meeting that he dates as taking place in 2007. he believed you called him and he did so after that. i linked that one up with paragraph 223 of your witness statement. they were led to the election and paragraph 31 at page 02413. the hiring process was completed in the phone conversation with mr. cameron, once i was on holiday and during that conversation, i believe he told me that background security check had been made about the clyde goodman case and that linked up to paragraph 227. if that all is correct, it was only during the second

correct? >> my recollection is that the assurances were in the face-to-face meeting. maybe there was a further specific question? i can't recall. if i remember the conversation and how important it was to seek the assurance, i remember getting the assurance. as i say, there seem to be differences, but they may well be compatible in the way i suggested. anyway, i'm certain i sought the assurances and i got them and that was the basis on which i employed them. >> paragraph 227 dates the assurance or linked it to the further conversation.

that was your recollection when the witness statement was prepared. >> that was at the face-to-face meeting. >> there may have been further conversations and if you go back to paragraph 30, he said the discussions are during the period towards the end of may and we had the conversations with mr. cameron. and it completes in a phone conversation. >> it wasn't -- there lots of different ways they campaign in communications. who are they manage something a lot of different potentials and they are all similar. slightly different roles he could have fulfilled.

we doting agree. the exact time skpig clear in my mind, i remember the importance of the interview. that's my recollection. >> when you accepted the assurances, did you assess any risk? >> what i assessed was this was clearly a controversial appointment. controversial for two reasons. one was that bad things that happened he was editor. he resigned. he left his last job after resigning. as i said in my evidence, i was giving him a second chance. the second reason it was controversy is this was a tabloid.

some people would say don't have a tabloid editor. it's a tough job dealing with the party. you need someone who has the skills and the knowledge and who can help you through what can be a storm. as i recognized, this was a controversial appointment and that comes back to him and me. he said whey said about 20-20 hindsight. in doing the job as director of the communications and director of communications in downing street, he did the job very effectively. there were not any complaints about how he conducted himself. he ran an effective team. he remained in a proper way.

you employed this person and did what happened. he did this job well and that's important po point out. >> could you be more he and the tabloid editors? >> it wasn't so much that. i think it was some people didn't approve of what tabloids do. it was more that. what tabloids do, they were in focus here. >> it was quite aggressive article sometimes. when george was here, the story about him.

he came out with the point i'm making. there were some people in the party who said we were going to have the tabloid editor. my view was that it was necessary to have someone tough and robust. i found in my dealings that he did his job very well and he was someone who had a good code of behavior and how he did his job. >> they are featured in that. some would say they are associated with the worst aspects of the ethics of the press. that was the risk you were taking. >> the risks are the ones i set

out and those were the ones i considered. >> on the first aspect, you were talking about the controversial aspects of this. he resigned in 2007. did you assess at all that there was a risk of the matter and go further than mr. goodman or not? he said that he resigned because he did not know. were given to the d.c. ms committee. and accepted by the press complaints commission that were given to a port in a perjury trial. they were undertakings that were strong enough for gordon brown to phone shortly after he

other people who tried to get to the bottom of so did the cps, the police and the committee and all of rest of it. >> we are not making a judgment. >> of course. >> i have to be able to put the pressure. there was no independent verification, was there? >> no, but as i say this issue had been investigated by others. it was not just that i had an undertaking, but others had an undertaking. if we look at the period as i'm

wasn't the do you feel he deserved a second chance? >> because i think i thought that he had done set the honorable thing. something bad happened in the newspaper. so i felt given the assurances it was legitimate to give him his second chance. >> is it your evidence that the news international background was irrelevant to his merits, as it were. his workers as an editor were all important and the most person going to be get at managing the press for the news international

for the daily mail or wherever. to the pressure that we were under and face in the election campaign. that was the key consideration. >> i'm sure that the most important considerations and the question was slightly more. is it your evidence that it was irrelevant. it was an act. >> it wasn't irrelevant. the contact and it is knowledge and his work, all of that mattered. after the news international. it will make it easier to win over the news of the world or whatever. that was not the calculation. the calculation was who is going to be good and tough enough to job and something he 231, you talk about 2020

hindsight. that you made an error of judgment in particular and clouded by the fact that they were close to the international and the recruitment was major to you? >> what i meant when i said that is if i knew then all the things hindsight. i will say again today, you don't make decisions with 20-20 hindsight. i set out the reasons why i made it. be held couldable for that decision. i don't try to run away, i try to explain why i made it. >> move forward in time to july 2009. >> just before you do, could i ask a question? you made a point about that he was responsible for a particular

headline using words you never uttered. just when there were -- you felt that concern that he was prepared to misrepresent a policy that you were concerned about. >> i think the news and comment, i suppose. the speech i made was quite a radical departure to say we needed to understand why young people can go off the rails and we need to recognize that it's not just you need tough punishment, but you need strong families and respect in your community and you need love and to talk about love in that context, some right wing commentators thought that's soft and that's nonsense. it's important for young people.

