afghanistan were getting incredible amount of feedback, not just the troops on the ground, but also the military here. so we had a pretty good idea on this issues. >> i found the sentence now. he said it would've huge major issues that on behalf of our readers. i'm just wondering whether you were merely a conduit or rather there is a fair amount of what is rebekah brooks and ora trevor kavanagh and/or some others thrown into the next of deciding how you're going to pursue the matter. >> i think every editor uses his or her own judgment in putting together the pay per in stories or campaigns we should buy low and hopefully we get it right.

but it is an instinct, but it is also end that included an eyewitness statement and i don't know if it's the same in other newspapers, whenever particularly close interaction with some readers. i mean, for the last 11 years, every year i've gone holiday with some readers. i take all of my executive team. we go to the poster that "the sun" is legendary. now e-mail room or inbox, but the letters we get to them are always looked at with the great sort of culture at the newsroom, the reader is to always be dead. it's almost an offense -- we have us give them directions have been lost somewhere. i'm sure it's the same at other papers, but i remember when i

moved, it is one of the things i've found of differences. >> let me ask you about your social circle. not intrusively. is it fair to say that there was a social circle here. you, lindsay murdoch at one case social graham. >> well, we all knew each other, but we didn't meet as a group like that very often. in fact, i think probably once. >> let me move on to chronologically. so we'll go on to mr. cameron

now. >> can reconvene outside for just five minutes, please? >> yes. >> all rise. >> we are on mr. cameron now. according to his biography in 2005 who in fact supported mr. liam fox of the conservative leadership. is that correct or not? >> i don't think that is correct. i don't think "the sun" came out for a particular candidate in the leadership. i probably didn't support cannot clark because of europe, but i don't remember actually having a particular line in the papers that the leadership. >> mr. colson is appointed director of communications may 2007. did you have any involvement in that event? >> no. >> can you recall when you first got to hear about it? >> yes i can.

i think i've written an eyewitness statement i heard about it from andy cole said after he had met with george ashbourne. and i then was told i can be a candidate the job. >> what was your reaction to that piece of news? >> i probably said well done. >> that's what you said, but what was your reaction to a? how did you feel about it? >> well, he had to resign from "news of the world" and he found another job, a good job, one he's interested in. >> were you at all surprised? >> well, i wasn't surprised when he finally got the job because he called me with george ashbourne. >> that the earlier stage when you first heard of that, were you at all surprised at the conservative party?

>> not really. journalists have communicated. alastair campbell went to the mirror. amanda bertelli think worked for william hague and tucker smith. so there's a long history actually journalists going into politics. and so it didn't occur to me this is any different. >> so the answer is your surprise at all? >> no. >> the list of your meetings, which is ours being one, the list of meetings team members or leaders of this party's, you've got that page, ms. brooks? >> yes, i had. >> eve can read meetings at santorini greece, which is on the first page of the list, you put in asterix by.

see don't have a record of this meeting, although you do recall the meeting with the murdoch family while at santorini, greece in 2008. that's why you've included it in the list. whose idea was it that mr. cameron meets the murdoch's increase on this occasion? >> i'm not sure who came up with the idea. i think i was born out of the fact that mr. murdoch, mr. rupert murdoch was hidden europe that summer and mr. cannon was traveling to europe and the idea came up, but it was organized through number 10. >> there must've been initiatives with the new center national to make. did you know anything about those? >> i knew he was coming, but i think the arrangements are made to mr. murdoch's office at number 10.

>> were you consulted at all in those arrangements? >> no. >> you were there to increase presumably on holiday with the murdoch family and there's nothing more than not, right? >> yes, it is for elizabeth murdoch's birthday. >> and you presumably met with mr. cameron on that occasion when he was in greece, does you? >> i did, yes. >> do you recall where you save? >> i think it was an afternoon and evening. i think that's all. >> we witnessed many conversations that took place? >> yes, i was witness to one prepared by mr. murdoch in

europe. very general terms. but then a subsequent other conversations when i wasn't around. >> there are a number of conversations on other topics. >> it wasn't a sort of formal set down conversation. however, the one i was witness to happen to be there when they were talking about europe and i was brought into the conversation because they're talking about europe. >> was this indication you're pleased about her not? >> well, it seemed a very cordial meeting and about well. like i say, it lasted for either an afternoon or evening, so it wasn't particularly long. >> by that point you are quite friendly with mr. cameron, where

theo? >> yes. >> we know from your list, in 2008 he attended a new year's eve party at your farm, disney? etcher has been signed? >> not at our home. it was mrs. thomas parity. [inaudible] >> the brooks family had a connection with the cameras before i came along. site is legitimate that distinction. >> is the distinction that mr. cameron is only a friend of the brooks family are you accepting that mr. cameron became your friend? [inaudible] >> now looking further down the list, the third of may, 2009

from the home of james rupert murdoch, from that point of course there is no evidence the jury meeting with mr. brown. is that fair? you did say your list may not be complete in relation to mr. brown. >> i know my list is not complete. i am not sure. i'm sure tony blair had to release the formal and informal meetings and i'm pretty sure if they have, there will be meetings at downing street with mr. brown from that. in may, right up until september. i don't know how many there are. >> the topic of conversation on the third of may 2009 to remember any specific events. did it cover political issues? >> it was done in general terms.

there were people at the lunch, but again late 2009, i'm not quite sure that my memory is correct, but i am pretty sure the european constitution debate what shall we say at large as well as afghanistan at the time. so they may have been two of the issues. >> we know on the ninth of september 2009, mr. james murdoch called mr. cameron is the drink of the george that "the sun" was support the conservative party in the next election and the headline was on the front page. i think is on the 30th of september 2009. when did you first know but that shift would take place? >> to the conservative party?

>> did you know the days when he told mr. cameron in late 2009. when did you first know that shift would take place? >> well, if we put aside the timing of that, i think publicly in the june 2009 and rupert murdoch and james murdoch would start to have discussions because i think by that stage -- that was posed to reneging on the referendum. as postcampaign for the election and i think one of my last front pages i edited out "the sun" was don't you know the bloody wars on and the point was there didn't seem to be one thing a politician including the prime minister who is willing to address the issues they're facing out there.

>> the question was a simple one. when did you first know? any dvd and see. answer. it was june 2009. you kind of expanded upon it. there were conversations. decided in a nutshell? >> yes. >> was there any part of the discussion about who is likely to win the next election? >> i think back in june the main discussion, which is why tried to give you a little but of backgrounds or you could understand the context, which was that it was more that we had locked things to support gordon brown's government and what did that mean. so they're a very initial discussions in june. >> when did the discussion turned into a fixed provision, which must have arisen at the ninth is number 2009 by the latest spirit was there any part

of the decision based on who is likely to win the next election? >> i'm not sure what the polls were at the time. it was much more in that summer about our leadership where they stood in terms of the politics of the labour government and the bank units had been the year before. the rising debt, the recession, lots of issues that our readers were concerned about. like i said, the main point this summer with the fact that we probably had written one editorial in support of the labour government for quite some time. so it was since as clear cut. >> i'm not saying less case there's any part of the discussion related to who is likely to win the next election.

>> in general terms that would've been. but only part of it because i can't number the post at the the time. but i think the tories were in the late bed. the polls are polls. >> murk respect to this as trigger variant of use of your readers, then by definition you a great interested in how they get the vote of the next election. >> the issue at "the sun," which i think is probably one of the most interesting things about its readership is the amount of voting voters. so if you are a mirror theater or a mirror journalist, i think msi a floating code is quite important. so we went to internal polls and research to where readers are changing. but the overwhelming feedback from the readership at that time was very very unhappy with what they had. >> so we're back to the wider

point, whether you are simply to mirror the opinion of her readers or whether you have any formation on the opinion can only be a point i'll come back to you. if you look at the list of meetings, there is also meeting at dinner dave cameron, 21st of september 2009 again in the home of james and catherine murdoch. can you remember if anyone else was present? >> i can't i'm afraid. i mean they would've been other people present, maybe people from the office, but not particularly that one. i think we had one dinner where there was some military chiefs fair. i'm not sure if that was the one. >> at that dinner, was there any discussion to the timing of the

sons changer support. >> no, we didn't talk about any of the timing. >> did mr. cameron at any stage note the timing? >> probably he knew it was within a period of time from the drink he had with james murdoch that would happen, but absolutely not on the timing. >> can we see how specific you can be? was he told that he would be in the part of the conversation? >> now, i don't think so. i wasn't there at the drink he hadn't james murdoch, but i think from james murdoch's own evidences they had a discussion, which is this is what "the sun" will probably do. the timing was a matter of discussion with me and the editor of the sun and the political team there and james and rupert murdoch.

so the timing conversation was not with david cameron or his advisors. >> so the news international team, really from the top tier editorial level, but even in the last ceo responsible for the timing of the decisions. is that right? >> in terms of the party conferences, then yes. >> did you pick a major role here, mrs. brooks? >> i was certainly instrumental in it. you know, ultimately, you know, mr. murdoch was asked. i was instrumental in it, as was trevor kavanagh, and the other dominant women. >> and a decision made by rupert murdoch, but you are the driving force behind it or not?

>> no, i was instrumental, not the driving force. it was pretty collected in terms everyone's view, particularly to readership, but everyone see that we were in the distance of the labour party we supported for many years. but in terms of the timing, it was probably quite a small group. >> and you're part of the small group. >> yes. >> of course the timing was careful. it was not just static ica. mr. brown's speech at that time. >> were wrongly to call him maximum political damage, would you agree? >> at a discussion on the timing of this, which is the repeat terribly unfair at the start of a party conference to say that

before a hearing what mr. brown and the senior cabinet minister had to say and from new country we knew they could have come up with the fantastic policy leader. so i think is unfair for us to go before. >> are you saying that mr. brown might've said something that would cause huge change your mind to go back to plan a? >> no, i'm not seriously saying that. we are saying it was unfair to cloud a party conference in no way. and so that was the reason for the tally not been before. i think you heard from mr. colson yesterday that the conservative party, if they'd had their way they would've liked the endorsement to the beginning of their conference. but good domain and sole reason we do is going to be -- we

absolutely were ready to do that and the party conference season, but the reason for the night was mr. brown's speech and i can't remember how long it lasted, but the key was that he spent less than two minutes on afghanistan and we felt that that was the right time and in order to distance ourselves. >> you must have made this decision before you heard the speech. there's nothing in a speech that's made a difference to the timing. >> i was talking more about fairness whether it is going to affect a decision. i thought were rethought his spare not to do at the beginning of the party conference. they probably wouldn't feel like that, but at the time it was. >> what would you say in consideration to is all how important a decision you are

taking was. would you agree? >> type and from "the sun" point of view was an incredibly important decision that "the sun" made in 1997, after many, many years of tory supporter. >> you keep repeating questions in 2009 and giving history. >> ancient history is quite in this manner because i think you're asking for an explanation and so, i think that it was a very important decision awaited give a capital consideration. after many years of labor support. >> and you knew that the decision would anger certain people, didn't you? >> at the labour party? >> will obviously. >> individuals within the labour party as well. he knew that, didn't you? >> well, yes.

>> did you sense in any way that this was the exercise of power, concentrated if not to you personally at least to a small group of people within news international which of course evenings? >> i think -- i don't think we have a source in those terms, no. >> perhaps you could think about it now in those terms. >> but i don't think we've seen it in those terms. >> why not? >> rightly or wrongly, i believe and have believed throughout my career that i was my main responsibility was to readership and that any influence we could come today or as their behalf or for their concern was the most important thing. and that's just the way it was. so i don't think we thought like that.

yes answer to your question, we knew there'd be certain individuals in the labour party they would not be happy with the decision. >> this is a decision taken. you've identified your ticket. james murdoch with the party. you were instrumental. the fact is late with those four people. audiovox >> was a contributing much to this debate, mrs. brooks are not? >> yes, he was. >> all five of you in different ways exercise considerable power. would you agree? >> i ain't that we weren't supported me, mr. cavanagh and tom newton dunn who was political editor and dominique murdoch. i think we were all of the mind that this was that the right to do for the paper and for readership.

we just didn't see it in those terms, so i am sorry. >> you don't see the intrusion of the dissemination of power from within a few people capable of impacting on the opinions of many people come you don't see that as being a possibility? >> ball i can see how you can fake it and many other critics do so, too. but from our own perspective, the sun newspaper has in its history always done sort of quite dramatic endorsements. it's like the paper. it's strong, punchy, tells it how it is. when you reach an opinion at pretty obvious. and from the vatican chimney of smoke to calvin, with the last

person, you know, turn out the lights. we've had her tradition and history of, you know, being bold and dramatic inner timing when it came to politics. and so we just didn't see them the terms you're counting us that, although i know critics do. >> now i know you had conversations those close to mr. brown. we'll ask you about those. does you try to speak to mr. cameron before the headline ran out? >> no, i didn't. i was busy. >> too busy trying to speak to him, is that it? >> my main concern was to try to speak to mr. brown. >> why was he a higher priority than mr. cameron? >> ecocide felt it was the right thing to do to speak to mr. brown before anybody else. >> after what motives? >> well, i think general curtis

e., but i thought it was the right thing to do and also mr. brown and his wife were due to come to the news international party that may. i wanted to get a hold of them before hand. >> did she receive a voicemail and text messages from their mobile funds of mr. brown and mort mendelson? >> i think a series is too strong a word. i left a message for both of them. >> to speak to mr. brown to speak to your urgently? >> i put a request earlier in the afternoon. >> or later in the afternoon. >> you've probably seen lord mandelson's account that he eventually did speak to you, didn't he? >> yes, he did. >> there is a slight difference

to one word used, which we better not going to. >> the chump or a? >> yes, that was what he was claimed to have said. >> was he angry or not? >> well, depending how you heard it, it could be quite enough offensive word. so he seemed quite angry, but not surprised. >> no, because as you have said, the tone of your coverage had been unfavorable to the government for some time, hadn't it? >> did you have any conversation with mr. brown on or shortly after september 09? >> i did have a conversation with mr. brown and i think it was in october, rather than that

night without week. >> within a week of -- >> no, i think is a few weeks after. >> why did it take you so long to speak to him? >> well, i had tried to speak to him and then i spoken to lord mandelson instead. and it is clear that there is nothing more to say about point. [inaudible] >> i don't think he wanted to talk to me. >> a nearby burger king about the conversation? >> i remember quite clearly because it was in response to the sun heard splashed on a letter gordon brown had written i breathed a son mom whose son

had died in his keenest in. they were selling mistakes and i spoke to him the next day. >> was it her instigation or yours. can you remember? >> can you remember anything about the conversation? >> yes, i can. it was quite tense. >> so what was said then? >> it was a private conversation, but the tone of it was very aggressive. and quite rightly, he was hurt by the projection on the headline that had been put on the story. and i think also quite rightly in his defense that he expected or thought that this may be a

way in which "the sun" was going to behave and i showed him that it wasn't. it was a mistake. the headline was too harsh and this was not the way the paper was going to behave. >> you are no longer the editor, where you? >> no, i'd spoken to the editor very early on when i saw the headlines. we have discussed it at length and i'd come to that conclusion. >> here's how not to have done that sort of thing, didn't you? >> i taught that mr. brown's concern that the sun coverage is going to be a personal attack was understandable and i thought i would be wrong. >> that's what politicians do most at the sun, isn't it? personal attack. the sun has quite often indulged in, wouldn't you agree? >> i think the fact -- the fact

that it resulted in such an extrovert really aggressive conversation between me and mr. brown's shows that it actually doesn't have been. i remember it very clearly, the nature of it, so no i don't accept that. ..

attacking just for the sake of personal attacks and i think mr. brown felt that letter was purely a personal attack. >> purely personal attack and fear of allegedly holding politicians to account by prying intrusively into their personal lives, that has been part of the metia of "the sun"? >> obviously i'm going to object to prying intrusively. the whole point that newspapers, or press in general should we say hold politicians to account on occasion has been found to be intrusive but that is not the policy. >> these are aberrations then, is that what it amounts to? >> i think that when a newspaper oversteps the line that i have herd criticism of papers that i have edited

and others privacy, privacy is a hugely debated topic in every newsroom, but your question, your premise this was the culture and i was just disputing that. >> i think as well it is also a manifestation of the power that the sunand other high-circulation newspapers can exercise often through the personality of the editors, would you accept that or not? >> what was the question, sorry? >> the manifestation of the power high circulation newspapers can exercise often through the personality of their editors. the fear that if the politician departs from what the paper wants there may be a personal attack? >> i, i don't think it is fair to say that politicians live in fear of newspapers. they are healy motivated,

ambitious people and mss don't -- mps don't scare easily. i don't think they are in fear of power. i think the power the paper is in the readership. that is what i believe. if it is readership that would on like saying they're fearful of the readership or the electorate. >> this is sort of a theme in what you're saying that the roots here, the readership. it all flows up through the tree which is you and then emitted out but you have no role in any of this? >> but -- >> am i right? >> i suppose that the point of me being here is to give the inquiry some explanation of how the newspapers i edited works and it was true that the readership was at the very center of that paper and so going against

that readership and that's why i'm saying it is not a particular individual or, particularly individual editor has the power, it is the paper. >> how i contest this after you have a piece which some would say is personal and we're talking about mr. brown's piece, what happens? does your in-box fill up with e-mails of acrobation or is there deathly silence or what happens? can you tell us? >> in extreme circumstances, going over history -- people can stop buying the newspaper. in terms of that particular story, i think i, i wasn't on the paper at the time so i think i do remember that being a negative reaction from the readers although they felt that, you know, prime ministers should

probably take the time to spell the name of a grieving widow correctly and certainly in bee received -- overall they felt he had taken the time to do it. i think that is probably fair. but it wasn't overwhelming reaction but you get reaction. >> one extreme reaction has been hillsborough but since then there isn't anything equivalent that have -- >> princess diana's death actually. for the majority, for a lot of newspapers. yes, so there have been other occasions. >> can we just go back to this conversation with mr. brown. you said it was tense. he was angry. no doubt you also say it was a private conversation. don't really want to lead you on this, if you understand me, but did he say anything which is relevant to this inquiry particularly in the context

of evidence we've heard from mr. murdoch? >> what particular piece of evidence? >> then i'm leading you by -- i thought putting in those terms you would work out what i was referring to? did you follow mr. murdoch's evidence? >> i did follow mr. murdoch's evidence. i think, i think mr. brown was very angry and i'm not sure of anything particularly relevant to this inquiry although when mr. murdoch relayed his conversation with mr. brown i can not remember when that was, mr. murdoch also told me the same story that he told you. >> okay. well that is of many so assistance but can we be clear? when did mr. murdoch relay that conversation to you? >> see the reason, i can't remember the timing obviously i had my own rather angry and intense conversation with mr. brown.

