again, that's a message we have to carry forward as well. when you look at the 18% of the farm bill that truly affects farmers an ranchers, that's where the deficit reduction is coming from. so our producers are stepping up, and they're stepping up in a big way, not just to provide this country and much of the world with food, to do it as i say in the most cost effective with the highest quality food supply in the world, but they're also stepping up and in this package, they're the ones stepping up and providing the real deficit reduction. i want to particularly thank you and i see ranking member roberts is not here, but i will thank him in person as well. in the shallow loss provision it is very important that we include a farm level option. that is vital. i want to thank senator conrad and also senator baucus for their work on that option.

i want to thank you, and ranking member roberts for your work on that option. and making sure that we have both a county-level option election that somebody can make, and a farm-level election that a producer can make. and that they're both fair and they both work. because they both cover vital base, but that farm-level option has to be in there. you've been willing to work with us as has senator roberts. that's an absolute fundamental must in terms of providing the right kind of safety net coverage for our farmers and ranchers, and doing it in true -- truly a cost effective way. i'll mention also the livestock indemnity program, no cost sugar program and you mentioned energy. remember it is about food, fuel and fiber. i'm going to end on that note. u our farmers and ranchers are doing an amazing job for this country. producing jobs. producing a favorable balance in trade and once again providing the highest quality, lowest cost

food supply in the world. i look forward to working with everybody. it's vital that at the end here we recognize that perfect is the enemy of good. we have a good product. we need to make it the best product we can and then go get passed. >> that's a great place on which to recess. please vote and then we will come right back. thank you. tomorrow night on c-span, a

supreme court oral argument in the case arizona versus the united states. it addresses that state's immigration law and whether or not arizona has the authority to enforce it or whether it's the exclusive role of the federal government. see that oral argument friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. where's the national public radio table? you guys are still here. that's good. i couldn't remember where we landed on that. >> this weekend on c-span, the 98th an union white house correspondents dinner. president obama and late-night talk show host jimmy kimmel headline the event before an audience of celebrities, journalists, and the press corps. coverage starts live at 6:30. and watch the entire dinner only on c-span. you can also sync up your

experience online at c-span's dinner hub. find the guest list, highlights of past dinners, plus blog and social media posts at c-span.org/whcd. white house correspondents' dinner live saturday on c-span. born in a north korean work camp, it's the only world chin had ever known. he's also the only one to ever escape from camp 14. >> his first memory at the age of around four was going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot. and shootings, public executions in the camp were held every few weeks. and they were a way of punishing people who violated camp rules and of terrorizing the 20,000 to 40,000 people who lived in the camp to obey the rules.

from then on. >> sunday author blaine harden on shin's journey out of north korea. sunday at 8:00 on c-span q & a. and then the interview with robert caro. volume four in the years of lyndon johnson. his biography of the president. during his second day of testimony before a phone hacking panel, news corporation chairman and ceo rupert murdoch said the scandal at news of the world was a serious blot on his reputation. he answered questions on details into the phone hacking scandal at the tabloid paper and said he believed he had failed. mr. murdoch also talked about the future of the newspaper industry and the standards necessary for creating an ethical climate in newsrooms. this portion's an hour.

before we start, mr. davis i'm grateful for correcting one of the exhibits. >> i think it's two of the exhibits. 27 and 29. that's one of the points mr. murdoch was going to start off with. you remember yesterday we were talking about the headline which was labor lost it. which the son switched support to the conservative party. that was september 30th of 2009. i understand that you were in new york on that day. and therefore there could have been and was no meeting with mr. cameron on that day. >> that's correct. >> thank you. and so the exhibits have been revised now. may i be clear, mr. murdoch, on

one thing you said yesterday in relation to a conversation you had with mr. gordon brown which was either on the 30th of september 2009 or shortly after it. and you remember that conversation in your evidence about it. there has been, as it were, realtime commentary by mr. brown and he strongly denies there was any such conversation. he said the only conversation he had with you took place in relation to a letter he wrote to the mother of a soldier killed in afghanistan. can i take it in stages. do you remember a conversation with mr. brown over that matter? >> over? >> over that matter. namely the letter he wrote to the mother of a british soldier killed in afghanistan. >> i don't remember a

conversation with mr. brown about that. although at the time i think i spoke to the editor and i thought it was too hard on mr. brown. that he had taken the trouble to write to the mother, obviously in a hurry. his handwriting wasn't very good. but it seemed to be very cruel because he had taken the trouble. but i don't think i rang him personally to apologize or talk about it. i may have. but as for the other conversation which he's denied, i said that very carefully yesterday under oath and i stand by every word of it. and i would just point out you didn't touch on it yesterday but in the materials you put to me in questions. mr. mandelson or lord mandelson who was the most senior member

of the cabinet charged news international with having done a deal with cameron. and i think i pointed out in my answer as i do now on the record that lord mandelson in his book said he did this under order from mr. brown knowing to be false. that's in his autobiography. that he reluctantly went out and did what he was told. and i think that just reflects on mr. brown's state of mind at the time. >> according to a piece in the garden on the 12th of november 2009, the conversation i refer to between you and mr. brown relating to the story about the letter to the mother of the soldier killed in afghanistan had been reported in the

financial times. and it's not a huge point, mr. murdoch, but are you sure that that conversation didn't take place? >> no, i'm not sure. i certainly didn't defend it. i might have apologized for it, but i didn't defend it. i may have had thoughts at the time about it, but whether i spoke to mr. brown or anyone else about it, i don't know. >> fair enough. yesterday, mr. murdoch, i put to you various viewpoints of your editors from time to time evans viewpoint the charismatic authority, mrs. book's viewpoint in the first report. mr. neil's viewpoint in full disclosure.

