even a pretense that there is a story. but it's difficult to explain to people who haven't experienced what that feels like because you wonder why to they want?

but they think they've caught? it's incredibly fattening. it feels threatening to have people watching you. >> you quite rightly state that this son -- "the sun" published an article with absolutely no criticism of that, but they rightly said the 38-year-old is fiercely protected in a private life and kept detailed top-secret. you give us some specific examples starting in paragraph 21. the picture in 2018 okay magazine when your child was then eight i think. i'm not a fun -- was that of public meat or private meet? >> this is where it all went

wrong because my husband and i were married then. we were wrongly convinced that we run a private beach. we subsequently discovered that no beach is private. they are all public by law. but the hotel we were staying at had advertised it had its own beach. so we believed ourselves to be in a private situation. my husband who is more observant and i clearly said he was worried about about that was a little way out while we were on the beach. i dismissed this and said i was sure everything was fine and he was being paranoid. he wasn't being paranoid at all. when we arrived home it was to photograph of the two of us, not my daughter on the beach.

>> it led to a complaint to the pcc, you have the adjudication under tab to bear, ms. rolling. and the complaint was held as you know. >> this was a complaint about the photograph of my daughter, including my daughter. and the public private beach point was not one in which as it were to do the case. he won the case because of the particular circumstance. if you look at the adjudication set out in your witness statement that its right to read about because the pcc may well want to do so. but the commission may have regard to its previous decision, circumstances are necessarily vary from case to case.

he therefore considered on its merits under the code we all understand that. the code in fact asked everyone of all ages with respect to their private life and his team and accessible long lens photography to take pictures of people and places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in addition gives greater protection does not allow photographs of children under the age of 16 to be taken with a child's where fraud is that requires justification other than to favor the child's parents are publishing material of private life as the child. there may also be a exceptional public for preaching decisions, but none was provided in this case. the commission noted it was not in dispute under considerable length in the past to protect her daughter's privacy. it was not overlooked and the

family had gone there for unwanted attention. the commission was not asked to consider the department breached the code, but consider the circumstances and given the high level of protection afforded by the code to children photographed so that should not have been taken or published and therefore breached wall three. well, you would presumably agree with every word of that decision , ms. rolling? >> i would occur if every word of it, yes. >> do we need to go on to the complaint law six? i will if you like. >> may say one thing? that first craft of my daughter. unlike an intrusiveness in print for which you can at least receive a policy, when an image

is disseminated, it can spread around the world like a virus. i'm not photograph of my daughter in her swimming suit was on the internet months after the pcc ruling. of course i accept the pcc could not adjudicate members of the public who had copied the image and put it up on website and they had no mechanism to prevent that from happening, but i feel given the fact that an image can have a life that cannot be recalled once you see what someone looks like in there somewhere, an apology does not remove that knowledge and everyone else and images have a particular property in that way. so i needed to -- i contacted a lawyer is when i realized the image is still out there and they decorously attend it to remove it wherever they could. i'm sure it is still out there, but that's particular harmful image. >> the analysis of the pcc is to

provide your case into different parts of the code. we pemmican it caused three, which is privacy in the age of the charge is a relevant factor. but then they deal separately with classics, which is a children's issue and on a separate basis they uphold the complaint they are, which is hardly supplied giving their reasoning in relation to cause very. it is noteworthy in relation to cause three that the commissioner weed out the number of fat tears and it may not be clear which fact there is determined, that they consider the law of the circumstances in your case, which some may say demonstrates the issues are not always straightforward one. would you accept that or not? of coolers you clearly won the case. >> well, where children are concerned, it is my personal belief that the issue is not

complex at all. a child, no matter who their parents are a think deserves privacy. he had no choice in who their parents are. they have no choice in how their parents behave, so i would respectfully say that i think the children are concerned the issue is certainly black-and-white and i think it would have to be extraordinary public interest to justify publications of photographs of children, particularly without they are sent. >> the next sequence of evidence you're about to get a slightly more complicated. in a nutshell, tell us what happened on the eighth of november 2004 before we look at the later consequences of it. >> this was an occasion.

i was heavily pregnant with my third child. most unusually, my husband had a morning off. this is relevant in that we very rarely when not at this time of day together, so it is our belief that again people were watching the house without any particular justification. anyway, so happened we took a walk to a local café. and we were photographed covertly trying to the café. didn't realize that it happened subsequently. he must've been happening before we hit the café afterwards because afterwards prevented the demand running down to get in anger of us with my oldest daughter who was in school so this is now my middle child, my son he was being photographed.