however previous to that conversation i had also indirectly again had similar not threats made but similar sort of veins of reaction, sort of, comments made about "the sun" and labour after 12, 13 years, hostile comments. so when mr. murdoch told me his conversation it didn't surprise me. >> what did mr. murdoch tell you? >> exactly what he told the inquiry. >> in the conversation you had with mr. brown was it, well, was that issue returned to or not? >> it was, it was, like i said, i feel that the content probably was a

private conversation but the tone of it, unless of course mr. brown would like to tell you about it, but he was incredibly aggressive and very angry. >> it's relevant in this sense mrs. brooks, because i doubt whether in the end this inquiry will resolve questions of fine detail but were chief executive officer of news international. you night have been fearful if mr. brown did win at the next election of course against the odds he had in his power to harm the interests of your company. do you see that? >> i don't accept it. i see the question but -- >> which part don't you accept? >> right. that i didn't think that. it was -- >> so that obvious point didn't cross your radar at all, did it? >> that, not any point in the conversation mr. brown did i think, if he wins he will go against the commercial interests of this company. he was just incredibly

aggressive and angry. >> i'm sure it wasn't thought necessarily festered your mind during the conversation but when you reflected on the conversation you would immediately spring to mind, wouldn't it? >> it didn't, no. >> at no stage in the run-up to the 2010 elections did you harbor any such fear or concern, is that it? >> no. >> why not? >> because although, mr. brown had said those things to mr. murdoch and although i had heard similar insinuations from others close to mr. brown, that there was sort of an a tone of threat about it, the fact is that it didn't occur to me that they were real or proper or, just, i just dismissed them i suppose. >> some would say that an elected government has

through its executive power conferred to it on mandate or through parliament in due course would be quite entitled to bring in media policies which it thought to be in the public interest but which nonetheless did impact on the commercial interests of media companies. would you agree? >> well, i'm sure that it is absolute, of course it is proper for a government to debate and introduce regulation and policy on the media. of course i agree with that. >> this is, i'm just trying to explore your thinking in 2010. you have here mr. brown allegedly put on your evidence hostile to news international and you have mr. cameron who isn't, is that correct? say he is favorable to news international, certainly not

hostile, was he. >> he was not hostile to "the sun.". >> just how this would weigh in your thinking. you're the executive officer now. and that is something you should be thinking about, wouldn't you agree? >> it depends if you, i mean the, there is, gordon brown is, if you accept the premise that gordon brown is a responsible politician that doesn't put personal prejudice or bitterness before a, his policy-making decisions, so if you accept that premise than the threats are pointless and should be dismissed. however if he is not that person and he does put those things, then that's a -- it shouldn't be about his personal prejudice. if "the sun" supported the labour party for many, many years and then decided to make a change. so it didn't occur to me at the time that mr. brown and

his colleagues would devote their time in, into carrying out those threats. >> of course it might have been part of the implied settlement between "the sun" and the labour party who after all was in power for 10 years that the quid pro quo for support the labour party would not intrude into areas, media policy, which could harm the interests of news international and other similar organizations. did that thought process ever pass through your mind? >> no. >> okay. i'm going to come back to mr. cameron. there's an absence, isn't there, of text messages which might have existed? >> yes, that is correct. >> can we see however how

far we get? you said that he texted you at certain times up to a dozen times a day, a dozen times a day, is that true? >> no, thankfully. >> okay. a handful of times today? >> no. i mean, i have read this as well 12 times a day. it is preposterous. one would hope leader of opposition, prime minister would have better things to do. i as chief executive i did. i would text mr. cameron or vice versa on occasion like a lot of people. >> can you give us an idea of frequency? >> probably more between january 2010, maybe during the election campaign, maybe slightly more but on average, once a week? >> critical time as you say, the election campaign, march

to may 2010. >> yes. >> can you give us an idea of frequency in relation to that period? >> well, maybe twice a week. >> you tell us the content of any of these text messages? >> some, if not the majority were to do with organization. so meeting up or or arranging to speak and some, some were about social occasion and occasionally some would be, my own personal comment on, perhaps a tv debate, something like that. >> how often do you think you met with him socially during this period? let's take the first five months of 2010. it is in the record -- >> i think it at least gives

me a memory refresh. what was the. period of time. >> let's take the run-up to the 2010 election. 6th of may of 2010, i may be wrong about the exact date. four or five months before then. >> yes. >> how often would you meet with him or did you meet with him socially? >> i did meet with him between january 2010 and the election much. as you can see i have got no record of it. i think we will have met about, i would say, credibly, i'd say probably about three or four times. >> what comments, if any, did you make on his performance in the television debates? can you remember that? >> not in particular great length. i think like everybody i

felt the first one wasn't very good. i think that was it. >> did you text the other two party leaders or not? >> i didn't text gordon brown, no. >> evidently not mr. legar either from your demeanor? >> no. >> everybody wants to know how his texts are signed off. can you help? >> in the may --. >> [inaudible] probably don't actually, if i don't ask, people will inquire why the question wasn't asked but i'm happy to be able to withdraw. >> i'm sorry. what was the decision? >> answer the question. >> went by very fast. he would sign them off, dc in the main. >> anything else? >> occasionally he would

sign them off, lol, lots of love. actually until i told him it meant laugh out loud, and i didn't do that anymore. in the main, dc. i -- >> right. done that. move on. >> did he make, or did you make rather phone calls to his constituency home? >> no, actually. >> did you often pop around to each other's houses in south oxfordshire? >> no. i think often popping around is definitely overthe case. >> how would you put it. >> in country side. i was there every weekend and he was there with his constituency. >> he also said, and still

in the times, was there a meeting at haythrop you ahead texted each other that you would make sure you were not seen together? >> thought there might be a --, i have been to the heathrow point to point because my husband is chairman. and i think mr. cameron has been too because he, it is in his constituency. what was the question, did we meet there, sorry? >> did you text each other beforehand? do you remember that? >> there have been many point to points over the years as well as annual. was this a particular one? >> can you remember this or not? >> which? >> i'm not, the date has not been put on this. of course it would be an annual event. >> where did you say you

read it, sorry? >> in "the times" on tuesday. >> all right. i did read that. it was a suggestion in "the times" that the both were same point to point but we didn't meet. meet up. and there was some reason why that was significant but it is true that we didn't meet up. i was there very briefly. and i think but he did meet up with my husband. >> did you attend his private birthday party in october 2010? >> yes. >> i'll ask you these questions, others have asked me to put them. did you have any communication with mr. cameron following the publication of "the guardian"'s milly dowler hacking story which was on the fifth of the july, 2011? communication would be about that story?

>> i'm sure we discussed it between july 9, july 2011. >> mr. jason asked about 09. he asked about 11. in other words this is the story came out in the guard yawn which generated -- >> rate. no, i don't think i did have any direct contact, sorry. yes you're right on those dates. >> another question which the question i think you thought i was asking but i'm going to ask it now. did you discuss the phone-hacking allegations against news international with mr. cameron at any time between the july '09 guard yawn story and -- "guardian" story and your departure from news international? >> yes i did. >> now i wouldn't want you to say anything that bears on the current police

investigations you understand. in other words if it relates to anybody in particular. in general terms can you assist us to the content of those discussions? >> i think on occasion, and, and, you know, not very often, so maybe once or twice because it had been used and, you know the phone-hacking and, story, was, was a sort of a constant or it kept coming up and we would bring it up but in the most general terms. maybe in 2010 we had a more specific conversation about it. which i think, that's about right. >> can you tell us about that one? >> it was more, it was, it was one i remember rather than it being in general terms of the story being around what had happened that day. i'm just very concerned because you, i thought you were warning me -- >> i don't know what you

were going to say, mrs. brooks but if it is a general conversation and may relate more to mr. cameron's state of mind rather than any underlying fact i think you can probably tell us about them. >> it was nothing particularly that he would have said publicly but he was interested in the latest developments and asked me about them. i said to him what i say to everybody when they ask me for update on it. it was to do with the amount of civil cases coming in 2010 and we had a conversation about it. i just particularly remember that. >> i think the context must be that he was concerned that this went beyond goodman and mulcaire, is that fair without being anymore specific than that? >> probably, yes. i mean, it was, it was a general conversation with the, and in late 2010 about the increase in the civil cases. >> the increase in civil cases can only be an indication that this

phenomenon is not limited to messrs. goodman and mulcaire, or at least that is a very strong inference, are we agreed on that without being anymore precise about that. i think news international acknowledged that publicly anyway, yes. >> can you help us with what mr. cameron said? >> well, a couple of years, it was a, it was a general discussion about, i think he asked me what the update was. i think it had been on the news that day and i think i explained the story behind the news. nothing, no secret information, no privileged information. just a general update. i'm sorry, i can't remember the date but i don't have my record. >> you're focusing on what you told him which i'm not really interested in. >> oh, sorry. >> with respect. just concerned what he might have said, that's all. >> i think he asked me.

i think it had been in the news that day. i think it was a civil cases or a new civil case come out and or he asked me about it and i responded accordingly. >> was it related, mrs. brooks to his hiring of mr. course son and possibly having second thoughts about that? >> no, nothing of that. >> on any other instance? >> no. >> you sure about that? >> yes. >> really in the dark then as to what these conversations were about, far from a general -- >> because they were very general. he, they weren't sort of, it was, particularly around the civil cases in 2010. your question was did we ever speak about it in those two years and my answer is, yes we did and very generally but i do remember in late 2010 having a particular, perhaps more detailed conversation because, if you go back in the chronology of the phone-hacking, situation,

that was when the civil cases were coming in and being made newsworthy. >> to ask you on a different top i can of the -- topic, up to on it, you've been a close friend of elizabeth fraud, murdoch, for over 10 years, -- >> longer, yes. >> they have a country house in oxfordshire, don't they? >> yes they do. >> how often have you been in the freud homes home in the country, your home in the country, or camerons constituency home in the company of other politicians? >> just to dissill that to make it easier to answer, how many sometimes i've been in david cameron's home with other politicians? >> yes or the freuds country home or your home,

approximately? >> i'm pretty sure, never david cameron's home in the countryside. i think once maybe may have been present at dinner at my own. and i think the only time that elizabeth murdoch and matthew freud's house was her 40th in, a few years, a couple years ago. >> the 40th party, we, we have got under tab 40, haven't we? in that bundle you've got there. it is the last tab which is in august 2008. >> 40. >> she was -- detected maybe oxfordshire. >> well-done.

[laughter] >> anyway we can see who was there. have to be, to be fair, a range of politicians across all parties. spot many that are democrats. >> many of them are democrats? right, yes i can see the list. >> do you know bskyb is still a client of freud communications?. >> i don't i'm sure. freud communications is a huge company. i don't know that their client list. i'm pretty sure they haven't represented bskyb on corporate level but i'm sure they would have represented lots of other areas to sky. i don't know currently but probably. >> ask you some general questions. when were you made aware that the bid would be made?

>> i think, before, before the public announcement. shortly before the public announcement. >> before the general election or after, do think? >> i think it was before. but not, yeah, before. i just can't remember when the public announcement was but it was shortly before. >> this is obviously a big moment in news corp. i appreciate you're the ceo of news international and not news corp and that distinction is understood. were there not discussions with either of the murdochs about the timing of the bid? >> i played no formal role in the bskyb transaction and certainly not the strategy of timing and all that kind of thing. . . of thing. i was made aware that it was on

the cards, thursday, before the public announcement. 86 weeks, a couple him of month beforehand. >> it would have knock-on effects of news international as well, wouldn't it? >> well, not particularly, no, no. >> did news international had no interest in it, why we told about it and? >> it wasn't that we had no interest. but at the time i didn't come it didn't, the way it was presented to me was, i didn't think is going to have an effect on news international. >> you said that you had no formal role in the bskyb bid, and i quite understand that. because there is no reason why you should, but what about informally? i mean, here as we've been discussing you are extremely

well-connected to very, very senior politicians, across the range, and that's heart of your job, as you described. wouldn't your views, how it might work out, how it might play, be extreme body, informally, not formally? >> extreme value to news corp the? >> to news corp your to your ultimate boss, tim mr. murdoch. >> it was never quite put in those terms, but i did have been in formal role, as you suggest. mainly after the formation of the come if you want to call it does for better, the anti-bskyb a lengthy because that directly in some ways

brought news international into what was a news corp. transaction. because the anti-sky alliance was i think the be peacekeeper "the daily mail," the telegraph, british telecom, independent, well, everyone. everyone else audibly. and once they formed the alliance and were using their own news outlets to promote their view, and also to lobby politicians, then i suppose i probably did get involved. but again, not in video or the transactional or the strategy behind. >> no, not the deal or strategy behind it. it's the, it's perhaps the public presentation, perhaps the way in which the criticisms could be counted. perhaps using all your experience borne out of the

relationships you've been careful to develop for professional reasons, and doubtfully for personal reasons, over the years? >> i think in some circumstances that may be true, but in this one it was the quasi-judicial decision. and i don't think my input or, as you say, using that, was of relevance. obviously, in light of the anti-sky bid alliance lobbying that i would waste no opportunity in putting what was probably our case on the deal, not ours news international, but ours news corp. but because of the nature of the decision i'm not sure i was in, it was of any value particularly, apart from the

counter voice in a very large opposition. >> when we first made aware of the code-named rubicon, can you recall the? >> i think when i was, i was told about it here i may have heard it before but i think i was told what that was spent sure you are told about it but when was that? >> around the same time. >> a few weeks before, is that it's? >> maybe a couple months before. six to eight weeks before. >> do you know he chose that code-named? >> no, i don't come but i think it might have been james murdoch but i don't know that. >> i be someone who enjoys classical illusions. was it a codename which anybody in government knew about? >> that i don't think so. spent esther osborne or mr. hunt?

>> i never heard them acknowledge that name. >> okay. if you look at the list again of the with prime ministers, and identify whether bskyb bid was discussed on any relevant occasion. the night of october 2010 there was dinner at chequers with mr. cameron. might you have raised a question on that occasion? >> no. i'm pretty sure that was the birthday party. >> that's the private party we have covered about 50 minutes ago. what about the 23rd of december, 2010 in which you've already had some evidence about? >> well, it was rather than discussed at that dinner it was

mentioned. i think james murdoch's testimony put that. and i was aware it was mentioned, but it was not by any means widely discussed at that dinner. it was mentioned because it was in the news because -- resigned from that role. >> were you party to any conversations along the lines that doctor cable had acted in breach of duty, and let's go to the next one, mr. hunt? >> not necessary but clearly that was our view that we hoped that having always been put to us that be a very sad process, which it would be fair and democratic to find out that perhaps some personal prejudice had come into that decision was quite disappointing.

so it would have been, it would've been along those lines, yes. no, that lease now the decision would be fair. [inaudible] you new mr. hunt, quite well, didn't you? >> not as well as others, no. on me, i had seen him occasionally but not particularly. >> even informally you were not putting out feelers to find out whether he would be on side or not? >> i think he hurt, i think he posted something on his website saying that he was quite favorable early our on in the process before he had, before the decision went to him. i'm pretty sure spent so maybe he knew it anyway. >> maybe i knew from them, but not from the correct information with mr. hunt. [inaudible] on further occasions when you

may have met with mr. cameron in 2010, can you enlighten us? >> yes, no. i've been asked about it before. mr. cameron attended a boxing day, at my sister-in-law's. and i popped in on my way to another dinner, and i actually haven't got any memory it has i don't think i did even speak to him, or samantha that night. but they were deadly at my sister-in-law's house. they were definitely there for the party so i would have seen them. but not even have a conversati conversation. >> and -- [inaudible] are you sure it would not have covered the bskyb issued? >> definitely.

absolutely not. i don't think it was a conversation. >> i will not come back to certain aspects of bskyb in due course, but i would like to cover general questions now about the subject matter, conversation with politicians seeking to ignore to the extent to which one can private and social matters. it's self evident your conversation with politicians were in place throughout the day, is that there? >> sometimes, yes. >> would they also embrace such as press regulation and media policy? >> very rarely. at me, there are some examples of when, i would've met with a politician particularly to discuss that, but they were very infrequent. >> the role of the bbc, was that often the subject and are sometimes the subject of conversation? >> not particularly. i mean, from my perspective, some leaders pretty pro-bbc.

i think in general, wasted in the public sector or taxpayers but it was something we would address at the bbc on occasion and others, but not, i never really had a conversation with a politician about sort of top slicing the licensing and all that. >> what about issues such as self-regulation to the press and the press complaints commission, where there was ever discussed with politicians? >> again, probably not enough, but no. >> why did you say not enough speakers i wish is reflected on the fact that i couldn't remember a conversation with a politician when we did discuss pcc spent what about press ethics, was that ever the subject of conversation with politicians? >> obvious he because the last couple of years it has been the

subject. >> can we go back before there because i think the last couple of years is in danger of muddying the waters. i want to speak more generally the opposite of that. >> i think after operation motorman and privacy there was a general debate going on in the media in terms of, particularly in 2003 which was pretty much until the end of use of private detectives. certainly in the way that they have been for the last decade. and i think that was something that operation motorman and price privacy would've been discussed relevant at the time. i suppose press ethics particularly came up with jack straw. i know that mr. les hinton, mr. dacre had spent some time as most of the rest of the industry

discussing the data protection act. and in particular the custodial sentences confined to journalists. and i remembered that being at a conversation with politicians, and i probably only got involved in that, again, quite late off. so there was some discussion but not a great deal. >> you were friends with mr. blair and mr. blair we know often felt "the daily mail" was hostile to him and his wife. was that something that you discussed with you? >> on occasion, yes. >> quite often, perhaps? >> not quite often. it was probably more -- would discuss it with me. >> i'm not interested in private discussion but i'm interest in the private -- what was the concern being conveyed to you in this context? >> it wasn't, if you like, press

ethics it was the tone. i think she read the letter was concerned that she felt a lot of her coverage was quite, was quite sexist. but she's not the first high profile female to think that about the uk media. that would come up on occasion. and she sometimes felt it was quite cruel and personal about her weight and that it sort of concentrate on those things rather than in her eyes, her charity and the things she's going to do. but i'm not sure that's what you're asked me because it's not really press ethics. it's really more tone. >> it may be part of the whole picture. we know that mr. blair described the press in 2007.