there's one further perspective if i may. they may or may not all be consistent. this is mr. david yellend. he was editor of the sun in, i think, the late 1990s. >> yes. >> in an interview he gave to the evening standard in late 2010, there's this very small paragraph. did murdoch interfere in his editorship? his is mr. yellend's. his quote. all editors what they do is this. they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything rupert says. but you don't admit you're being influenced. most wake up in the morning switch on the radio, see something happened and think what would rupert think. it's like a prison. you look at the world through rupert's eyes. do you see the point, mr. murdoch, that all -- >> i understand what you're saying.

but i think it's nonsense and i think you should take it in the context of mr. yellend's very strange autobiography. he said he was drunk all the time which we didn't notice. >> when you said yesterday, mr. murdoch, if you want to judge my thinking look at the sun. the sun would only know your thinking either because you directly told them about it or because the editors went on the sort of thought process we see coming through mr. yellend's piece. would you not agree? >> nonsense. but certainly i don't bench from my responsibilities. and i certainly do take part in the policy decisions of the sun. i think that's my job. >> i'm not saying it isn't, mr.

murdoch. the point i was gently putting to you is that you said if you want to judge my thinking, look at the sun. >> look at the editorials in the sun. >> yes. there's only two ways that the editors could logically know your thinking. either because you tell them or because they work it out. do you agree? >> i wasn't talking about the editors. i think i was talking about the politicians. >> no. no, you were talking about -- the direct quote is page 36 of the transcript in the morning. lines 15 to 16. if you want to judge my thinking, look at the sun. that's what you said. >> yes. i don't say absolutely parallel in every detail. it's not. but generally speaking, the issues that we get interested in

that we fight for, you will find them in the sun and you will find that i agree with most of them if not all. >> just the -- >> there are details which i don't agree with only reasonably. >> just how they work out, what your thinking is. there's only two possibilities. either you tell them -- >> they sit and talk to me or i call them. i don't call and say do this or do that. you know. there are conversations pretty constantly. not daily. >> over time your editors will get to know you very well. because you're not shy about expressing opinions. >> with the sun, yes. or papers like the new york post in the next room. >> you look at the process as to what happens with your advisers

and confidants, the position is exactly the same. they can assess your thinking because they get to know you well and they talk to you about important issues, don't they? >> what do you mean by confidant? >> well, people like mr. steltzer or something like mr. gobe. we'll get to him in a moment. >> they might know my thinking, but they don't have to agree with it. we can have very vigorous discussions. have to agree that they were right and i was wrong. >> i'm sure your discussions were vigorous, mr. murdoch. >> thank you. >> again, can i -- >> not really, but i accept your impression. >> as regards to your relations with politicians, has it occurred to you that they might know what you want, what you are

thinking by exactly the same processes? either because you have discussions with them about your views or because they get to know you through time and work it out. >> i already -- look, i'm only in this country a lot less than 10% of my time except in this last immediate period. and -- yeah, i think they know my philosophy, yes. >> fair enough. may i ask you about mr. gobe. is he a politician who is close to you? >> no. i wish he was. he was -- i don't say that. to say that he worked with me,

had a very distinguished career. at the time i might have met him occasionally walking through the times. i think he and his wife who are distinguished journalists there came to dinner once in the last two to three years. then another occasion when mr. joe kline was with me. and he came because he was to do a conference with mr. gove on education. he was invited long before he joined me, when he was chancellor of the new york city school system. and there might have been another one. i like to get a few people around me of interest from different fields. not just politicians. but on education, i want to say very clearly if i can take this

opportunity. we are passionate about it. we believe that it's an absolute disgrace, the standard of public education here in america. in america, nearly 30% of children do not get through high school. they drop out three years early and are committed to the underclass forever. and there are being efforts in different states to try and tackle this, but it's very difficult. not for lack of money, but for lack of teacher cooperation. and i believe that there are a lot of issues here in sort of society and the way it's going and civilization is going. but from being in the first two or three or four recognized best

education systems in the world, britain and america have dropped into the mid-20s. and i believe this is a crime against the younger generation. and we want to do something about that. we keep, keep, keep hammering at it. so i'm sorry to divert from the inquiry. it's just an example of -- it's not for profit. it's not for us to sell papers of, but to try and get people involved in this issue. >> thank you, mr. murdoch. may i move on now to the bid please. in paragraph 33 of your witness statement clearly denies you had any discussion with mr. cameron or mr. osborn about the bid, is that right? >> yes. >> did you have any discussions

with mr. jeremy hunt about the bid? >> i don't believe i've ever met him, but i'm not sure we didn't attend a dinner once a couple years ago. no, i certainly didn't discuss it. >> you know that he was in new york between the 30th of august and the 4th of september 2009. did you meet with him on that occasion, mr. murdoch? >> i don't think so, no. why? why would i? >> according to the registered parliamentary interest, you met represents of news corps quote, to discuss local media ventures. did he meet with you? >> i don't think so. i have no memory of it. >> have you had any telephone discussions with him? >> never. >> has your son spoken to your about mr. hunt?