was it -- it was frustrating that he it come up with the headline that linked three words they hadn't used. can i put my hand on my heart and say it was unfair and wrong? that's what newspapers do. they make a point. they have a go. if you are worried about headlines, don't make speeches about love. that is what i would say. i wouldn't be writing any more headlines. they would be working for me. >> all right. >> july of 2009 now, we are moving forward to the guardian please. to paragraph 254. >> i think it's clear thaw are aware of who got the orl at the time. is that correct? >> i think so. i think i was probably more aware of this sports select committee that i referred to

with paragraph 257. that was obviously an event that was going to affect the running of my office and everything that was happening and i think that was the most relevant. the two were linked really. >> the gist of what the article contained was going to your attention one way or the other. >> i'm sure it was. i can't -- yes, i'm sure it was. >> what was your reaction at the time to that which was contained in the guardian article? >> throughout this process, the sort of test i said was, is there new information that shows that the undertakings i was given were wrong? and i didn't see evidence that the undertakings i was given were wrong. at this time andy went in front of the port and spoke and gave

the assurance all over again that said i never condoned the use of phone hacking or know of an incidence where phone hacking took place. >> you said in paragraph 257 that nevertheless in the light of these stories, i asked andy to repeat these. you must have been sufficiently concerned to do that? >> absolutely. >> he was also linked to the d.c. ms appearance. my memory is that he was going to make that a sheerns and i had a conversation about presumearily you will give the undertakings. that was the nature of the conversation as i recall it. >> there was an inkling of doubt in your mind at that stage or not? >> given the assurances that i was given and they repeated to the committee, and the select committee found there wasn't

evidence that he knew, i thought it was rightly carried on working for him. >> i'm not seeking to immune in any way the assurances, but you were reliant on his word and nothing much else, were you? >> i don't accept that. i was reliant on his word, but also on the fact that the pcc accepted his word. the select committee accepted his word and the police accepted his word and the crime prosecution accepted his word. this was not just me accepting an assurance and block out anything subsequent, but the whole series of institutions. >> if someone gives me evidence, i wouldn't have employed him and i didn't get that information and didn't take that step.

by me and therefore no instances should be drawn from that part of his evidence. by july 2009, he was imposed for at least two years and you felt that he was an effective >> not just that, but he had done the job not in an effective way, but as far as i can see done it in a way where he was trusted by the people who worked with him and done the job in a proper way. >> to be clear, the reputation of the assurance was sought in a call or another means? >> to the best of my recollection, it's very difficult to do this

specifically. it was because of the impenting committee hearing and i think the embarrassment that was, he me. >> i'm sure in that context, the mean was communication into your office and phone call and -- >> i don't recall. seeing every day, i don't remember the instance. >> it's likely to be a face-to-face meeting. >> likely. >> let's move on in time about nine months now. >> nine months is a sufficient break to allow us to have a break now. very good. >> all this week, the leveson inquiry heard politicians like prime minister david cameron.

he was the last to testify before that british panel examining the relationship between politicians and the media. mr. cameron defended his decision to hire a former news international editor as his communications director and offered future recommendations for the press. you can see his testimony don't at 8:00 eastern on c-span. on c-span 2, a campaign rally for president obama in cleveland. he talked about the u.s. economy and why he disagrees with the republican vision. ohio is considered a swing state with 18 electoral votes up for grabs. you can see the president's comments at 8:00 p.m. eastern. right here on c-span 3, a discussion on medicare payments to physicians. health insurance executives called the affordable care act necessary and said no matter what the supreme court decides, changes are already under way and unstoppable. the senate finance committee

held that and you can see it at 8:00 tonight here on c-span 3. . >> the story behind the star spangled banner and the invasion and burning of washington, d.c. on american history tv. mark the bicentennial of the start of the war of 1812, from ft. mchenry, the cite which francis scott key would see through the rocket's red glare. live saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also this weekend, more from our series on key political figure which is ran for president and lost, but changed political history. "the contenders," sunday at 7:30 p.m., this week with three-time democratic candidate for president, william jennings bri brian, american history tv. this weekend on c-span3. >> the house is not in session this week, but the senate's in as lawmakers continue to work out an agreement on amendments, the legislation dealing with farm subsidies, food stamps, and

conservation programs. the chamber is expected to be debating that five-year bill, at least through next week. the current farm bill expires at the end of september. the senate's also facing a july 1st deadline on several other pieces of legislation. we spoke with a capitol hill reporter to learn more about where those bills currently stand. >> congress is facing a june 30th expiration for two bills that are eyeing the same budget offsets to pay for them. national journal correspondent, fawn johnson, what's going on? >> well, what's going on is that there's a countdown to a couple of different things in the middle of the summer that lawmakers are trying to figure out how to pay for. one of them is the federal highway authority, which has been under endless numbers of extensions for several years. is going to expire on june 30th. and the lawmakers will, at the very least, need to come up with a short-term extension, in order