was that a discussion in which he had with you? >> no. although i think that post-iraq i think there was some conversations about the 24 hour media, which i think is what he was referring to, the fact that we the press have become therapy because there's always a constant need for a news story. application of 24 hour news was mentioned in terms of iraq, but not really. i was surprised when he said that. >> his speech speaks for itself but i think it went further with just a temporal point. certainly 24 hours a day, the way they behave. sometimes they act a bit wild. do you see the analogy? >> i see the analogy. >> he didn't concern any of

those -- he didn't have any those concerned with you? >> no. >> dead politicians ever complain to you privately about coverage of "the sun" of them a? >> yes, occasionally. you know, there was, if people, if someone thought it was unfair, i become you asked me a question earlier about how i can learn how you but if i passed information from gordon brown to tony blair, i think it's something of that, which i said wasn't true, essentially people doing that. but on occasion they would complain. tony blair would often complain about attitude to europe and him on europe, regularly. many, many home secretaries would regularly compaign --

complaint about campaigns that we are doing in the paper, so yes, they did. i think our role was that i think i was correct because our role was those issues. >> further general questions, see if we can analyze the power play which we may or may not be an issue here. him you were very close to mr. rupert murdoch's? >> i was close to them, yes. [inaudible] >> yes. >> would you also agree that politicians, for whatever reason, wanted to get close to mr. murdoch to advance their own interests, are we agreed to? >> i think that a lot of

politicians wanted to put their case to mr. murdoch, advance their own interests is probably, i'm sure that most politicians have a higher view for what they were doing. >> we are not suggesting this is solely selfish, but i think we can agree more or less where we are. but this may be the more important point. in order to get close to mr. murdoch, in practice had to get close to you. would you agree with that? >> no. >> why not? >> because it is not true. >> would you agree that politicians might see that you at influence over mr. murdoch? >> no, i don't, i sorely don't think that, no. i think a day, i was an editor of a newspaper, a very large circulation newspaper with a wide readership, with an exceptional censorship placing voters but and i do believe

that, like other editors in similar situations, politicians did want to get access to the editor of "the sun" and his or her team as much as possible. but i don't think that people ever thought to get to mr. murdoch they had to go through me. i don't think that is correct. >> let's see if we can break that down. politicians certainly wanted to get close to you, to have access to you, didn't they? >> yes. >> and you were someone who mr. murdoch trusted implicitly, weren't you? >> yes. i hope so. >> that was well understood by any politician who cared to look, wouldn't you agree? >> well, i think they thought we had a close working relationship, yes. >> didn't you ever examine the

motives or thought processes of politicians, why they were wanting to get close to you? just even as self-indulgence, well, what's going on here, why are they trying to get close to me? >> well, i think, i think i always examined the ulterior motives of politicians. but i thought it was pretty obvious that they wanted to get, i don't know a politician that would turn down a meeting with a senior journalists from any broadcast or any newspaper. so it wasn't, it didn't need a lot of thinking that politicians wanted to get access to journalists. i mean, that's been the same case for decades, as you, as you pointed out in your opening statement in this module. >> you were in possession of the megaphone which would be facility to them, in which they

have access to, logically and self-evidently, might have influence over your readership. that's the truth, is in its? >> i think politicians were very keen to put their case to me and my team at "the sun" because of the large readership of "the sun." >> did you regard it as part of your role for, perhaps it was accidental byproduct of your role, to build up friendships with politicians? >> well, i think some friendships did occur, but i think it's important to put it in the context of friendships. i mean, we all have lots of different friendships, old friends, new friends, work colleagues, associates. and you know, through the decade that i was a national newspaper

editor and the years i was ceo, and a 10 years i was a journalist, some friendships were made. i don't think i ever forgot i was a journalist but i don't think they forgot they were a politician. >> did you not understand that you did have a degree of personal power over politicians? >> no. again, i just didn't see it like that. i saw my role as editor of "the sun" as a very responsible one, and i enjoyed my job, and every part of that job, but particularly as i said an eyewitness statements, i enjoyed campaigns and i enjoyed, you know, bridging a gap between public opinion and public policy, taking on concerns of the readers. so i don't except in the power terms that you keep describing it as. >> your real interest is people,

isn't it, mrs. brooks? you understand how human beings think and feel, don't you? >> i do like people, yes. as a journalist, do try to be empathetic otherwise no one would tell them anything. >> you understand the potential, i can put it in this way, personal outcome, how you can get people to do, might get people to do what you want, and what they're trying to do for you, don't you get any of that? >> i'm not sure quite what you mean. >> there's nothing anything sinister. i'm talking about really the power of human empathy. some people are empathetic. it's not lost on you, is it? >> well, i hope, i hope to be empathetic in life to people, yes. >> i just wonder whether you

sense, or sensed, we're talking about the past and now, how, the effect you might have had on politicians, some have made have even been afraid of you, is that true? >> i, i literally, like i said, i don't see politicians as the sort of easily scared people, because most of them are pretty strong, ambitious and highly motivated. so. >> let's see if we can just take one case study and see whether there's any validity in that case study. you remember the they can sterilization case of? >> yes. spent which actually got doctor mccanns evidence at page 57.

do you have that there? and if you look at page 57, line 11, question i asked was you talk about the meeting with rebekah brooks. are you on the right page of? >> they are not numbered in that way. >> they are actually. 15 at the bottom to each page has -- >> right. i've got it. thank you, sir. >> question was, you talked about the meeting with rebekah brooks which led to her view of your case, a formal review. just assistance quickly with it. can you recall when that was? i think is probably just elaborate a little bit. [inaudible] news international actually bid for the rights of the book along with a colleague.

they would materialize the book. he was somewhat horrified at the prospect of that given what we been treated in the past. [inaudible] we were subsequently afraid by news international and associated to do is the book, and after much deliberation we had a couple of meetings. [inaudible] so pausing there, there's going to be sterilization in both the sunday times and "the sun," i believe, do you recall that? >> id. spent a chance -- i do. >> your chief executive officer? >> that's correct. >> the price you paid for the sterilization, do you remember

it? >> i can't remember actually. hundreds of thousands of pounds. >> a million we have been told. >> no, it wasn't a million. have a million maybe. i can't, i can't remember. i may, i can -- have to wait to find out but i'm not sure. >> to paraphrase the rest of what dr. mccann's said, was that your intervention was successful in securing a review of the case. do you understand that? >> you asked if it was successful and he said it was. >> do member anything about that intervention? >> actually just go by, the reason i was involved as chief

executive was because it concerned to newspapers, the sunday times and "the sun." if you like, i did the deal with harpercollins from a corporate point of view. and then left it to the two editors, to decide the different approaches. i had always gotten along very well with dr. mccann and kate mccann threw out there and credible dramatic time. and, in fact, i think day, if asked would be very positive about "the sun" actually. and in this case i thought the idea to run the campaign, again, the review of madeline's case was the right thing for "the sun" to do, and i think the sunday times did the book. so my extension at the point was the original discussion with dr.

mccann. i don't think i spoke to theresa may directly, but i'm pretty sure dominik may have done. >> let's see whether we can agree or disagree of what might happen. we were discussing the arrangements with the mccanns, you asked if there's anything more they wanted, do you recall that? >> maybe, yes. >> dr. mccann said he wanted a uk review of the people? do you remember that? >> i do. >> was that all? [inaudible] >> maybe, yes.

>> we have been going to a list of issues that dr. mccann and kate mccann wanted to be sure before we went forward with the sterilization. >> did you then take the matter up with downing street direct? >> no. >> did you not tell downing street that the sum is going to demand review that the prime minister should agree to the request and that sun has supported him in the last election? >> no. in fact, i didn't speak to downing street or the home secretary about this but i know dominic or tom will have spoken to them. they would have spoken directly either to number 10 or the home office. i'm not sure. probably the home office. >> this unwanted and immediate result and a lesser would be posted all over the front page

from the mccanns to the prime minister asking, unless downing street a great comedy not have an? >> i think that's how "the sun" had the campaign. there was a letter, yes. >> the home secretary was told that if she agreed to review, at page one letter would not run. do you remember that? >> no, i don't. >> the secretary of state did not respond in time. you did publish the letter on the front page. do you remember that? >> i do remember "the sun" kicking off the campaign with a letter, yes. >> you don't believe there was any conversation or indeed threat to the secretary of state, is that right to? >> i'm pretty sure they would have not been a threat. you would have, we'll have to ask dominique, because as i said my involvement was to discuss the campaign in the continued

search for madeleine with the mccanns, and to do the deal on the book, and, because i had done so many campaigns in the past they wanted my opinion but after that i'd left it to both editors to execute the campaign. >> what i've been told is that you then intervene personally, mrs. brooks. you told number 10 that unless the prime minister ordered the review by metropolitan police, "the sun" would put theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were met. is that true or not? >> no. >> is any part of that drew? >> i didn't speak to number 10, or the home office about the mccanns, and telling think after the campaign had been one.

in a can of any conversation as i had, and i don't think directly to prime minister. i think it was one of his teams. >> we can find out in due course whether this is true or not, but i must repeat it to you. you just said you directly intervened with the prime minister and warned him that unless it was a review by the metropolitan police "the sun" will put their home secretary theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were met. is that true or not? >> i did not say to the prime minister i will put theresa may on the front page of "the sun" every day unless you give me -- i did not said the. invite any conversations with number 10 directly, they would have been particularly about that but they would've been if i'd been having a conversation "the sun" was leading a major campaign with a very strong letter on page one to start the campaign, and anyone who need me would have talked to me, any politician would have talked to

me about it. but i did not say that. i don't think i said that. >> could we ask of this? were you part of a strategy that involved your paper putting pressure on the government with this sort of implied or expressed threat? >> i was certainly part of a strategy to launch the campaign in order to get the review for the mccanns, yes, but i think there were threats, is too strong. >> well, give me another word then for threat, could you? >> persuade. >> persuasion, all right. >> in your own words, mrs. brooks, define for us what the strategy was. >> so, the mccanns were deeply

upset that there hadn't been a review. it seemed incredibly unfair that they hadn't gotten it this review. you only have to read their book to understand that. so we said we would join forces with you. and dominic mohan and his team went away and i can our member when the id of the letter came a. it may have been my idea to do the letter, i get my member. but the campaign was launched in order to try to convince the government or convince the home secretary that every he would be the right thing to do. >> do you know how i can about that the review was ordered? >> no, i, government. sorry, such a lot has happened since then. [inaudible] spirit i remember dominic mohan telling me the review was going

ahead. action i think he said the mccanns have one. >> "the sun" headline on the 14th of may front page was result of the campaign, prime minister was quote opening the files, do remember that when? >> i remember "the sun," the mccanns winning a campaign, yes. >> so this is not as you say a case study in the exercise of power by you. i'm not suggesting that the end result was right or wrong. many would say it was right. there should be a review. i'm just saying the means by which you achieve the objective. >> but it could be said that a review of madeleine mccann's case, with everything that has gone on, was the right thing to do. we presented the issue, we supported the mccanns in their determination to get a review. it wasn't new.

they tried before, before the election, and the election had come into -- and "the sun," and home secretary clearly thought it was a good idea, too. because i'm pretty sure there wasn't, it wasn't a long campaign. it wasn't 10 years. i think it was quite short. >> yes, it didn't take very long because government yielded to sure pressure, didn't they? >> perhaps they were convinced by our argument. >> there are always two sides to the coin. of course anybody would say on one level money should be spent, but the campaign to date on told has cost 2 million pounds. and some would say well, maybe that money i have come somewhere else. >> the madeleine campaign? >> called operation great, i understand.

>> right. >> perhaps you did all you are doing was professing the views of your readers. >> is that it? >> in that case it was an issue that we explain to the reader's, that a review hadn't taken place, and that we presented the mccanns story, as in the reason why they wanted the review. i think that absolute child with a readership. the campaign was started with a very heartfelt lesson. and the politicians were convinced our argument, or the mccanns argument was correct. >> there was a giant commercial interest to your paper because this sells copies, doesn't it? >> campaigns can sell newspapers. i think the sterilization of the book actually was good for circulation for the sunday times. i'm not sure how well the

campaign was in circulation but that would be a matter of record. it may have been. [inaudible] at one point the shadow home secretary, wasn't he? >> yes, he was. >> do you remember a conversation with him over dinner in which you discuss the human rights act of? >> i do. >> and to cut to the quick, his position was in favor of the action come your position was not, is that correct? >> i don't think that's quite right. similarly his position was that it was a shadow cabinet dinner. and his position was that david cameron's promise, partially say the tories party promised to

repeal and replace it with a british bill of rights i think was the plan at the time, was not, should not be so easily promised. and so it wasn't that he was pro-or against the. he was just making a legal point that it was her difficult to do. >> were you impressed with him after that conversation speak parks well, as it turned out, he was absolutely right, but at the time it was more his colleagues around the table because they may, i think they put out policy announcement that it was going to be in the manifesto. david cameron had written for "the sun" explaining this. and so the dinner conversation was quite heated, as he was the only one at the table saying actually, i might have been

standing up to his challenge, colleagues like that, and at the end he turned out to be correct. >> didn't you tell mr. cameron after that conversation you had with mr. grieve, you can have someone like that as home secretary, he won't appeal to our readers either, and that's indeed what happened? >> no, i did not tell mr. cameron. what the camera dash it was a conversation, as i said, was a very heated conversation, or not by his colleagues were trying to almost silence him at the table because he was in effect saying one of the promises the conservatives have made to the electorate was never going to repeal, and he was almost the opposite way around, that they were concerned that his view was not to be taken seriously. and as it turned out he was entirely correct. ..

>> to explain that mr. grieve's view, which is proved highly correct was absolutely not their gear and they were going to repeal and replace it with a bill of rights. right mr. grieve was mistaken.>> just >> just before we break, before i take you back to this issued that was bounced around several times leading

who. do you think that at least in part what you were, in fact, doing to use your own words was bringing issues to your readers as opposed maybe to responding to your readers' interests? >> i think that's correct, yes. >> and i'm sure we'll come back to it this afternoon, but i would like you, your view which you can reflect upon which is this. you're, obviously, everyone's entitled to be a friend of whomsoever they want to be a friend. that's part of life. but can you understand why it might be a matter of public

concern that a very close relationship between journalists and politicians might create subtle pressures on the press who have the megaphone and on the politicians who have the policy decisions? >> yes, i can understand that. >> all right. um, 2:00. >> all rise. [background sounds] and politicians. >> do you recall occasion at the time the labour party brighton in september 2004 when chris

brown mp had been speaking at a meeting and argued that rupert murdoch should not be allowed -- do you recall that? >> i don't, i'm afraid. i'm sorry. what data was it? >> 2004. as he arrived at the news international reception, you approached mr. blair. do recall that? >> i think i know what anecdote you're referring to. >> it's not an anecdote. and a witness statement i've seen, you said mr. brown, shouldn't you be out of comment by now, or something like it. did you say that? >> i don't wind up saying that, no. >> do you remember what your husband said? >> i remember what mr. bright said my husband said. >> he was extremely rude, wasn't he? >> mr. bright? >> no, your husband.

>> i don't think he said that. >> mr. watzman, you had him for mr. watzman. mr. watzman would say, or will say, following his, mr. watson, resignation in 2006, is a veteran? >> that that's what mr. watson which they? >> no. but there's underlying truth to it. and you have come you have encouraged "the sun" to write adverse maternal about him, is a veteran? >> no, i -- story. "the sun" has covered and has written adverse things about mr. watson. i think mr. watson is referring to an incident, and i can't remember, i think 2006, when he galvanized troops as backbench rebellions in order to form

mr. blair to resign. it was a situation where the night before mr. watson publish the letter in which mr. bryant was on all slightly, calling for tony blair to step down. he had driven halfway across scotland to see mr. brown. and when the newspapers confronted mr. watson answered you clearly tell mr. brown to me famously said no, i was just a living a comments that take dvd. and i think the subsequent coverage, not just in "the sun" but the times and lots of newspapers very quickly of mr. watzman i think that's where it are regions from. >> did you ask another sun journalist to write stories about mr. watson that the new were completely untrue? >> no. >> did you tell others the political editor of the bbc, in

august 2011, or rather did you speak to him at the labour party conference in 2009, along the lines what am i going to get about tom watson? >> i may have done, yes, but i can't remove are saying that exactly. >> do you feel that you might have used "the sun" as an unfair means of disparaging politicians you did not particularly like? >> no. i don't actually. >> now, go back to the bskyb issue, and paragraphs 90-92 of her witness statement please, mrs. brooks. >> yes. >> paragraph 90, you say in the

fourth line, third line, many people sought to weigh the issue with me. and i became involved in defending the bid to them. so you're suggesting there you are adopting a defensive position, is that right? >> well, i see lots of people at that time as well. so not necessarily, just politicians. the fact is it was a common misconception, and often reported that news international was trying to buy the remainder of bskyb rather than news corp. and that subtle distinction therefore because was in the uk territory was perhaps understandably got confused. and so yes, there were occasions when i defended the did. >> you do also in paragraph 90, the next page, when the

conversation, i'm sure as i would expect my views forcibly, particularly given the opposition, it might be said that stronger in your eyes the more strong you need to be. would you agree? >> i think, i think the anti-sky did alliance, so many different members of all of the meat at all other rivals of sky, and that day, i knew were seeing politicians and i think dr. cable have a dinner with them early on in 2010. so i think yes, i did. when i met eva, if i had the chance to put our side of the story, so to speak, i would. >> and those people included mr. cameron and mr. osborne, didn't they? >> not mr. cameron. i had a conversation with mr. on four. i've may have mentioned it to mr. cameron but it's not to be dwelt on because it wasn't a particularly long conversation

but i did have a conversation with mr. osborne about it i think sometime in 2010. where i put my views, country -- contrary to the once feared from everyone else. >> comeback to the in a short time. paragraph 92 of her statement, you say with regard to this just in i had discussions with those with david cameron and george osborne, i'm sure i did refer to the issue generally. is that statement relevant to both mr. cameron and mr. osborne? >> yes, but general discussion in terms, always in relation to usually in relation to something i'd heard that the anti-sky bid had put forward. but i remember better conversation with george osborne sometime in 2010, but obviously as discussed, and the bskyb he did was mention at the dinner at

our home in december but i don't them having a particularly forceful conversation with mr. cameron about it. although our views on the bskyb bid, news corp you and news international views or my views were pretty -- [inaudible] >> where they shared by mr. cameron? >> mr. cameron always made it very clear that it was, or it was agreeing light judicial decision and it wasn't him and it was not up to them. he i think have been lobbied by lots of other people. so i would say no, it wasn't particularly sheer. he was always very evenhanded about it. >> was mr. cameron supportive of the bskyb to your knowledge? >> not particularly, no. i think it would be fair to say that he understood why we wanted to present our position in relation to the other lobbying he was getting.