>> and the photographs were published and as you explain one of the newspapers published a photograph that clearly showed your son's face. and what it happened as this often happens, a picture agency you taken the photographs in this particular instance have been at a company called good pictures ltd. and they sold it perhaps to the highest bidder. >> yes, that was my understanding of what happened here. >> you then brought proceedings and an injunction as well as damages for breach of confidence in each of privacy. at the first stage before he to judge, your claim was stuck out at that point. >> may i just say before we move on to that point that there is a

reason why i didn't go to the pcc. it had been my hope -- my strong hope that the pcc adjudication of the oldest daughter would send notice to the press, that i took it extremely seriously if they invade my children's privacy. and clearly the message has not been strong enough. sanctions have not been imposed that make anyone think twice about this and they had again but photographs of may child, a different child, but my child. that is why now we went a step further and our intention was to underline our position on this. >> the argument of the defendant newspaper, which at first was expected was that this was a public place.

there is no harassment, therefore there was no confidence of privacy, which could be protected. >> i disagree as you would expect on a number of accounts that there is no harassment. >> yes, we were extremely disappointed that that was the response. >> you had a right to appeal the exercise. on the seventh of may 2008, the court of appeal presided over by then masters found in your favor the judgment is of course publicly available. we provided it to you. if i may say so you have correctly summarized in her witness statement after paragraph 28. he said it is understood given the way this went out

procedurally. the court of appeal was deciding an arguable case. they were deciding when you're going to win or lose at the end of the day, although the advance of the court of appeal's judgment is in the end there was a settlement of the case to your satisfaction. is that right quick >> that is correct. the judgment does bear preteen in full. but they are detailed and legally sophisticated judgments are not going to take time because i couldn't possibly do justice to it by summarizing with it. you in paragraph 38 have identified the key features and of course unsurprisingly a very key feature here is the fact the we are concerned with the rights of the child. in paragraph 29 we decided how

you decided to bring this case. you've given us one of the reasons that you've lost confidence in the pcc to the adjudication in 2001 that your second present. your first reason at 20 9a please, make you elaborate on that. >> there have been another incident shortly after my son was born so i had at this point his 10-year-old daughter and a newborn baby. so we are besieged for a week and then i believe that photographers have disappeared and for the first time in the week i was able to get out of the house with my daughter and the baby.

and on this occasion i thought the photographer taking a picture from across the street. i put my totter behind me because i didn't want her photographed and i don't know how i thought i is going to out run a 20 something while pushing a buggy and my daughter was calm down mom, calm down. don't be silly. it doesn't matter. but it mattered hugely to me that the woman i step foot outside the door i was being photographed again. so the cumulative effect becomes quite training. so yes, i did decide that it is time to take action when we had it another incident. >> the point on page 16 makes it clear that she had consented. of course you had consented to photographs being taken.

the long lens camera point and the privacy point. it must be said that the very fact that you need to use a long lens gives light to some sort of presumption that you're invading privacy as a factor which may be relevant. what about your point at page 17 that you were not contacted by the publication? what difference might that have made, do you think? >> if i'd been told that it's coming i think i could decide, well, i will take steps possibly through the pcc. i don't know what it would have been if i'd been notified to prevent publication. we could've had a conversation. i could've restated my reason for not wishing the children to be photographed. again, the point here is that i

like a lot of people who have agreed to give evidence at this inquirer are not looking for special treatment. we are looking for normal treatment. i don't regard myself as entitled to more then. i'm simply asking the same amount and i'm particularly asking for that on behalf of the children. so yes, if i'd been notified of the intention to print another photograph of my child, which either either they would've given an opportunity to explain my position one would hope that would carry some weight. but again i wasn't notified by couldn't do that. >> your position clearly said before one wonders why there is any need to restate it. >> that's exactly right. short of getting a skywriter, what can you do? >> in paragraph 30, ms. rowland,

there are further photographs, long lens photographs, is this right? your holiday in the u.s. in july july 2006, photographs of your family and your three children, is that right? >> you know, i have to say here that i felt a fool. this is literally the second time -- twice since 1998 i have put on a swimsuit on a public beach, twice. and both times i've been photographed. and as i've explained on the first occasion i believed it was a private beach. on the second occasion i think my card was really down. we've gone on holiday. we hadn't encountered any press. i assumed wrongly that we

were -- the result was i was once again. initially there were photographs only of me. why don't you set -- call a spade a spade. i'm a writer, so i really don't think it's of any benevolence or the public interest in what i look like in a swimsuit. but in a general feeling of people around me believe it and i felt the same way. i thought i was going to be allowed to succeed in preventing publication of that photograph of me. i was very concerned because when i saw the photographs i knew they must have photographed the children because i knew i was in very close proximity to the children all that afternoon. and sure enough the picture agency confirmed they were holding a picture. they took one photograph of the children and is untrue to agree to destroyed it. i believe it was done i never saw that photograph published.

>> did not have the pcc complained? >> i think my recollection is we didn't complain to the pcc and i think that was because -- well, my confidence in the pcc was fairly low at this point, so i decided my embarrassment was out with the stress of going through the complaint. >> there was another incident subparagraph b. of page 19 cents in july 2000 agenda contacted the headmaster of your eldest daughter's school. >> well, this is -- one of the incident about which i feel mo