>> no. he told me when mr. cameron removed mr. cable's responsibilities to mr. hunt. but i don't believe he commented on it. we were shocked by both what mr. cables said and the unethical means in which that was deleted from the story in the telegraph. clearly writing a paper for their own commercial interests. >> when your son told you about the replacement of mr. -- sorry, it's dr. cable, did you tell you to this effect? we got someone better now. >> i don't think he used those words. we couldn't have had anyone

worse. >> i'm communicating to you the gist of an idea. surely you were concerned. look, we have dr. cable. he was dead against news international. >> we didn't know that. >> but you did on the 21st of december because it all came out. >> it came out on the bbc, yes. >> well b it must have passed through your mind. what's mr. hunt like? didn't you ask your son about that? >> i may have. i don't remember that. >> you must have done it, mustn't you? >> no. i mustn't have done anything. i explained to you yesterday i never saw anything wrong in what we were doing. that it was a commonplace transaction. a large one, but a common one. >> that wasn't the question. >> so why would i be worried about the politics of it? >> well, you were worried about the politics because dr. cable

demonstrated on your hypothesis there was an anti-murdoch dimension that had come out. >> well, we had seen all of our competitors in the newspaper very publicly. and no doubt public relations people to lobby against it and see if they could stop it. so it -- because i think the felt if we had had -- they said this very clearly. we would be a more formidable competitor to them. which is quite wrong. >> is it your evidence, mr. murdoch, that when mr. hunt replaced dr. cable, you were quite oblivious to whether mr. hunt would be on side or off side? >> no.

we just -- no on side or off side. we just probably get a fairer go. >> didn't your son explain to you that mr. hunt was very much on side. for example see what he put up on his website. his cheerleader for news international. >> i did not know that. >> you can't? >> no. >> and as the months wore on by which i mean the early part of 2011, you were presumably concerned by all the delay, weren't you? >> not intentionally, but i

don't remember my exact feelings then. no. this wasn't -- it was a big move by our company but i was more concerned in 2011 about the unfolding hacking scandal. >> well, we'll come to that, mr. murdoch. here we had a multi-billion pound bid. you were keen to remain. it wasn't happening. there was delay. you must have been concerned about that as a businessman, weren't you in. >> yes. we didn't have to have it. doing other things with the money now. >> well, it was something you wanted, isn't it? >> we did, indeed. we thought it was a good investment. >> did not your son give you in general terms a progress report as to how the bid was coming along? >> not even on a daily or weekly

basis, but yes. i don't remember it, but i have no doubt. >> and was it -- was it along these lines? here are the likely time scales. it's going well for us. it's not going so well for us. was it that sort of conversation? >> no. >> what was it? >> i don't remember any conversation, to be honest with you. but i'm assuming that he kept me up to date to some extent. you know, i delegated the situation to him. left it to him. and he had a lot on his plate. did not report perhaps as often, but we did talk, of course. >> you mentioned, mr. murdoch, there was a coalition ranged against you who had been lobbying dr. cable. were you aware you had your own lobbyists who were as it were on the other side lobbying

government? >> i know what date you're talking about, but no. it's only much more recently that i've learned of the extent of mr. michelle's, i think you call it lobbying. certainly his seeking of information and the progress of things. >> that's something you've only discovered recently when the 163 pages of e-mails were disclosed, is that right, mr. murdoch? >> i knew of mr. michelle's existence a few months before that. >> now, when you became acquainted, then, with these 163 pages, were you surprised by the extent of mr. michelle's activities?

>> i didn't see anything wrong with his activities. was i surprised? that it had gone on so long, there were so many e-mails? yes. >> was this your surprise only on this footing where it should have happened much sooner? namely we should have got the bid much sooner. >> i was just surprised at the success of the -- our competitors' lobbying. and of course they would never of succeeded if it hadn't coincided with the hacking scandal. >> were you not surprised by the success of mr. michelle's own

lobbying with mr. hunt's department? >> i don't think there was success. we were made to make very, very big concessions for reasons which i can't understand. >> were you not surprised by the degree of apparent closeness between mr. michelle and mr. hunt's office? >> no, and i don't want to say anything against mr. michelle. but i think there could have been a little bit of exaggeration there. >> maybe you weren't surprised, because you would or you might assume that mr. hunt's office would be on side in support of