>> was mr. osborne supportive of the bskyb bid to? >> he never said so. he never said explicitly that. however, i think one of the points that we, or we are trying to make about the bid was if, if that kind of level of investment was coming into the uk, that contrary to the anti-sky bid online for saying that it would be, it would be a bad thing, that actually we thought into call centers around the country, the creation of jobs, that we were tried to put this argument to mr. osborne. but again, they would all say the same thing, it's not my decision. >> think my question was only was he supportive of the bid to? >> as i said, he never explicitly said so. >> could you confirm whether he was supportive or not? >> no. he was interested in our argument. i think that's probably his best. >> we are aware of the role of fred michel in relation to the big? >> well, i was aware at the time

but not to the extent that i have not seen. but i was aware, yes. >> so when you say to the extent that you now see, are you referring to the e-mails of? >> yes, but i had realize there were that many e-mails. >> when did you read those e-mails of? >> i actually still haven't read them all. >> you saw some? >> i saw some during the evidence given by james murdoch. >> and when they were drawn to our attention that way, did it surprise you in any way? >> will i think the truth is at the time, at the time the bskyb bid, i suppose, like most journalists i viewed public affairs and obvious with quite skepticism and often thought that mr. michel's perhaps

overextended position. however, he was doing his job. you know, he was passing on information as lobbyists do. >> how do you know he was overrating his position of? >> i suppose because as journalists we would have quite direct contact with ministers and prime ministers, you know, in the course of our work. but i always thought it was slightly strange that he had that level. not quite strange. that's not fair. the level that came out was pretty good really. >> a couple of documents, 163 e-mails, picture you, only a

couple. krm-18. we have one of them under tab 17 in the bundle. we can probably put it up on the screen. i'm not sure if would be available to anybody else. in the file, 101,657, you may have it as a separate piece of paper. let us know. >> i do, thank you. >> it relates to the 12th of october 2010, and you were copied in an e-mail from a mr. michel. are you with me? mr. anderson, we heard what mr. james murdoch explain who he is. can you remind me? >> fred michel is public affairs for news corp europe and asia, and matthew anderson is corporate communicate should for

news corp. >> the general gist of this e-mail is, the bid is still with dr. cable. this is before the 21st of december, it's necessary to keep briefings and key cabinet ministers. why do you think you were copied on this e-mail? >> i'm not sure because i wasn't copied on many of them. so i don't know. there would be regular meetings between the news corp people who were in charge of the bid, and occasionally maybe i was in that meeting. i don't know why i was copied on this particularly. >> reference to the next one, which is same file, t. r. o. p-10 thousand 16 at -- >> hang on. just before it -- sorry, which? 1679?

>> yes. >> that were probably the only one you have in that file spent all three e-mails speak to i found an earlier one. the most relevant one is 1679 which you will have on tap 17. >> yes. the one that starts very good? >> that's right. it's stated the 14th of december 2010. it's sent from a mr. michel to mr. james murdoch, and your copied and. are you with me? >> yes im. >> this was the ofcom issues letter. is in its? >> you have got the chronology. i accept that, yes. >> you scan the page, three minutes later you replied to mr. michel, don't you? [inaudible] now, the reason why you're able

to replace it quickly is because i think a dinner with mr. osborne the night before, hadn't you? >> that's correct. >> so you discuss the issues of the lead of the night before? >> i must have done so, yes. >> and the reference to gao is not including a special adviser. it's g. oh, personally, is in its? >> yes. >> why were you discussing this letter with mr. osborne at all? >> you are timing out the time of the issue of these letters likes it that. my memory from the dinner was that it was with my husband and i, mr. osborne and his wife, mr. lewis and his wife. so it was the six of us. it was in a restaurant, more of a social occasion. but like i said in my witness statement, i probably brought it up but i can't remember, but they would have been part of the

dinner i would have discussed our frustration perhaps with him at the time of what was going on. so i don't know whether i brought it up for church, but we did discuss at the dinner. not any great links because -- >> the part of the detail, was in an ofcom letter, you would agree with me? >> that would have been, i mean, that would have been my stance on it because i probably wasn't all over the complexities of an ofcom issues letter. as chief executive news international. i mean, literally my main focus, my main involvement in the bskyb did -- the bskyb bid if you like, nothing to do with the transaction but generally in response to the huge amount of opposition and lobbying that was going on by the anti-sky of li

life. >> was the dinner must have a compass, this was a discussion about the issues letter because the e-mail makes that clear, would you agree? >> i a tree with you. that's exactly what the e-mail says, but i don't remember a detailed conversation at a social dinner about the complexities of an issue such as ofcom. so it may have been precisely three minutes of me saying, can you believe that that has happened? and george osborne looking perplexed and the respond to fred michel the next day. it was a very brief conversation but it did happen. >> it didn't happen but it's not mr. osborne looking slightly perplexed that he is totally baffled according to you. >> totally baffled in my conversation with them. >> the conversation must've been initiated by you, mrs. brooks. you usually don't hold back on occasions, do you? >> i just got number i brought it up or not, that's all. [inaudible] >> let's say i brought it up

then. >> we don't want you to guess. >> i have been told to just spend i promise you, you're not been forced to guess. >> well, i can't remember who brought it up but am happy for arguments sake to accept that i did. but i'm not sure that's the case. >> do you think as an appropriate conversation with mr. osborne? >> i think, i think it was an entirely appropriate conversation. i was reflecting the opposite view to the view that the asserted by that stage from pretty much every member of the anti-sky data lines on many occasions. so i think, for one, three-minute conversation beginning of dinner i got the opportunity to get our view. i don't see why that's inappropriate. >> you might be asked to assist us who initiated it? >> i'm accepting for the sake of argument that i brought it up.

i just can't remember if that's absolutely. >> it's obvious from your one line e-mail that we know what mr. osborne's thinking is about more generally, don't we? >> well, i obviously remembered from the conversation, which i can exactly how long it took, but from the limited conversation that we had the night before that he was baffled at the response. as what i see. i'm agreeing with you on the e-mail. >> yes, but it's also obvious that he was supportive of your bid, wasn't he? >> no. bafflement, or he was complexed at whatever, you're telling me with issues. i'm fine. he was baffled at the response speed hold on. paragraph 92 of your statement proceeds on that premise. >> the issues letter? >> yes. >> he was baffled at the response itself. i'm not sure what the question

is, mr. jay. >> this stage of course, mrs. brooks, you knew everybody in the cabinet and his coalition stood in relation with the bid, did you? >> no, i didn't i particularly didn't know mr. cable's view, personal view. >> you do not any suspicion at all as to what his view was? >> no. in fact, i ask him to mr. cable would carry out that responsibility as any minister would. properly without personal prejudice. >> by the time you had read the e-mail the first in the chain, if not before, you were well aware what mr. himes you was, the merits of the bskyb bid,

don't you? >> i don't remember hearing that, hearing anything from mr. hunt directly on the bid, particularly. but i have a recollection that he put something on his worksite. i think came up in this inquiry. that he put something positive on his website, was in its? >> did you have conversations with mr. james and mr. rupert murdoch about how the bid was getting on and he wasn't supporting its? >> i think, if my conversations with mr. james murdoch and mr. rupert murdoch about the bid were in essence probably discussing the latest move of the anti-sky alliance, sadr member having to call mr. james murdoch wendy anti-sky alliance commissioned a poll to the pr agency they hired, i believe weber shandwick.

and they discover that 80% of people didn't want us to buy the rest of sky shares. so i would probably update because the anti-sky alliance of courses working in the uk territory. so there would be occasions when i would update rupert or james murdoch him and/or internal meetings that went on inside news international that occasionally i would attend, too. >> news corp, news international regarded it important to lobby government generally in relation to the bid, aren't we agreed? >> i don't think that was the strategy. i think, i think it was a response. >> regardless of what originated it, it's what happened in the income isn't? >> certainly from what we've seen from fred michel's e-mail, there was a lot of lobbying went on from our site, yes.

>> you could assist the murdochs to this extent that you knew the persons involved, at least as well as income and you could advise them in relation to mr. osborne, mr. cameron, mr. hunt, in a way -- [inaudible] isn't that what you brought to the table here? >> no, i don't think the. first of all, the strategy behind the bid was set by news corp, and i've nothing to do with that. and had again no formal role. and secondly this was a quasi-judicial decision, which is nothing to do with personalities, the preferences of particular, of the prime minister or the chancellor of the exchequer in this case, or mr. hunt before he took over for dr. cable. >> you weren't so naïve, were you, to believe that quasi-judicial decision be carried out necessarily, you would naturally fear that it might intrude, you knew that, didn't you? >> no, actually.

maybe it was naïve of me to think, you know, the procedure would be dealt with properly, but i did believe that. i had no reason not to until dr. cable's comments came out in the summer. >> okay. but we do have one e-mail, don't we, which you have, you have found. it's rem be two, you kindly disclose this to us. yes, this e-mail, tap number for? >> it is under tab for. before we look at it, i think people would be interested to know how it is that this one e-mail have survived and others might not have done. can you assist its? >> welcome in the period, beginning june and july 17, when

my blackberry was damaged, there were certain e-mails on their and some text messages, and for purposes of section 21 notice of this inquiry, my legal team went through all those, and inert to disclose anything that fell into the inquiry. and this was the only e-mail that i had in that period that was relevant to the bskyb questions i've been asked in my witness statement. >> would have to look at in this order. page 02606 will will be the first page of this document. you can see at 1629 hours, on the 27th of june 2011, are you with me? >> im. >> frederick michel, send an e-mail. it goes to just do i think, although it's not altogether clear. is that your understanding?

>> i would be surprised if it just came to me. as you saw from the previous enough, there always copied to the same group of people. but perhaps it was directly getting. >> the text of the e-mail is on the next page, which is zero to 607. hunt will be making references to phone hacking in a statement later this week. you would meeting -- [inaudible] this is his belief. phone hacking has nothing to do with the media plurality issue. if something has gone wrong with -- >> that's corruption, i think. >> you are being told whilst the secretary of state is going to be saying in his rubicon statement, code-named, in a statement department. is that it's? >> yes. >> that speaks to its appeared

on the issue of the privacy committee supports the widening, the future of the press and more newspaper groups of the regulatory regime that he wants to prevent the public inquiry. further the committee wanted to come up with a -- put enough pressure on the pcc to strengthen itself in terms of recommendations forward. was any of this news to you, mrs. brooks? >> yes, i think it was. >> was it a bit surprising to you? >> i think, i think it was, it was news to me and, therefore, could be surprising, yes. >> the next paragraph, looking into phone hacking practices more thoroughly, and has asked me, the pronoun me is mr. michel, to advise him privately in the coming weeks and guide his and number 10 is positioning.

do you know what i was about? >> well, i think, i think it speaks for itself. >> does that surprise you? >> well, at the time, the date of this e-mail, i think is -- >> the 27th of june. >> the 27th of june, and at the time of news international it was a particularly, i have a lot of my own concerns. we just handed over the lewis file to mps because probably my focus more than anything else. i august have his e-mail and a million others. i read it at the time. and i responded i think to find it when the rubicon statement was. so i think the e-mail and my response speaks for themselves really. >> well, your response was 1720 hours, we have to go back to the previous page, when the rubicon

statement, and answer came back, probably wednesday. can you assist us further from your memory as to mr. michel's feelings with mr. hunt at this time? >> probably not any further than the evidence that james murdoch gave really. i mean, fred michel worked for news corp., and not news international so we didn't work for me. so my interactions with him were not as frequent. so i'm not sure i can add anything particularly. i know fred michel's own statement was that sometimes he overstated his case, for all i know this could be directly from jeremy hunt or as he said, number 10. so i just don't know.

>> you say in paragraph 28 understatement, talking generally of your time as ceo of news international, that your time waspeslocupied with the phone hacking issue. you members saying that? >> i d remember. >> content what am i going now? >> page 28 of your statement. i'm concerned with the detail of your investigation, or your knowledge, mrs. brooks. were relations between murdoch, father and son, increasingly cold as this issue develop? >> i don't think is between father and son. i mean, the situation was false.

>> you'd is described in one article, "vanity fair" this time, being the go between in an increasingly -- father-son relationship. is that you? >> "vanity fair" spent a lot of time covering the murdoch family dynamics. and they're just like any normal family. they'd have dynamics and to change. i wouldn't put any thing by "vanity fair" spent maybe one should. listen to the question. were you the go between in a father and son relationship? >> no, they can speak to each other. >> i didn't hear that? >> no, they could be very happy to speak to each other. >> it was also just tested that james was passing blame onto his supporters but is that what was happening? >> no. >> he wasn't? >> what's the context of the "vanity fair" piece?

>> you've seen the piece. it alleges that you are now under pressure to please a protect not only rupert but also james. bova taken the decision they have no idea what's going on inside the company, and a particularly james passing blame onto subordinates. is that's what was happening? >> no. >> so you can't shed any light on the truth or otherwise as to what can you are shedding light. >> it's saying that i was the go between between father and son and increasingly fraught. the situation i think -- >> relationship. >> so what i'm saying to you is that i reported both to james and rupert murdoch, and i talked to them both about the issues unfolding at news international. james and i had offices next door to each other. i have been talking to mr. murdoch everyday. so if "vanity fair" wants to characterize that as a go between, then fine, but i don't

accept the premise of what they are insinuating. and secondly, the "vanity fair" piece, whenever it came out, anything that james tried to start to pass the blame onto subordinates and i'm not sure, if that "vanity fair" piece, is referring to james murdoch's testimony at the select committee or his testimony here. i just don't even know when the "vanity fair" piece ran. so it's difficult for me to answer the question without some context. >> can ask about -- can i ask about the police and your meetings about senior police officers? >> yes. >> rmb one again. the schedule you prepared. the back of it, i think. you kindly provided a schedule of meetings with senior officers

with the metropolitan police. >> yes. >> the second page of that, it appears that you did not engage with john gates, assistant commissioner, after december 2006. is that to the best of your recollection correct a? >> i -- i -- i don't think that's correct. i think i did meet him. but i, i me, we hoped, we hoped to show we hosted the police break the awards every year for start and i was always in attendance, and so, i'm sure that he would've been there. so i just, i really do not think the diary entries are a full picture. >> is likely to be a difference between a large function where you might bump into people, any

conversation might be smashed, and dinner a wrestler, maybe only a few of you, conversation might be -- >> no, i did, i do remember having a meeting with john yates, a lunch, aroundi think about the time that cash for honor. >> we are back in 2005? >> right. again, this diary may be corrected in. i didn't see much of john yates spent are you able to say whether that you discuss phone hacking issues within? >> because i don't remember one meeting, i'm pretty sure though i attended the police bravery a ward right up until to if you can imagine, until 2011. and he was, he was always there. and the kerry member when "the

guardian," "the guardian" broke the story in july 2009, and it was a police bravery award, it is usually in july. so i don't want to absolutely rule out the fact that i may have mentioned it to him because he was often around, but i don't remember, sit down conversation where we discussed it at any light. >> so you're admitting of the possibility that -- >> i'm saying that it might quite probably have happened if the sequences of events, if my memory serves me well, and those are the sequence of events that "the guardian" story broke out in july 2009, but i can't member what date, and the police bravery awards were afterwards but it could've been the other way around. >> "the guardian" story was the fifth or six, wasn't it? the eighth. the meetings with mr. -- more frequent. what with the purpose of those meetings in your own words that?

>> what they would often be attended come usually he would accompany a commissioner, on a particular senior officer, or if he came in on his own, it would be to discuss things with me and my crime editor and senior team, and it could be a variety of issues. there was also, although is an annual event, if you like, a well-oiled machine, it was always quite a lot of organizations for the police bravery awards. the process continued for many months -- soda, started many months before, and he would've been involved, as i would. but mainly the issues of the day or introducing a new commission are coming along with an update for the commission. >> did you ever obtain information from him which forms the basis of a story in "the sun"? >> no. >> did he put you in contact

with police officers who could provide the basis and to provide the basis of a storied? >> i think, i think most crime journalists would come in a, i was a crime journalist or a crime editor but i think the process was we would awfully bring him if we had a story, that we've got from our in sources that involved the metropolitan police. and he was in a position to steer us away from it or give us a comment if we got it right so there was, there was a come if you like, exchange of information, but it can and will you put it sounded like he had come into me anything and give me stories. sadly, no. >> mr. wallis of course was an employee of news international into dashed and till 2009 but were you aware of his relationship to? >> no. on insofar as i never worked directly with mr. wallis. but when i took over his

position as deputy editor of "the sun" in 1998, i think assume his responsibilities in only come if you like, the police bravery awards. so i was aware that he had started those in the previous year. >> okay. one general question about the nature, this has to be a very general question. in terms of, the nature, the hospital you are offering, i'm talking about lunches, dinners, did you regard police officers the same way as politicians go so in other words, it was appropriate to take them to a restaurant of a steward and dust of a certain stature or difference? >> there were definite distinctions between the two. i think it would be fair to say

that senior police officers were more inclined to want to go to a neutral venue like a restaurant, whereas a lot of meetings with politicians took place either in hq are at party conferences, or at downing street or various ministries. so that was in my experience. >> the inquiry has very little interest in the police force going to understand, that's the summer 2010. but i should ask you this question, even though we don't care about it. was there any exchange as it were between the work experience of his son, which is also in 2007 an acquisition by you? >> absolute not.

>> move on to a different issue now. spent are you moving away from police officers to? >> yes. >> there's a balancer as well, isn't there, -- a balance here as well, isn't there, on the one hand they need to keep an eye on the stories that are coming out, but on the other, a professional distance. do you think there is a risk of there? >> well, i think, i think it's always up to individual conduct in these matters, and so i felt that the contact i had with police officers, and particularly commissioners and senior police officers, in that kind of context was always appropriate. i never saw any, any of my

dealings with police. i never saw any inappropriate, either conversations or -- take place. so my experience of it was relatively good. and particularly at the police bravery a ward and we would come, "the sun" shows and that he would come in contact with police officers not just the metropolitan police but from all over the country. and i always thought they were very useful for us for both sides, rather than inappropriate. but there is always a risk that that is not the case. >> mr. gordon brown cystic fibrosis story, i think he did have some involvement in that, didn't you? >> guess i didn't. >> the peace in "the sun" is

under tab 29. it's part of the narrative, as it were. this is an article in 2006. i believe. "the sun" today exposes the allegation that we hacked into gordon brown's family medical records is false and a snippet we discovered the four year old son fraser had cystic fibrosis months after his birth. we can reveal the source of our information was a shattered dad whose own son also had a crippling disease and he wanted to highlight it by suffrage. is that to? >> yes. i think mr. jason 2006.

the article came out in 2006, but this was written in 2011. >> yes, you're right. the article is november 2006. did you have any involvement in this article, although you are of course editor -- no longer edit a? >> no, i didn't i think i might have even left the company. >> i don't have the exact date. >> published 13th of july, 2011, according to what's on the screen now. >> no. sorry, i was still there. >> do you know where the shattered dad, as referred to, got his information from? >> i think we do, yes. >> and where did he get his information from? >> he got it from the fact that he, his own child had cystic fibrosis, and he, he was given

this information when information was sought about cystic fibrosis. i'm being very careful to try to not reveal his identity, that's all, hence the hesitation. but i think we sort of, we know what happened. >> that's all very vague, mrs. brooks. >> purposely so, i think when we wrote this article, i think, although like you say, i was chief executive at the time. i remembered "the sun" absolutely putting this together to refute gordon brown's allegations, and we are incredibly clear on it. we had an affidavit from the father where he explains the stricken but i don't think that affidavit is publics so i'm just being slightly hesitant in not to reveal his identity.

>> we are not concerned with his identity. that wasn't my question. the father's version is, and we can see this in the article, i have not had access to the medical records of any child, at any time. all of which is the truth, as i shall answer to god. apparently it was, his affidavit says, was its? >> i think it was longer than that but that would be part of it, yes. >> how did the father get the information? >> well, if i can put that back to reassure you, we, at the time, and again in july 2012, were absolute be satisfied that the father had got the information from legitimate means, and we were very sure about that. [inaudible] >> he got the information because his own child had cystic fibrosis, and he got the

information, should i say, through very small, not a small charity, but there is a chaired aspect to the cystic fibrosis society, and he got it slightly by involvement through that. >> what sort of involvement in? >> i'm not going to take it anymore about this was because i don't want to reveal his identity. >> you are not. >> but i feel, i feel uncomfortable answering that because i think it could lead to his identity. you ask me where information came from, and the source, and i think they are matters that i have to respect as a source coming to the newspaper. the main point of this issue is mr. brown accused "the sun" attacking into his son's medical records to get the story. and that wasn't true. >> it wasn't accurate speakers no, sir. >> but that's quite important because it plays into something

else that is concerning me, which i'm just going to dwell upon. if i have taken a question from mr. jay, just to bed. mr. brown was concerned that information which he thought was private had entered the public domain. and he felt that the way that that must have happened is that "the sun" got hold of his records in some way. that's what he was saying, is that right? >> that's what he said in july 2011. >> yes. now, you knew that, go back one step. first of all, if you don't know anything of how you got the story, it's not unreasonable, is it, to believe that if private details of your child's condition being put into public

domain, they could only have come from medical records. because diagnosis, medical detail. so it's not an unreasonable view to form? >> he formed to that view, or he came to that assumption in 2011, and in 2006, in november 2006, way before "the sun" published the story, we discussed the story directly with the browns, before publication. and the first time i heard that he had a concern of that nature was when he gave an interview to the bbc in 2011. so it wasn't something that he felt at the time. >> it may be until into the public domain, i'm not, i'm not actually focusing so much on that point, outcome to the point i want to make.

you didn't explain to him, because you want to protect your source, no, no, no. we got all this from somebody whose son also has the condition as his own child's condition. you just didn't discuss the source is that right? >> that is right spent my question is, would you look at the first line of "the sun" article? "the sun" today exposes the allegation we hacked into gordon brown's medical family as false and a sneer. and my concern is whether it's fair to describe that as may be incorrect, but as false and a smear. >> in the general point that i can absolutely see what you are saying there is correct.

but this was not, this was a particularly journey that "the sun" had been involved in since the beginning of the information coming into "the sun" israel, and what happened after that, and subsequent to that. >> but if you never knew how you got it, all you could say, your title said, he's just got it wrong. >> he came to the wrong assumption in 2011. >> that's absolutely fair. so the issue is whether it's part of the culture of the press that actually attacked us the best form of defense. so that people don't just get it wrong, it's false in capitals, and a smear. you see the point i am making? >> i do see the point you are making, but, so the context is, that article was written after

gordon brown had, first of all, i think his first appearance in parliament since he stepped down as prime minister, was to come to, was to come to the house and speak incredibly and critically, and in some cases made wrong assumptions through his testimony to the house. and then the second thing he did, he then went on, i think bbc, i can't remove or, to do an interview with another wrong assumption, that "the sun" had got the story from fraser brown's medical record. and i think, combining the two, if you like, attacks from mr. brown, this has never ever been raised by him in any shape or form with any of us at news internationals, or mr. murdoch. he never once mentioned press ethics or practices in our entire relationship, that "the

sun" felt that it was a smear, that he was doing it for years later, sorry, five years later, for a particular respect and i think that's why they wrote the story that they did. now, i was chief executive at the time. i didn't write the story, but i'm defending their right to write a story like that. >> well, i -- already give provided, actually which have demonstrated is that "the sun" believed, and may be right or wrong, i don't know, that mr. brown's add two and two and two and got 27. what has, in fact, if he took each one of the instances on their own, it may have, he may have been made a mistake, he may be wrong to reach the conclusion. that's all fair enough, entirely proper, but it goes a bit further than that. >> i accept that, that this

story does, but if you imagine for "the sun," "the sun," and i know i keep mentioning this, but "the sun" has a trust with its readership, and it's a very important trust, and if that trust is broken, then, and a former prime minister had claimed i think partially -- harshly, he comes to the misperception we got it from the medical records. whoever broke the story, "the guardian" probably, that that was false. and there was a correction, subsequently published in "the guardian," and i think "the sun" felt on that that they had to stand up. because it is a terrible accusation for a former prime minister to make of a newspaper without being in possession of the facts. that we have hacked into his medical record. and i think that's why you're seeing a strong tone of the rebuttal in the paper.

>> well, thank you. >> you are refuting "the sun" with a virtue, mrs. brooks. let me, how far i can get with it. where did this information come from? >> i'm not going to say, mr. jay. >> why not, mrs. brooke's? >> because, because if you knew where the father's information came from it would identify the source and i'm not going to do that. >> are you saying that the information came from a charity? >> no, i'm not that i'm saying that because the source also had a child with cystic fibrosis, he was aware and in, it was, it was the fact every child with cystic fibrosis, is how he came to know. >> that would, that would indicate that the father might at some point have been quite close to the browns, perhaps any particular hospital.

[inaudible] do you understand the? >> i understand your point. >> did he gain the information by substitution? >> no, he didn't. >> tdk and information directly from the browns? >> no, he didn't. >> didd gained information froma third party? >> i suppose you could describe it as that? >> was the third party an employee of the nhs? >> no, what wasn't. >> well, did a third party have a duty of confidence to hold the information? leches go as simple as that. >> no, i don't think so. i'm sorry. without repeating the source, "the sun" was satisfied that the information came from legitimate means. and i felt that that covered all those questions. >> was the father paid for his time to? >> i think it was a donation may be, but i can't be sure. >> to a charity in? >> i think he asked for it to be

given to the cystic fibrosis charity, which is featured i have in my head. but we can check with "the sun." >> how come the inquiry said whether not the fathers -- site duty of confidence without knowing the identity of the source, but the nature of the duties, that source was discharging? >> sure you can assist to that extent. .. hand how we handle that with number 10 and with the browns.

>> but mrs. brooks, did you have the express agreement that the browns freely given bys mr. stewart? >> absolutely. >> said they were entirely relaxed about it.>> abso this is personal information of a 4-year-old away. they're entirely satisfied satisfied that this could be on the front page of the sun in nof 2000 use your position? six drelax. you have to consider how traumatic clearly for any parent this was. >> what was? >> the diagnosis. >> what about including it on the front page of "the sun"? is that helping or not? >> that background -- >> enter my question. obviously the tragedy and pain

of the diagnosis but on the front page of "the sun" is not helping this? >> if the browns half me not to run it i wouldn't have. there are many examples of tragic situations in people's lives when people have asked me not to run a story and i haven't and i wouldn't have done. not only they world" is testifying. back to live coverage on c-span2. >> did you have a conversation to talk about this specifically? >> can't remember when my call was. i think was after -- she ended "news of the world" firing her. >> on the first of december of 2008 two weeks beforehand the week commencing the seventeenth of november did you have a conversation about sharon? >> was discussed.

>> would have been or was discussed? >> it was. >> the purpose of the court to discuss sharon? >> wasn't. was to discuss the case and also to try to understand why social services were allowed to do their own review and their own conduct. >> in the course of the discussion you had in relation to sharon smith did you indicate you wanted her back? >> i didn't tell the board to try -- i was very obvious in the coverage in our paper that we launched a petition because the government were refusing to do anything about the situation. i had conversations with the board. i also -- the shadow minister was michael gerber at the time but i can't remember that. i would have spoken to anybody basically to try to get some

justice appointed to the campaign. >> the justice in this way, the person who could make their own decision. >> obviously had influence on that decision but the paper was the main form. >> he was the decisionmaker who could affect by direct instruction. >> just picking up the premise of your question is did i tell -- in fact in the newspaper from the day we broke -- that they be covered the baby story it was very clear that that was the same editorial lines of mr board was under no illusion that that was the point of our campaign. >> he was also under no

illusion. that with the point of your telephone call as well. >> the telephone call was in part the petition and also wanted to deliver the petition to downing street because nothing was moving on the campaign and we ourselves at "the sun" were very surprised. 1.5 million as a percentage of readership is a huge reaction. it would not just be -- i don't think it was a point of reference because the editor of "the sun" had to read the paper. >> you were frustrated by his apparent inaction and had a mass of signatories on the petition, all the more reason to bend mr. colbert? >> the premise of your question is that the ring got mr. bohr's -- it was in line with i

wouldn't use. but you said that i say get rid of her or else or whatever you said? i did not say that. the point of the campaign was obvious that he only had to read the paper essentially asking mr. bours for subtle information like the contents of the reviews we were not allowed to see and the white wash i felt council had done in their own review. >> we had better before the leveson mmittee. they have gavel back in and we go back to london on c-span2. >> to conclude your evidence, six pieces of your statements.

your credo on accountability. do you see that? you have seen firsthand. the importance of pulling politicians now the public figures arts in account and policies for the public good? would you agree that editors subject only to review have so -- sold discretion what constitutes public good? >> no i don't. they do have some discussion as we discussed earlier. it is a combination of reacting to readers, understanding the readers but also putting issues in front of the readers for their reaction. so not so responsibility. the team of each paper which

contribute to conference for ideas, so responsibility. >> in terms of assessing the public good, that reside with the newspaper and the response to the early resides with the editor. are we agreed? >> yes. >> i think i was right in saying that in terms of this particular subject, by the review by the pc see the responsibility is with the editor. >> i don't think for responsibility. >> over the responsibility because you look to everybody else for advice and everybody looks towards you and you decide what we're going to do. >> ultimately everything is published in the paper is their responsibility. >> do you feel that that is a satisfactory statement given that the editor is bound to be party free in assessing of a public good, the editor needs to have an eye on such and such

circulation period? >> that is the role of an editor. an editor's judgment is part of -- a big part of their role. >> holding public figures to account would include exposing the private weaknesses of public figures. is that right? >> i would defer that more to campaigns which i discussed the lot in my witness statement. >> i am not discussing that. i'm discussing the issue of exposing private weaknesses of public figures. you regard that as completely within the bounds of the public good? >> not necessarily. >> when would you not expose the weakness of public figures? >> when there didn't seem to be public interest in doing so. >> when would such circumstances

arise? >> there are many stories newspapers have been run about personal circumstances of public figures. >> what sort of circumstances would mitigate against giving us details of individual stories which weren't published? >> if perhaps no trust broken between them and their constituents. in fact you discussed yesterday all those that story was published. maybe george argued that before he became an m p, the judgment is their own. >> goes back to the point of an editorial discretion at the end of the day. >> hy just wanted to convey -- thei just wanted to convey --

the workings of the newsroom. >> one particular campaign because some would say their arguments are both ways. naturally i have ideas expressed here. the murder of sarah page which featured in "news of the world" for a number of years. >> isn't it right that the "news of the world" published the name and photographs of known sex offenders in order to, quote, protect other children from them? >> correct. .. responsible journalism. >> l.a. disagreed with that at

the time. >> because i felt that although there was some aspects to the campaign, that it was always a risk with some public interest journalism and always risk withk the campaign. although there were some issues the campaign, i think the mechanic in a way to explain to the public what it was to the public and i think they're abouh her teeneir 14 pieces of legislation brought in subsequently on the back of it. >> by regina to publish the names and photographs to sex f offenders in order to bring home a legitimate point? >> because it was the point of that information.

when sir went insane, i was surprised the police team around the inquiry were pretty sure who they thought the perpetrator might be because he wasconvicted convicted living in the itmmunity who had just bileenthn released have been object isd ur ei another 8-year-old girl and almost identical circumstance is that it was used in the back deck did a very serious nature were allowed to have unchecked inin the community andcommunitys didn't have any information on thatw parents in america after the murder of mcginn in 1994, president clinton had brought in meagan's law which had been working very well and that is why the mechanic is right. >> i can understand the argument to this extent, the degree the criminal law might need to be

strengthened. why is it necessary in that legitimate campaign to publish the names and photographs of the known sex offenders? >> because in 2000 when we did it -- and i fink was over a period of just two weeks -- it was a way of highlighting the central issue of the campaign to try to explain to the readers the gap between what they felt was the situation and what was the situation. >> why couldn't you just explain it to the readers in clear and simple language? why sensationalize it and create the obvious risk of reprisals? >> welcome actually before we did it, having the meagan's law there was very limited -- there is very little vigilante is some. i wasn't protecting those reprisals, and i felt it was the best way to highlight the

central point of the campaign. >> were there any reprisals? >> there were the to the were written about. estimate does that include the pediatrician? >> it does, yes. >> fun natural foreseeable consequence of the sensationalist campaign, wouldn't you agree, ms. brooks? >> no, i think -- i don't think anyone could have predicted a pediatrician situation. and secondly, i think on the growth at stake i think the residents were quite shocked to discover there had been living there unchecked when i'm going to offend again. so, although, again i didn't predict the outcome. >> it's been a recurring theme

in the questioning of the course of the day but your proposition, which might seem obvious as the common sense and you reject this each time i'm going to try again with this one is it not evidently inflammatory to publish in the news of the world the names and photographs of the known sex offenders foreseeable consequence there might be physical violence? >> if you publish it on the basis you knew that would happen, yes. but it was not the intention. the incidence i can explain as i've tried to. the fact is that it was a very serious, very serious loophole that needed coming into was a bold. some people disagree with it, some people agreed with in terms of press, but monday 8% for the british public continued to agree with the campaign probably up until this day. >> might not have been your motive, mrs. brooks but there's

a natural and probable consequence of your actions, wasn't it? if it wasn't, mrs. brooks, it would be banished from your mind i would suggest to you protectin >> we breakaway with a reminder you can see this on the c-span and c-span video library. we take each of reno, nevada. president obama davidowitz paul keller talking about mortgage refinancing. live coverage on c-span 2. >> this is just a spectacular afternoon. we all know how difficult these past few years have been for the country, but especially for this state. after the worst recession in a lifetime.

.. they think that all we can to our try the things that have been done in the past, things that they have tried in the past, so they want to cut more taxes, especially for the wealthiest americans. they want to cut back on the rules we put in place for banks and financial institutions. they have said that they want to let the housing market hit autumn and just hope for the best. that is it. we have heard those ideas before. that is their economic agenda.

i will be honest with you, i don't buy it. i think they are wrong. we have tried their ideas were nearly a decade and they didn't work. i refuse to sell this country shored by going back to the same ideas that help to get us in the mess in the first place. our goal is to build an economy where hard work and responsibility are rewarded, where you can find a good job, make a good wage, on your own home, maybe start a business, send your kids to college. hopefully their lives will be even better than ours. that is what i wish for malia and sasha and i know you feel the same way if you have kids. that is where we need to go. i've been pushing congress to help us get there by passing a few commonsense policies that we are convinced will make a difference. we even made a handy to-do list

for congress so they could just check them off and it's a list like michelle gives me. i know paul is familiar with that list. he gets it from them. now there are only five things that are on this list, because i don't want to overload congress with too much at once. but their ideas that will help create jobs and build a stronger economy right now. first up on the list, it makes absolutely no sense that we get tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. that doesn't make any sense at all. [applause] we have told congress this time to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and use that money to cover moving expenses for companies that bring jobs back to america. [applause] second, instead of talking about

job creators congress should help small business and help small business owners create most of the new jobs in america. we want to give them a tax break for hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. and third, the thing on our to-do list, congress should extend tax credits that are set to expire for our clean energy companies. these businesses are putting folks to work here in this state of nevada. the last time i was here in fact i went to see a huge solar plant, solar energy plant. a lot of folks are working in both the construction of it and maintaining it. that is happening all across the country so we have got to make sure that we are helping those folks because that helps us break our dependence on foreign oil over the long long-term and drive down gas prices and it puts people to work right now. [applause] it's the right thing to do. [applause] fourth, congress should create a

veterans job score so we can help communities hire returning heroes, our veterans, and firefighters and employees of national parks because nobody who fights for this country should ever have to come home and fight for a job or fight for a roof over their heads. [applause] so that is four. which brings me to the fifth. the fifth thing on the list, and that is why i'm here today, i am calling on congress to give every responsible homeowner the chance to save an average of $3000 a year by refinancing their mortgage. it's a simple idea. it makes great sense, and i know it will have an impact. last october i was and park county where i announced new steps to help responsible homeowners refinance their homes

and at the time congress was not willing to act, so we did. we went ahead and did what we could do administratively without a new law being passed. as a result, americans who were previously stuck in high interest loans have been able to take advantage of these lower rates. they have been able to save thousands of dollars every year. and it turns out that two of those people are your neighbors, paul and valerie kehler. [applause] so, i just had the chance to visit with paul and valerie and looked at their beautiful home and checked out the grill out back. valerie says paul is a pretty good cook, so i'm going to take her word for it. the killers have lived in this house for 14 years. val works nearby, helping secure

loans for farmers and ranchers. paul is a retired contractor who started a family business with their son. last year, with mortgage rates at historic lows, they decided that it would make sense for them to refinance. they thought it would be easy. they are current on their mortgage, they make their payments on time. this is an example of responsible homeowners doing the right thing. but when they tried to refinance, they were told they couldn't do it. because their house, like thousands of others in the state and probably some of the neighbors here, their houses under water, which means the price is currently lower than what they owe on it. so they were hit with a historic drop in housing prices which caused the value of homes in their neighborhood to plummet. and a lot of tanks historically

have said, well we are not going to refinance you if your home is underwater. now luckily, the kehlers saw my announcement that i made down in clark county, so i am assuming it must have been val because when other something sparks it's usually the wife in the house. [laughter] so they called their lender and within a few months, within 90 days, they were able to refinance under this new program that we have set up. their monthly mortgage bill has now dropped to $240 a month, and that means every year they are saving close to $3000. [applause] now, val says they have been talking to some of their neighbors and maybe some of you are here today. you are saying, that sounds a good pretty good idea. and a lot of folks across the

country recognize this is a smart thing to do not only for homeowners but for our economy because if paul and val have an extra 240, $250 a month they might spend it on local business. they might go to a restaurant a little more often. they might spoil their grandkids even more. and that means more money in the economy and businesses do better and slowly home prices start rising again. so it makes sense for all of us and the good news is, since i have made this announcement refinancing applications have gone up by 50% nationwide and 230% here in nevada alone. that is the good news. [applause] people are taking advantage of it. that is what we want to see. but, here is the only catch and this is where you come in because you will have to pressure congress. the pool of folks who can

refinance right now when their homes are underwater is still too small. the reason the kehlers were able to refinance is because the only thing that we could do without congressional action was to give opportunities for refinancing for folks with a government-backed loan. and fha backed loans. but in order to expand that opportunity, we want to include everybody, people whose mortgages aren't government-backed. [applause] and in order to do that, we have got to have congress move. there is absolutely no reason why they can't make this happen right now. if they start now, and a couple of weeks, in a month, they could make every homeowner in america who is underwater right now eligible to be able to refinance

their homes and if they are responsible and doing the right thing. think about all those families saving $3000 an average on month. that is a huge boost to our economy. and for some of you who are underwater, you bite say instead of spending that money, i could plow that back into equity in my home and build that back up. which would further strengthen housing prices here in nevada and around the country. so it's the right thing to do. there is already a bill in the works. it is supported by independent, nonpartisan economist and supported by industry leaders. congress should pass this right now. [applause] and let me just say this. maybe there are members of congress watching. if you need some motivation to make this happen, then you should come to reno and you should visit with folks like the kehlers. i am not saying, i'm not saying

the kehlers want all of these members of congress in their house. it gets bad enough having me and the secret service and there but at least, they wouldn't mind saying hello and talking in front of their house. but they should talk to people whose lives are better because of the action we took. all over the country there are people just like paul and fell, folks just like you who are doing everything they can to do the right thing. to meet their responsibilities, to look after their families, to raise their kids right, give them good values. you are not looking for a handout. you just want to make sure that somebody is looking out for you and when you do the right thing, that you are able to keep everything you have worked for. that is what folks are looking for and that is what they expect from washington. put the politics aside in the

electioneering aside and just do what is right for people. [applause] so, i need all of you and everybody who is watching to push congress on their to-do list. nag them until they actually get it done. we need to keep moving this country forward, send them an e-mail, twead them, write them a letter if you are old-fashioned like me. but communicate to them that this will make a difference. it is one small step that will help us create the kind of economy that all americans, an economy that is built to last, wherever that but he has a fair shot and everybody is playing by the same set of rules.

that is what made us great in the past and that is what will make us great in the future, alright? thank you everybody. god bless america and give paul and val a big round of applause. [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[applause] .. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> president obama visiting the home of doubt and paul keller in the rain in in marina nevada it was renovated for refinancing changes announced by the president in october. president obama speaking sure they will be speaking earlier and will show you his comments this evening on c-span about seven or 8:00 eastern. moore road to the white house coverage coming up with republican presidential candidate, but romney at liberty university in blacksburg, virginia. to deliver the commencement address will be introduced by university chancellor and president jerry falwell junior.

according to its website it is the largest christian university in the world. see mitt romney's comment tomorrow at 10:20 on c-span. >> i have my ambition to work with john smith and pocahontas. their supposed affair, one way here and that makes a rectangular space that would be the chancel. pocahontas marries john rawls in this church in 1614. so i guarantee you i am standing exactly, a little deeper than she was, but this is where pocahontas stood when she got married.

>> well, i thought it was important to write a book that took people who are serious, the movement to elect did obama, obama didn't come out of nowhere. 2003, 2004. o-oscar the tea party movement that came out of nowhere. how does that work? occupy wall street. those were important things to take seriously, to look at them as social movements. the we the people perspective.

>> these men go through things and have scars that no one can understand except each other. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover, or worse to such personally different men and you ended up forming the alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive and formed the foundation of what became a very deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they become to one another are really extrude -- extraordinary. >> yesterday the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing on the app coming nato summit in chicago and the organization's future agenda.

we heard from the state department and defense department officials as well as several academics. the 2012 summit is scheduled for may 20 and 21 in chicago. the hearing is close to two and a half hours. >> a hearing will come to order. thank you all for coming this morning. i'm sorry we are starting a moment or two late. bye week process come i to comment the about 1034:10:35. chairman shaheen, of the subcommittee will chair the hearing from that point forward and i appreciate everybody's understanding of that. yesterday the committee had the opportunity to have very how he and private discussions with secretary general rasmussen and

he laid out for as the general expect nations at the summit on the road forward as we can inyo to really define this new role that the new parameters that nato. this is our fourth hearing on nato sends 2009 and it's not an accident that we are having it now. i think all the members of the committee shared the belief that the alliance remains vital to american security and its effect ignace as an institution deserves our continued focus and attention. but needless to say, that focus has changed. europe has changed, the world has changed. and later this month when the allies made in chicago to discuss his future in

afghanistan and elsewhere, a lot of that redefining will be on the table. so this summit is about how do you make nato stronger? how do we learn from our shared experience this? in my judgment, nato with enacting this is a shared judgment come a fundamental element of our national security and its organization demands critical analysis in order to me the evolving rats of our national security. one thing it's pretty clear about nato. it is already confounded his skip hicks. from bosnia to kosovo, from afghanistan to libya, the alliance has demonstrated an ability to adapt to the post-cold war security environment. obviously we have had our challenges in both afghanistan and libya, but we have learned from them. signing of a strategic hardship

agreement by president obama last week signaled a gradual transition from a war fighting posture to a supportive role in nato's commitment to the people of libya in the past year have shown that the alliance properly the urge to instill a very highly paid, capable of legitimate tool when it really matters. i don't want to spend too much time in the full agenda, which the members are engaged, including strengthening partnerships with countries and organizations around the globe, defending against terrorism and cyberthreats and deploying this against the real missile threat that the alliance faces. each look at, i'm sure, some further attention in the course of the hearing today. let me just make a couple of broader points. first on afghanistan and then thicken on meeting our security needs in the age of austerity.

recently, just literally a theme for the president arrived in afghanistan, i was there for two days for discussions with ambassador crocker, u.s. forces, general alan. i met with president karzai, cabinet members and with the head of the u.n. mission in afghanistan. i also visited with civil society members, presidential cabinets and parties. to a person, everyone and emphatically stated that the completion of this agreement is something of a game changer. and over the years that i traveled in afghanistan in the region, i think about it at times since 9/11 events, i've had many conversations with people at all different levels they are. and the high points in the low points of the conflict.

and i think i can confidently say that i've never sensed quite a collective sense of direction or sigh of relief as consequence of that agreement. but i will say definitively and i said this to yonkers and president karzai then in the end, our games are going to be not been if we lose sight of three major challenges that remain. one is the continued challenge of governance, the challenge of corruption within t government process and delivery of services. that is paramount. two is the question of the continued danger of a sanctuary war being prosecuted against the forces they are. i am the veteran of the sanctuary war and i know how insidious it can be. and i personally think it is simply unacceptable to have the

sound of immunity for acts of war against armed forces and against the color of community that is trying to accomplish what is trying to accomplish. that means pakistan has to become more assertive and more cooperative and we may have to resort other kinds of self-help, depending on what they decide to do. and the final point that i think everything hangs on. and again, it underscored this as powerfully as i could. having been involved in trying to dig our way out of the problems of 2009's election, we must prepare now for the election process. not later, that now. it is imperative that the afghan government, through an independent election commission put out the rules of the road of the election. the list have to be prepared, the registration has to take

place. that's the openness, transparency, accountability, free and fair elections are mandatory to any chance to go forward after 2014 with any possibility of success. so those three things leap out at the nato challenge as we go forward here. and finally, the second point. the alliance can only endure if there is a shared sacrifice and a shared commitment to the common purpose. we talked yesterday with secretary general rasmussen about this. the failure of some countries to master their 2% contribution and the expectations going forward really raise serious questions still as we defined the road ahead. so we need to work with our european friends. we'll understand this is a time of austerity for everybody. we're going to have to set priorities. we have to decide it's really important and what is perhaps less important.

and while we all understand that the military budgets may not be viable with respect to the austerity, certain priorities have to stand out and i believe mutuality of this defense is one of those. and we need to make that real. so we have to be clear that even before the financial crisis, nato is seriously underfunded. and as we emerge from the financial crisis, we thought that to commit the resources necessary to the security interests. finally, i will put the remainder of the comments on the record as different in full. but i just say them and am delighted to have the panels we have here today. we couldn't have a better group of experts with varying views to share our thinking about this important topic. on the first panel we have dr. philip gordon, assistant secretary of state of the

eurasian affairs. dr. james townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the euro policy. on the second panel, dr. charles kupchan of international affairs at georgetown university. and whitney scheiber said a senior fellow at fellow. and ian brzezinski, principal at burzynski group. and not very hans binnendijk, vice president for research and applied learning at the defense university. we are very grateful for all of you for taking time to be here and look forward to your testimony. senator corker, might i say that senator lugar has asked that his comments be placed in the record and they will be appropriately and senator corker, i recognize you. >> gentlemen, we look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> thank you, chairman kerry and other members for inviting us here to testify in the nato summit, which the united states is proud to be hosting a chicago

may 20 and 21. with your permission to submit my full statement for the record and briefly summarize my comments. >> without objection the full statement can be carried into the record. i want to say appreciate the committee support for the summit as a sustained recognition of significant that the alliance transatlantic security. the chicago summit will be the first nato summit on americans toilet 13 years in the first-ever outside of washington. in addition to the opportunity to showcase one of our nation's great cities, hosting of the summit in chicago is a tangible symbol of the importance of nato to the united states. it is also an opportunity to underscore the american people the value of this alliance to security challenges we face today. the nato/summit in lisbon, nearly 18 months ago, the allies unveiled the new strategic concept that defines their focus in the 21st century. building on decisions taken in

lisbon, the allies have three objectives for the chicago summit. afghanistan capabilities and partnerships and and if i might come and like to say a few words about each. afghanistan, the isaf coalition has made significant progress in preventing the country from serving as a safe haven for terrorists and ensuring that kids able to provide for their own scurity. these are both necessary conditions to fulfill the president's goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda. last week as the chairman of knowledge to the united states demonstrated its commitment to the longest term stability and security of afghanistan from president to bomb and president karzai signed a strategic partnership agreements. again, i appreciate chairman terry's assessment and look forward to discussing afghanistan further. i chicago or afghanistan is concerned, the united states anticipates three deliverables in particular. an agreement on an interim milestone in 2013, when isaf -- and will ship from combat to

support of the afghan national security forces, the nsf. secondly agreement on the size, cost and sustainment of the nss beyond 2014 and finally a roadmap for nato's post-2014 role in afghanistan. regarding capabilities, the nato's ability to deploy an effective fighting force in the field next the alliance unique. however, its capacity to deter and respond to security challenges will only be as successful as his forces are able, effective, interoperable and moderate. in the current era of fiscal austerity, nato can maintain a strong defense, but doing so requires innovation, creativity and effectiveness. the united states is modernizing in europe and at the same time i nato allies and institution are engaged in similar stats. this is a clear opportunity, you might even say necessity to take

on greater responsibilities. the united states continues to strongly urge the allies to meet to 2% benchmark for defense spending and contribute politically financially and operationally to the strength of the alliance. in addition to the total level of defense spending we should also focus on how these limited resources are allocated and for what priorities. nato made progress towards pulling more national resources, which is exemplified to the capabilities package the united states anticipates that leaders will endorse in chicago. this package for chicago includes missile defense, the alliance surveillance program and baltic air policing. allies are furthermore expected to enforce deterrence and defense posture review, ddp are. it will identify the appropriate mix of nuclear convention in missile defense capabilities nato needs to meet 21st century security challenges as well as reaffirming his commitment to making consensus decisions on alliance posture

issues. finally, the chicago summit will highlight nato's success in working with the growing number of partners arou the world. effective partnerships allow the alliance to extend his reach act with greater legitimacy, share burdens in an essay from capabilities of others. allies will not take decisions on further enlargement of nato in chicago, but will nonetheless send a clear positive message to countries in support of their membership rolls. the united states has been clear that nato's door remains open to democracies willing and able to assume responsibilitieand obligations of membership. macedonia, montenegro and georgia are all working closely with allies to meet in a membership criteria. let me just very briefly talk specifically about to aspers i know are of particular interest to this committee at, macedonia and georgia. macedonia is to key criteria and has contributed to global

security. the united states fully supports the u.n. process led by ambassador matt bennett said winkies regularly with greece and macedonia to urge them to find a mutually acceptable spending dispute with all the decision taken at the summit in bucharest and extend the membership offer to macedonia. with regard to georgia, u.s. security assistance and military engagement support the country's defense reform, train and equip georgian groups of participation in isaf operations and interoperability. in january president obama at three to enhance its collaboration to advance jordan's military modernization, defense with our missile defense capabilities. u.s. assistance programs provide ongoing democratic and economic reform efforts in georgia, critical part of the aspirations that it made important strides. support for georgia's territorial integrity within its international borders remain steadfast in our nonrecognition

of separatist regions of abkhazia and southwest idea will not change. finally, let me say a word about his relationship with rats that in the nato russia foreign ministers meeting in brussels last month. the nrc is founded on our commitment to cooperate in areas of mutual interest and address issues of disagreement. the best example of cooperation as their joint efforts in afghanistan were russia's transit supportive and critical to the nation success. at the same time, nato continues to seek cooperation with russia on missile defense in order to enhance their individual capabilities to counter this threat. what we strive for cooperation, we've also been frank in our discussions with russia that we will continue to develop and deploy missile defenses irrespective of the status of missile defense with russia. let me be clear, nato is not a threat to russia, nor is russia

a threat to nato. it is no secret there issues much allies in russia's affair. rush has been pedicle of the situation libya and we disagree in georgia. since 2008, nato has strongly supported georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and will continue to urge russia to meet commitments with russia. in conclusion, the threesome of priorities that i just outlined demonstrate how far nato has evolved since spanning six decades ago. the reasons for its continued success are clear. the alliance has over the last 63 years proven to be an adaptable, durable and cost effective preventive security. when president obama welcomed its counterparts to chicago at just over week, the united states will be prepared to work with allies and partners to ensure the alliance remains vibrant and capable for many more years to come. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

>> secretary thompson. >> chairman kerry and members of committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the nato summit, which the united states will host in chicago in may. i will describe for the committee which we hope to achieve at the summit from the defense point of view and its relevance for u.s. national security. i particularly look forward to hearing the committee's views on the summit in priorities you have for a period i would like to summarize my statement, mr. chairman and samantha falsehood that for the record. >> without objection. >> nato heads of state and government come together every two years, not only to approve important pieces of alliance business, but also to renew at the highest level, the commitment allies had made to one another in the north atlantic treaty. this commitment to come to one another's defense as expressed in article v of the treaty is a solemn one that has only been

invoked one. after the united states was attacked on september 11, 2001. this commitment was critical during the cold war to help deter the soviet union and the warsaw pact from attacking the united states and allies. even with the end of the cold war, this article v commitment remains the core of the alliance. nato serves as the organizing framework to ensure that we have allies willing and able to fight alongside us in conflict with it provides an integrated military structure that puts the military teeth behind alliance political decisions to take action. in addition to ensuring interoperability of allies, nato serves as a hub and an integrator of a network of global security partners. the nato air and maritime operations libya illustrates this point. the operation began as a

coalition of the willing, involving the united states, united kingdom and france. however, would nato answered the un's call to protect the libyan people, it was able to take on the mission and executed successfully. had nader not been there or had nato been two-week an institution to take on such an operation, the coalition would've had to carry on alone. keeping nato's strong, both politically and militarily as critical to ensure nato is ready when it is needed. this has been true for the past 20 years when the turbulence of the international system has demanded that nato respond nearly continuously to crises throughout the globe. today, for example, nato forces are in afghanistan, in the balkans, cowering tirades south

of somalia and the just concluded operations in libya. looking out into the future, challenges to the united states and our allies can come from ballistic missile proliferation and the saber, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction as well as from just the instability we can see happening as turmoil takes place as nations wrestle to set up their forms government. we must be ready to meet emerging threats. we would prefer to meet these challenges together with allies and on alone. so the strategic context with the summit is what i just described. and for work at nato every day, this is what we have in mind. how can we keep nato and the allies ready and able to meet challenges of today and in the future. this is especially complex today is the european economic crisis can house allies to cut defense spending and force structure in order to reduce their debt and

decrease government spending. allies to have different views and priorities regarding discussions of the threat and traditions of their literary forces. not every ally sees the world and there will and it the way we do. the one thing we all agree on is that we need the a do. the one thing we all agree on is that we need the alliance to be unified and strong. alan is the to the united states to lead the way in keeping nato's strong, capable and credible. that is where we come to the summit in chicago. at chicago, has a sitting government will agree or approve work that we committed to it the last summit of less than 18 months ago. at chicago, the work will focus on three areas. an agreement on a strategic plan for afghanistan, military capabilities and nato partnerships.

the united states is through summit objectives. number one is trading at clear path for a transition in reaffirming nato's commitment to the long-term security of afghanistan. the second objective is maintaining nato's core defense capabilities during the period of austerity and building a force ready for future challenges. and finally, deepening the engagement of nato's nations and alliance operations and activities. chairman, i'd like to conclude my summary here and i welcome your questions and look forward to a good discussion. >> well, thank you very much. we will have that i'm sure. let me ask you quickly if i can to turn the gavel over her. secretary gordon, what is the reaction of the european generally to the obama administration's should take two of the combat brigades out of

europe? and what's the impact? how is that going to affect? >> i appreciate the opportunity to address that because i think we have been quite successful in explaining what is behind that thinking. i was actually in berlin, lithuania and copenhagen the week we announced them had the opportunity to engage extensively and explained the thinking behind it. it is a misunderstanding to me than think about it in terms of a straw for an era. that was the initial turned that people would be imagining that somehow we were with -- reducing our presence in europe. the fact is those brigade combat teams are referring to have been citing an southwest asia for the past decade. the defense department was resourcing presence in europe was after this decade of heavy

presence of spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops in iraq and afghanistan, what was the right posture moving forward, especially during the time of fiscal constraint? we've had the time to explain the thinking to our european allies that we remain absolutely committed to europe and to article v and moving forward, even after the brigade combat teams did not return to their original homes in germany, europe will have at least as many u.s. forces as it has had for the past decade during which we believe an article size and credible and we absolutely have an ability to defend europe. we have also been the pentagon is working this out as we speak, taken the decision to ensure the limits of the brigade combat teams rotate through europe to ensure the critical partnership functioned that they performed while they were there. so whereas they may have been some initial concern that the

headline of withdrawing troops in europe would dominate, we think that by actually explaining what is behind this thinking and reiterated our commitment to europe, which by the way should not be -- i will end with this, should not be introduced to the brigade combat units in europe. over the three years of the obama administration, we've done a number of other things to modernize and reiterate our commitment to europe, including deploying missile defense, which will mean american presidents, including troops, people in romania and poland will have the radar in turkey. we have rotating aegis cruisers which the home port in maine. there's actually a whole web of no american president in europe. we have moved forward on an aviation detachment in poland. we've done some other things for special forces in the u.k. and elsewhere. it's also try to remind them that american commitment to europe and american president in europe should not be reduce the

number of brigade combat. >> can you give me a quick take on president allowed iran's promise to withdraw combat forces at the end of this year and the entire collective effort? >> absolutely. president -- as an outcome of the spin timetable, one of the most successful things are doing is getting on the same page for the 2014 timetable. if it ain't together and not together. i sat as a whole the combat troops remain. performing the mission and been successful to the end of 2014 after which they would be gone. candidate alone took the idea that french troops should be added thdea that french troops should be added that before 2012 and this is something we will look forward to discussing with the president once he is sworn in. the fact of the four paris this

afternoon to carry on with this conversation, which is arty begun. we been in touch as you would expect in recent days and weeks. the french issuer asked that they are committed to our common success enough guinness and a name sure we would find a way forward that ensures that common success. all i can do is speak to our own view, which is that it's in together, out together remains critical and we should also not lose sight of the facts, which i think is quite an accomplishment or the president and leadership of this alliance that every single member has stuck to that and there haven't been the withdraws notwithstanding the economic crisis we know it's painful notwithstanding domestic legal pressures. every member of isaf is on work for and maintain a commitment to the end of 2014. >> those of the interesting discussions obviously. that was just sitting here thinking you have the toughest job of all having to travel to these difficult capitals of london to brussels and paris and

so forth. >> i made clear that very comment. >> and a clear and ready to spend as much time in paris in the coming weeks. >> fair enough. final question just quickly. secretary gates made a strong state and to the alliance, in which he lamented the quote that many allies are unwilling to devote the necessary resources or changes to be serious and capable partners of their own defense. ..

it won't deal to do what we have so successfully done for so many years and decades including recently in libya where notwithstanding the real constraints we have made, the european allies were able to step up. they flew more than 85% of the strike missions in libya. they made it critically important contribution in afghanistan. at sustained nearly 40,000 troops as part of isaf. for almost a decade. in other cases we wants more need more but we should overlook the fact that they are making critically important contributions. we are constantly urging them to make the investments necessary so that will be true in five years drum now just as it is true today. the last thing, we understand the constraints. that is why one of the deliverables to chicago that both jim and i have emphasized its discretion of capabilities and smart defense, even if at

the same levels we have to do a better and more efficiently and we have some particular projects that we will be happy to talk about that will actually show the alliance moving forward in pooling and sharing and spending more wisely with the limited resources that are available. >> there are griesley follow-ups to that and i am sure you have been appointed so we will be the record open for a weekend we will try not to burden you with too much for their mace be some things we want to do to fill it out. i will now recognize senator corker and i will turn the gavel over to senators shaheen. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you thank you both for your testimony. this issue of the 2% gdp commitment that is not being monitored is something that has been talked about for a long time. secretary outbreaks was then maybe two years ago talking about the same thing and secretary gates has been an talking about the same thing and certainly did so in europe. we talked yesterday with

secretary-general about this same issue. and it continues to be well we are urging. i do think it's a huge problem and this trend has been continuing for a long time. we understand europe is under stress right now, but what set of ingredients do you think exists or what is it that we are doing? we spent last year a little bit over 5% of gdp here on defense and i'm glad that we did. certainly i think we should make sure we invest appropriately in that regard, but as we continue to do what we are doing, we almost become the provider of security services and a more and more are becoming the consumer of security services. and there doesn't seem to be anything that is really changing that dynamic. i know there have been commitments in afghanistan and on a per capita basis many of the countries of actually had more cash than us and we honor that.

but from the standpoint of the year in, year out investment and modernization and defense forces, it's just not happening. we have been talking since i have been here and i've been here five years now and nothing is changed. as a matter fact it was moving in the opposite direction. three countries, the us and the u.k. and believe it or not greece of all of the entire alliance that is investing 2%. a lot of people are saying greece investment is not doing done wisely or at least that is what we have heard yesterday. i just wonder if there's anything that you would tell us other than urgent, anything that is going to really change that dynamic and caused this to be a true alliance and not one of us again providing security services and then being the consumers? >> again, jim may want to jump in on this. first of all senator, we agree with that assessment and that is why as i say we have been clear

in making similar comments to our european allies about how critical this is. i would again recalled libya as an example of doing more than urging, we are where in the case of libya, facing a grave humanitarian crisis and a dictator using the violence and european allies coming to us and telling how important it was for us to act, calling for intervention as well. we went to the europeans in that case and said, we agree. action needs to be taken. we got a u.n. security council resolution and said we are prepared to do only what we can do. >> i appreciate and honor that too but you know, to build an appropriate defense mechanism as a group of countries, it takes here in, year out, year in, year out investment. just as we see now with sequestration, the pentagon is already beginning to be concerned about the future exist their horizon is not -- but it's

overlong period of time and what we are seeing in europe is overlong period of time a downward trajectory, and so i honor what happened in libya but i'm still not seeing anything whatsoever that is changing the trend to move it back up to by the way, what is a commitment. this is not like a goal. a 2% investment of gdp is an absolute commitment by the nato allies and it is not being honored. so what i'm concerned about is a long-run trajectory and that is what we are not seeing. i'm wondering again what set of ingredients is going to change that, especially with the economic times we are dealing with? >> once again senator, i agree with that assessment. the point i make about libya is not just in the short-term but addresses the longer-term.which is to say in that case we said we will provide our unique capabilities but we expect you to be able to play a major role

yourselves. by insisting on that we got them to do it in that case and are now able to say, there is the example. if you don't continue to invest in the advanced fighter planes, precision-guided assets you will be able to do this in the future and you can't expect the united states to do it for you. only they can make those decisions but that is what they are hearing from us. we also believe as i referred to our capabilities deliverables for chicago, trying to finally, there is a lot of alliance when it comes to defense spending. their redundancies and people aren't doing it smartly enough. to take one example of the agreement of nato countries to build this allied ground surveillance system where 13 of them will come together and by five drones built by an american company by the way, to be able to share all of this through the entire alliance is the sort of thing than to the need to be investing in unless they have

the money to buy individual drugs which is not realistic. this is the sort of thing they can do with less money to provide capability for everybody so we are trying to do that as well. >> thank you and i'm glad we are on the same page here. let me ask another question. this commitment to afghanistan, the last i checked and i'm a little dated on this, but to provide enough resources for them just to maintain the security forces that we have trained up with them, i think it is about $9 billion a year if i remember quickly and you all might correct me. i think the budget authority last time i checked in afghanistan and again i'm a little dated but it was around you know, 1.5, $2 billion. that is for the entire government. what is the entire security tab and what kind of commitments, because this is something that is coming up right now. this is not a trajectory. these are commitments we need to make. when is the exact gap and when

do we expect from our nato allies to have those real pledges coming forward to fill that gap? >> we will have to get you the exact numbers on where we are right now. >> i mean the order of magnitude. >> what we have focused on, obviously this number needs to go down. i think you're order of magnitude is about right on where we are and has been for the last couple of years. none of us want to keep spending that amount. that is why we are focused on how to leave something sustainable in our wake. once they are fully in charge of security we wanted to work that we know we are going to have to help. the plan that we are looking at her chicago would involve international community putting in around $4 billion a year to maintain the afghan national security forces. for up to a decade.

now the afghans themselves have already pledged $500 million of their own money toward that goal for three years and that amount should rise year by year after that. secretary gates challenged the rest of isaf to come up with a billion euros per year, about $1.3 billion. of that $4.1 billion total. we have been working very hard in the highest levels of our government to get the rest of the international community to deliver on that pledge so that if we get to that point of the $4.1 billion the afghans give half a billion and the other members of isaf will be doing at least 1.3 billion that would bring our numbers down obviously considerably by a factor of five or six or more. >> and you may get those commitments in chicago? is that what you're saying? >> we are looking to get a solid

political commitment from as many countries as possible and i think it's fair to say we are making good progress towards that goal. >> thank you for your work in madam chairman thank you. >> senator cardin. >> let me thank our tank though our witnesses. secretary gordon i want to follow up on a point that i talked to the secretary general rasmussen about yesterday and that is the chicago summit will not be the largest summit. i got the secretary general's view on how we deal with the diaspora to nations that one day we hope will be part of nato. and i want to start off with my concern. it has been that ability or desire to join either the european union or nato that has been the motivating factor to accelerate democratic reforms in many countries of europe. and we have seen that work very successfully. i think there must be some disappointment that the summit will not the end enlargement

subnet. montenegrin and macedonia were close to moving forward on their plans. we have the issues with bosnia, where they have made significant progress and not have met the target dates but they are moving forward in a very positive way. georgia has also made substantial progress and i understand they may not have reached the plateau for formal acceptance but i think the signal that is being sent is that we are slowing down the formal expansion of nato for many reasons and many legitimate reasons. on a parallel path, the e.u. has been very slow now on expansion because of the economic problems in europe. i guess i would like to get the administration's view as to how we continue to keep the moment to moving towards democratic

reform and ultimate membership in nato and countries we have been very actively engaged. the four i mentioned, plus others. >> thank you senator. first of all i absolutely agree that historically nato enlargement has been good for nato, good for europe and good for those countries as you said. it has contributed to democracy in europe and stability and it's absolutely the right policy. administrations of different stripes have been strongly supportive of it. we completely agree with that. i think we have been saying in this phrase you heard with rasmussen not an at-large meant summit, we have said okay it's not not enlargement summit but it's also not as some of that should be backing away from enlargement. it so happens there is not a country ready to be included in the alliance at the summit with the consensus behind it so in that sense it's not an enlargement summit but we want to be clear this doesn't mean we are not focused on enlargement or his supporters as ever of the open door policy.

one of the ways we are going to signal that is secretary clinton will participate in a meeting of nato foreign ministers with the four diaspora countries to specifically knowledge them. to talk to them about the process going forward and we hope and expect the communiqué will signal our strong support for enlargement in general and the processes of these in particular. >> only reason that you would agree that every case needs to be treated separately and we should have high standards and important criteria for joining the alliance. and we continue to work in different ways with each of the four countries you mentioned and not be happy to talk in more detail about where we are in each but our bottom line point is no one should view the summit is somehow the end of enlargement or some different priority. we remain committed to the open-door. >> and i accept that and i agree with you that each of the four countries are truly unique and i

understand the hurdles that each of these four countries still have remaining. i really do. i think though that is very important signal that is given, the types of reforms that are being carried out, not just these four countries but others who would like to come one day, candidates who are planning for entering nato, are not necessarily popular locally with the type of commitments to defense and the type of commitments to their constitutional change and types of democratic reforms that we see the types of controls necessary for security. those types of issues aren't always the most popular domestically in those countries but they are able to do it because they see a path towards integration in that path looks like it's going to be a long-haul, as seen in the recent european elections were countries don't always go for the responsible party. i think it's very important that the message come from the united

states and clearly i'm pleased secretary clinton will be talking to the four countries. we have to be very clear that we do want integration and we do see the path that will lead to that. there are reforms that need to be pursued and although we are not ready at this summit, we do anticipate there will be enlargement and we do encourage countries to seek membership in europe and membership in nato. >> we agree with that for the very reasons you state and it is our goal and commitment to make sure that this summit sends a positive signal in that direction. i will be honest, not every member in nato is enthusiastic about the enlargement process and sometimes some time to take some persuading to make sure that positive signal gets sent but certainly this administration's view and we appreciate the support of this committee for that goal. >> and we have seen that a prior

summits, they the exact points you have raised. there are concerns about other countries in europe in their view about nato enlargement and where all those different issues. that is why it's particularly important for u.s. leadership to be pretty focused and clear in chicago. thank you madam chair. >> senator ribble. >> madam chairman and gentleman, thank you for coming. as you probably know we have -- this committee met with the secretary-general yesterday and we had a spirited discussion along the lines with senator cardin raised on enlargement and i'd like to associate myself with those remarks. i think all of us have the same concerns that he does and we want to make certain that the communication is clear that wanting to join is one thing and a strong commitment to the requirements for joining is another issue that certainly needs to be underscore. let me say this. secretary gordon you correctly identified the issues this

committee is interested in and i want to talk about just one of those briefly. that is the georgia situation. it is a concern to a lot of us and as far as -- in your remarks he talked about the stressing that you did to the russians about meeting their commitments as far as georgia is concerned and it touched on a likely and i don't mean that derogatorily, it is almost as if the international community understands the commitments that the russians have made regarding georgia but no one really expects them to meet those commitments. i guess i kind of read between the lines of what you are saying. it was almost a reiteration of that and it's unfortunate, but give me your thoughts on whether russia -- they made very strong commitments, excuse me, not strong colin met and spoke clear

commitments as to what they were going to do. the one that i i'm most interested in is the obligation to vacate the occupying territories and it's just not right. the russians said they would make the commitment to vacate. they haven't done that and from what i can tell nobody really expects it. what are your thoughts on that commitment? >> thank you senator. i won't pretend it is easy to find a way to get russia to meet those commitments. we completely agree with your assessment that russia is currently in violation of the cease-fire agreements that were reached in august and september of 2008. they had six points in one of them was for russian troops to go back to where they were prior to the start of the conflict and those troops are not currently back to where they were prior to the start of the conflict. we believe therefore, like you, that russia is in violation of those commitments and we have

also been clear and secretary clinton has referred to russia's occupation of georgia, not meant to be provocative but to simply describe what we believe to be the case, which is russia having military forces within the territorial boundaries of internationally recognized countries. we have been very active in preventing any further recognitions of south ossetian which is of course what russia did. i think there are maybe three other countries in the world that have done so and every single other member of the international community has refused to do so. in that sense, we believe we have denied russia and a legitimization that they have tried to have over south salt a city a and up causey are. we have also maintained not just rhetorically and formerly support for georgia's sovereignty and integrity but gender and support for the country of georgia are. most recently manifested in the

visit that president sockets bailey paid to president obama in the oval office where we committed to strengthening the economic relationship which is usually important to georgia and the success of the country and the defense relationship and i will take a opportunity to express appreciation for the contributions george has is made this made in afghanistan where they are one of the leading contributors per capita and we are working to strengthen that relationship as well. >> i think we have all done likewise expressed an appreciation but i have to tell you it's disheartening to watch this sort of thing where commitment is made like this and it's handled cavalierly by the international community and nobody does anything about it. mr. townsend, i want to follow up on comments that senator corker made and if you feel comfortable in answering these fine and if not we can go back to mr. gordon but it has to do with the sustainability of the

ansf forces. you know, those of us who deal with this regularly, when you put a pencil to this, it just doesn't work. and i know secretary gordon has said and in fact i think he listed it as the number one priority at the chicago meeting, was to chart a clear path forward for security forces in afghanistan force for sustainability and i understand you want the money that you want from the europeans and from others, but when you look at what it costs to maintain the ansf, when you compare it to the gdp of the country, you didn't include the drug profits that they make. they just don't work and so what are your thoughts on that? how do you get there? how do you get some confidence in being able to do this when the numbers just don't work?

>> thank you senator. the pencil work you describe as i'm sure being done on the hill in being done by the administration as well. i've i'm know my department as well as the department of state were working this number is well at nato too with allies, with the afghan government. there are a lot of pencils going about trying to determine as we chart a way forward doing now in 2014 and post 2014 whether you are at nato and looking at what the nato presence could be, whether you are looking at the westside on a bilateral basis, the afghan side. what we have to take figure 1 is what do we think it will mean in terms of the ansf to do the job after 2014? with needs -- to what needs to be some of the factors we look at and i think one of the major factors driving the size of the ansf which is of course part of what drives the numbers, will be conditions on the ground in the type of job the ansf will face

after 2014 what will the taliban look like? these are alright now unknown factors. we feel we have got a pretty good feeling from what we think it happened that so much depends on how much we are able to degrade the taliban. so that presents less of a threat to afghanistan and less of a threat to the ansf. we know as senator kerry talked about there is an important election coming up in 2014 and what would be the requirements in terms of security and making sure that a leshin goes off without a security threat. so that pencils are moving and we are still in the middle of that work. in chicago nato is going to produce his strategic plan for afghanistan, where it will try to deal with these numbers and describe with the nato presence is going to look like. as you know we just signed also the u.s. strategic partnership agreement with the afghans, so we are right now putting down on

paper the structure of what we think we are going to be doing, and that will impact with the ansf will look like and that will determine the cross figured there. so we know we have got a tall job ahead but that we no too that we have got to make sure that the afghans have what we think they are going to need to do the job. we are in the middle of doing that now. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i have to say i think everybody has got a long ways to go before the comfort levels of a lot of people up here are met. we are very nervous about this and have a difficult time ringing the two together with the amount of money we are talking about particularly under the present economic situation of this country, the european country and clearly they have dance. i would like to hear from you and thank you very much. >> thank you senator risch. i want to get into the specifics of the upcoming summit that before he do that i want to ask you about the news that broke this morning around the decision

in russia that newly inaugurated president putin is not going to come to the g8 summit next week, and i wonder if what we think about this decision by mr. putin if that comes as a surprise, and more generally, how is his return to the presidency going to affect nato russian relations? >> i would be happy to address the narrower question of the g8. and the broader one about u.s.-russia relations. president putin called president obama yesterday to first have an exchange on the anniversary of victory day but more specifically to one, let them know that we look forward to continuing, since he was inaugurated, look forward to continuing the relationship and

has given his responsibility to moscow having just been inaugurated in trying to put a cabinet together. he felt it was important to stay there and former president now prime minister medvedev to -- the summit and suggested they need -- the two presidents meet at the next g20 meeting which is some five weeks from today. so that is that and the president will look forward to seeing prime minister medvedev at the g8 and look forward to seeing president putin apogee 20. in terms of the broader relationship, as you know, we have been very proud of what we have been able to accomplish with russia over the past three years. the the very straightforward bases that we have a lot of interest in common and where is we have significant differences as well. i was just talking about one with regard to georgia. the president fella felt was in our national interest to pursue those areas of cooperation where we could agree and disagree and

stand up for our principles elsewhere. as you know, the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, transit in afghanistan, the 123 civil nuclear, and security resolutions on iran and most recently russia agreed to join the wto which included the bilateral economic treaty with georgia, all of those things that are of interest and is the basis for cooperation with russia. so your question is how does that continue with president putin? we will see. i can only speak from our and and that we are determined to pursue the same practical policies we have all along in our own national interest. we look for cooperation with russia. nobody can predict he uture of he can say however is that president putin, then prime minist pun was around for every agreement that ibed and we agree with him so there is no reason to believe that even with

those two gentlemen in different jobs, we won't be successful in continuing to reach practical areas of agreement when they are of mutual. >> so we really think he should get busy and there is no underlying ulterior motive here? >> i think only the russian government -- we take at face value. >> i should have clarified. that was a rhetorical question. [laughter] set me back a little bit from the specifics of the upcoming chicago summit. i want to talk about what we see as a nato member, the message is that people should take away from chicago. last month i have the opportunity to host with the atlantic counsel, an event around the upcoming summit. secretary albright and senator warner were there. it was very well attended.

there is a lot of interest in it, and i think this summit comes at a very important time as we look at what has happened with nato, what is happening in europe right now. there have in some quarters than the suggestion that we should pull back from our commitments to nato, that the same is true in europe as we look at the declining defense budgets which people have raised here today, and i actually think that would be a mistake. if we look at the successes of nato, and you both talked about those very eloquently in your opening remarks. this is a 60-year-old alliance and has been the most successful one in modern history anyway. you talked about the success in libya. we still represent three of the top for defense spending countries in the world, and we

have, after decade of fighting in afghanistan, the most experienced fighting force that we have seen again in modern history. enlargement has been good for europe, so in view of where the alliance is now and in view of some of the criticisms and questions that have been raised about its ongoing potency to deal with the challenges we face in the world today, what is the message that you all would like to see coming out of the chicago summit about nato and about our role at nato, and i would like to ask actually both of you if you could address that? >> well, madam chairman i couldn't agree more with your analysis and couldn't disagree more with the notion that maybe it's time to move on. and as you say beyond the particulars on afghanistan capabilities i think the overall message is that it is simply in

the national security interest of the united states to strengthen our partnership with the allies and whatever the drawbacks, deficiencies in defense spending or different points of view we may have on international questions, it is clearly in our interests to face the daunting challenges around the world with a standing of lions of countries who broadly share our values and interests. i just think that the case for doing that in some ways is greater than ever before, given the fiscal situation that we are all and. just take any of the most recent examples. afghanistan is challenging enough. imagine trying to do it without this alliance and without the contributions of our partners and without an integrated veteri command structure in the tradition of military that cooperate with each other and some common assets like awacs and allied ground surveillance.

it just doesn't make sense. and again broadly speaking the european partners are those with which we manage global problems whether in the balkans, in libya, in afghanistan, or are not in a military sense that our iran negotiations in so many other questions. so i think it is just absolutely the case that it is in our interest to do this. again libya is another recent example. i don't think anyone would have imagined is doing a military operation in libya back a couple of years ago. but you have a command-and-control system that is practiced and interoperable forces and a political body in brussels, because you can't just whip these things up with a snap of a finger. you have to have the standing institution structure so i think that is the broad message of cooperation we would like to see go out. >> thank you. mr. townsend would you like to add to that? >> senator thank you very much.

i agree with everything a secretary gordon said in just a personal reflection i have worked in the department since the early 80s in various guises as well as the atlantic counsel and what i've seen over time, and when i answer this question to groups of americans, q. know when a crisis happens, going back so many gears, the telephones ring in europe. they don't ring other places in terms of washington calling our allies, calling nato secretary general. that is when the phone rings in the early days when we grapple with what to do. and it's something that is precious and something we haven't always had. if you look back in history whether it's the 1930s, and watch how we as nations try to organize ourselves to deal with problems, the problems of those days were different than the problems of today -- but we have with nato and organizing entity to help us quickly come together just from a political basis at 28 around the table and try to sort out

what do we need to do? we? we are able to go to the u.n. with the nations with u and get u.n. assistance and the u.n. security council takes on these issues and then politically when we all decide on a course of action, you have in nato on the military side and integrated military structure that actually helps us to organize ourselves militarily and take action pretty quick way. secretary gordon mentioned libya and i use libya as well as an illustration on how we were able to come together politically, work with the united nations, work with the international community, not just with their european allies but broadly. and then take a course of action. it is a great test case of the theory, but i will also say in closing that, we have to always work at it. there'll always be critics and we need the critics because we need to understand where we are failing here and there. the lessons learned coming out of libya and the defense

spending, the capabilities. i have worked for years with this, tried to keep moving forward and keep the alliance strong. we will never reach 100% in terms of fixing all the problems and getting them exactly right that we have to keep trying. i know secretary gordon and i have worked many years together. we want to hand off to our successors and alliance that is continuing to move forward and continuing to look for ways to get that her. a lot of what the chicago summit is in the capability package particularly our ways in which we can try to address defense spending issues, the way we can address trying to spend money with their priorities that some of the senators have talked about in the air of austerity, how we spend money. that is what we'll try to do in chicago and every summit as it comes around takes us another step towards addressing these issues and becoming an even stronger alliance. >> thank you both very much. senator lee.

>> thank you madam chair. thank you both of you for joining us. i'd like to start with mr. gordon. do you anticipate that over the next 10 days we might see and a softening of turkey's objection to israel's participation of the upcoming summit? >> i think there is some misconception about this issue and i appreciate the opportunity to clarify. nato had not envisaged the fighting -- israel is an important part of nato and certainly an important ally of the united states. it is a member of the mediterranean dialogue, one of nato's partnership arrangements but they were never going to have a meeting of every single one of those partnerships as a matter of logistics and time. so there was no meeting of the military and dialogue or

invitation to israel for turkey to block. his report and speculation about this, that is just not accurate. what is accurate, as you know very welcome is that the turkey-israel relationship is fraught between one of the more positive aspects of the middle east as we look at the cooperation between those two countries. we have invested a lot of diplomacy and overcoming that and we regret that partnership activities at nato and israel are not proceeding because of turkish objections. we have been very clear about that. no country should the -- bring bilateral -- is something we are very focused on advancing as a specific matter for the nato summit. it's not really an issue. >> okay, so when you say the relationship between turkey and israel doesn't bode well for the partnerships such as it is between israel and nato? >> that is right and as i say,

nato has a history of partnership activities with lots of countries broke the mediterranean and world. we see it as a package and as i said first of all we don't accept the country should bring in a bilateral dispute into the alliance and we don't accept that countries can pick and choose in blocking partnership activity. if an ally is going to block partnership with one country, then we are not going to accept partnership -- >> partnerships generally? >> partnerships generally and that is where we are now because we won't allow discrimination against a particular alliance. >> turkeys actions sort of jeopardize that assertion, right? they are challenging that assertion? >> not the assertion that is all or nothing. we the united states and everything is by consensus, will not allow certain interest to be blocked and others to go ahead.

>> but turkey nonetheless is objecting to any partnership activities, and mediterranean partnership or otherwise? >> correct. ski what are the administration's plans with regard to possible funding of afghan security forces at their peak of 350,000 troops beyond 2014? what can you tell us about that? >> well as a think you'd know, you are right that the peak will be around 3323 and 50,000 traders but the longer term, what we believe the sustainable goal, would be considerably less than that, close to 230,000 because our principle guiding thinking about this all along is that ansf needs to be sufficient to do the mission but also do the same which is to say affordable over the long-term.

that is where we think it will be decided on the issues to be discussed among allies in chicago and work continues to be done but we don't envisage that 350,000 will be sustained necessarily over the next decade. we also it knowledge it's in further response to senator risch's response earlier, the afghans can do the this by themselves. insuring that ansf are sustainable and it's also important to remember that whatever that international community will be far less than we have been paying every year for the past decade. be okay. thank you. mr. kupchan francoise hollande has indicated that he would like to withdraw all french combat forces from afghanistan by the end of 2012.

what do you think about that will actually occur? >> senator i'm not a betting man so establishing odds will be difficult, but you know, we have been in touch with the team as they began to take the reins of power. they are not there yet obviously and the inauguration has to come. mr. gordon told the committee he will be going to paris i think this afternoon to talk to the team. their shadow defense minister if you will came by a month or two ago and i spoke with him a bit and listen to what he had to say. i think they say the situation of many politicians who say after the election they will be now faced with governance and faced with a summit where a lot

of work has been done by the allies to try to make sure that the way ahead is something that we are all unified on and of course we are going to be making a declaration at the summit on afghanistan and there will also be the nato strategic plan for afghanistan that will be agreed there, so there has been a lot of work done. the new french government as it takes the reins of power, once alone is inaccurate if they will be stepping into an already flowing stream. we are looking forward to talking to them and explaining this to them as they get ready to take that big step and speaking personally i would expect and i would hope that they would understand as they take the reins of power in france in the nato context they will be one of 20 nations that are coming together around the plans for 2014 and afterwards france has played a very important role in the development of this plan, very

important role in afghanistan. they will be taking on very big responsibilities to join with us and to go forward in an alliance that wants to make sure that there'll be an enduring presence after 2014 and the alliance will do its bit in helping the afghan ansf and the government stand up to take on its role as the nation. and i'm sure that the discussions that secretary gordon will have will be along those lines. >> thanks to both of you and madam chair i see my time has expired. >> thank you. senator udall. >> thank you madam chair. thank you for doing this today. as all of few are aware, the united states has about 90,000 troops currently in combat mission there in afghanistan and i think they have done an outstanding job in terms of the mission that we have entrusted to them and i think they have largely accomplished their

mission. osama bin laden is dead, the taliban is no longer in power, terrorists no longer have a safe haven in afghanistan and that is why i was really encouraged when secretary panetta stated that we could bring home our combat troops as early as 2013 and this is his quote. hopefully by mid-two better part of 2013 we will be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise-and-assist role end quote. could you update me on his hope and where we are on that? i mean, i interpreted it at the time when he said that that he was really moving in that direction but i haven't heard anything else and i'm wondering mr. townsend maybe you could start on where we are, because they think there are a growing number of americans who asked the question, why are we in

these villages, and basically policing villages when we have been there for 10 years. why aren't the afghans doing that? and it just seems to me that secretary panetta hit it on the head when he said, we need to move our combat forces out of that combat role and do everything we can to have the afghan take the lead, moving forward, to bear the major part of responsibility. and i hope that is what we are we are pushing for and i also hope that the chicago summit, when folks come together, that they listen to these kinds of issues and maybe reconsider the 2014 day that they have. please, go ahead. >> thank you senator and i appreciate that question. that is certainly where we are working towards right now in the

transition. 2014 of course has been a date that has come from the lisbon summit and important date with the alliance and president karzai of where we will see the afghans taking the need for security and taking on the front end of the combat missions from 2014 hour. but what is important now and what has been underway that secretary panetta was talking about was this transition from the u.s. and other allies being in the the lead for a lot of the combat missions to transitioning to the afghans. that is underway and the date of 2013 that has been discussed, we look on as a milestone, a long road to 2014. in terms of this transition, this is where there will be, they ansf will be in the security lead for most of afghanistan by that time. already here in 2012, the afghans and the afghan forces

and ansf are taking on the lead and much of afghanistan. in 2013 we will see i think pretty much the completion of that. there have to be facts on the ground and certainly the afghan government and their isaf commander and the allies are working on this, but right now if you talk to general allen and allen and some of the commanders we have been pretty impressed with the work of ansf. they are certainly up to the task and taking the lead in terms of progress and we will see the transition that you mention in secretary panetta mentioned in terms of allied forces, u.s. forces, transitioning from combat advise-and-assist and letting the afghans take the lead in terms of combat. that is what we are seeing in the great extent 2013 will be a landmark year for that and we have seen over the past couple of months since security incidences have happen searches in kabul, they ansf have done the right thing. they have stepped up and we have been very impressed with their

performance. a lot of what i've been hearing from you in terms of the operation what you want to see in terms of transition is occurring. wiley go to 2013 to 2014 will primarily be in and assist role. i think what we are seeing is the ansf is going to be up to the task and will be largely doing this assisting and is training up to 2014. >> it seems to me that before you have this firm date, whenever we said it, of getting out of afghanistan, in terms of combat troops, not the counterterrorism role and all of the assist in the other things that we clearly need to continue, that you need to really cast out if they really are up to it. they need to be there in the front, doing the job and us just thus just being in and assist role to make sure that we test

their capabilities. i think that is what secretary panetta was hitting on in terms of that we have been there so long, we need to try to do everything we can to get them out and doing the major responsibility for security and we are really in an advise-and-assist role. i just hope we are not headed for a situation where we are going to keep pushing our day down the line. we need them to take responsibility. if they can't do it, we need a really tough firm assessment of what is going on and a reassessment of what is going on. mr. gordon i don't know whether you were going to comment or not. you made some notes there. i thought that was primarily a question for mr. townsend. >> i agree with what jim townsend said and i hear what

you're saying that it is precisely the point of the milestone or which our role will be primarily training, advising and assisting but we also have to be clear and honest. we can promise that from some date in 2013 there will be no combat in afghanistan. obviously that would be ideal, but if we need to make sure we succeed as well so from the milestone primarily between advise-and-assist them by the end of 2014 hour combat troops are out and afghans are fully in charge and a purpose in many ways of discussion in chicago, being on the same page for that concept, the milestones, the transition at the end of 2014 in how we make sure we can see that in 2014. >> my guess is in chicago there is going to be a big push to try to do is secretary panetta was talking about and i think many of our nato partners in france, you are going to talk to them and i think they just see this,

that we have waited too long in terms of having an afghan lead. i've heard the europeans talking about this for eight years. they have talked about they should be afghan lead, the security should be afghan lead, and i think they are getting very impatient. i know that you all can't make a commitment publicly and say this is what we are going to discuss at the meeting in chicago, because that would eat a big headline. but i hope there is very serious discussion about this transition and how quickly we can do it and how we would make sure this is an afghan lead security operation. >> sorry to run over madam chair but i really appreciate it. >> thank you very much senator udall. in the interest of time because we have another panel, i think we should go ahead and move on

unless either senator udall or or -- unless you have further questions i'm going to move onto the second panel. >> i am ready for the second panel. thank you both. >> let me thank you both very much and have a good trip to paris. undersecretary gordon, and while we are transitioning the panel in and out, i will take a moment to introduce the second panel. senator kerry did that a little bit, but let me point out that each of the next three experts has extensive experience working throughout government and in the private sector on europe and nato issues and we are very pleased to have them join us today. first is dr. charles kupchan who is the whitney shepardson senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and a professor of international affairs in the walsh school of foreign service

and government at georgetown university. second is ian brzezinski who is a senior fellow in the international security program at the atlantic council and a member of the council strategic advisory group and he also leads the brzezinski group. finally his doctor on binnendijk who is currently the vice president for research at the national defense university and the theodore roosevelt share in national policy at the university. thank you all very much for being here. let me just point out at the statement that i'm going to submit for the record, and i ask dr. kupchan if you would like to begin? >> thank you very much madam chair. it is a privilege to have the opportunity to have a conversation with you today. i will summarize my testimony and would like to ask that it be submitted for the record. i think the upcoming summit in chicago represents a moment for

stock taking in the sense that we have been through two decades of post-cold war nato comment i think the alliance has fared much better than any of us had expected in the sense that most alliances disappear when the threat that gave worth to them disappears, but here we are in 2012 and not only is nato still in existence, but it has troops in kosovo and afghanistan and just fought a war in libya and has partnerships around the world so clearly the alliance is a growing concern. i also think that despite the thick and thin of transatlantic relations over the last 20 years, we can relatively confidently say that the united states and europe remain each other's best partners. and when the american president or european leader looks out of the world and says, who do i call when there is a problem out there? the answer is the person on the other side of the atlantic.

my judgment is that is not going to change anytime soon. that is partly because the infinity of interest and values but it's also because there aren't other options and even though there are and emerging countries out there, i think we still can count on our european allies and can rely on our european allies more than we can count on others. at the same time, i think it's clear that we are at the cusp of a major transition, and historic transition in the global landscape, in which the world that nato represents his losing the primacy that it has enjoyed for the last 200 years, and if you look at the share of global products represented by nato, and i would include japan in there because they are part of the western world since world war ii, we have gone from roughly 70% of global products to 50% and we are now headed towards 40%. that says to me that the big

security questions of the day are about how we are going to manage the transition. the big challenge is to american security moving forward are not in the atlantic community but out by the atlantic community. it's the consequences of an alliance to us and to our european allies but i think more to us through global power will be what is nato doing in this wider world? how is nato keeping the united states safe as the global distribution of power shifts in the years and decades ahead. and i would like to simply offer a few comments on that broad subject of nato in the wider world. first, i think it's important to keep in mind that nato represents the primary institutional infrastructure of the west. this kind of keeps us together as a meaningful political community. that is particularly important when some of the emerging powers