to keep the money flowing into the high-rate trust fund. the other issue that's coming up in the middle of the summer is that there are subsidized student loan interest rates are set to double on july 1st if congress doesn't act, and that was something that was set in place about five years ago, as part of a higher education financing act. but lawmakers are saying now with this economy that they really don't want to see that interest rate double. so they're trying to come up with a way to pay for a new highway bill that would allow federal authority for the highway trust fund to continue for at least a year, maybe a little bit longer, and to keep those interest rates from going up. and they are proposing a couple of different pension solutions that could wind up competing for one another in terms of how they pay for it. so there's a couple of different things that senate majority leader harry reid has put out in terms of accounting for how certain pensions are accounted for in an employer's standpoint,

and also the premiums they would pay to the pension guarantee corporation. some republicans think that these offsets would work just fine, but they would not cover both bills. >> you mentioned senate majority leader harry reid. how have lawmakers in the house, namely house speaker john boehner, reacted to his latest proposal that would freeze student loan interest rates for a year. >> they are unwilling to look at it until they see that the senate could actually pass a bill. this has been an ongoing back and forth between the house and the senate, on both the student loan issue and the highway bill issue, for several months now. the house has actually passed a bill to freeze the subsidized student loan interest rates for one year, using actually a federal health prevention fund that was part of obama's health plan, as the offset for it. since they have passed that, they feel no need to act until they see the senate passing something. and it's unclear whether the senate actually will, so they're

basically not even paying attention to it. >> what's the status of talks in the conference committee on renewing those surface transportation programs? >> the top three, the chairman and chairwoman of the transportation committees in the house and the senate have been exchanging paper back and forth for several weeks. they say they're working very hard. the problem is that they have not even touched some of the top-line controversial issues that have been driving transportation debate for months. that would be the keystone pipeline and also how you would pay for the roughly $9 billion or $12 billion that you might need to bridge the gap between what would be collected from gas taxes and what you would need to keep funding the highways at the same level. those two issues have yet to be resolved. they are supposed to be resolved by the house and senate leaders, not the conferrees, so while the talkings are ongoing, they seem to be friendly, from what i understand. it's hard to know how they're

actually going to resolve the highway issue. i predict an extension. >> ultimately, which issue will be the one that will claim those offsets we've been talking about? >> well, based on the comments from house speaker john boehner and from majority leader harry reid, i would place my bets on the student loan issue, in part because it is much simpler than highway legislation and they can extend the highway program without too much difficulty. president obama and the presumptive republican nominee, mitt romney, have both said they want to keep the student loan interest rate low. it's very important to both of them. so politically, it would seem that the student loan issue would probably win out if you had to pick. i think that some -- you know, harry reid, particularly, is trying to say that he doesn't want to have to pick. he would actually have to pay for both of them. but it's not clear to me that the republicans are going to follow through. >> national journal correspondent, fawn johnson, thank you. kenya, indonesia, hawaii,

kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend on book tv. follow david maraniss on his journey walking in a president's foot steps, for "barack obama: the story," starting at sunday, 7:00 p.m. eastern, and then live at 7:30, david takes your calls and questions. also this week on "afterwards," jonah goldberg blames liberals. >> american politics has been distorted for the last century or so by this idea that the further you move away from the left, the closer you get to bad things. and one of the words we use for bad things is fascist, another one is racist, another one is homophobic, another one is sexist. so in some ways, the best definition is a conservative who's winning an argument. >> that's on sunday night at 9:00 on book tv, this weekend on c-span2. this week, secretary of state hillary clinton spoke about the ongoing situation in

syria. >> we have confronted the russians about stopping their continued arms shipments to syria. they have from time to time said that we shouldn't worry, everything they're shipping is unrelated to their actions internally. that's patently untrue and we are concerned about the latest information we have that there are attack helicopters on the way from russia to syria, which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically. >> watch the rest of the discussion on the arab/israeli peace process online at the c-span video library. now a hearing on energy policy and the u.s. tax code. senate finance committee chairman max baucus has laid groundwork for a tax reform plan with a goal to raise more revenue to help lower the federal deficit. this is two hours.

>> everybody come to order. the writer hunter thompson once wrote, anything worth doing is worth doing right. i couldn't agree more. our country is in a pivotal moment in energy policy. it's important that we do it right. there have never been so many worthy energy options. they're worth doing and they're worth doing right. thankfully, we're already making progress to diversify in our energy portfolio. we have an opportunity through tax reform to drive that progress further. when i first ran for congress, america was reeling from an oil embargo. gas prices had doubled. one point in early 1974, 20% of

american gas stations had no fuel at all. it's clear that we can never again allow america to become so dependent on a single source of energy. since then, we have boosted a more diverse, efficient, and productive energy policy. advances in technology mean more domestic oil and natural gas are available than ever before. we also have more renewable, clean energy sources, but we can do more. we are still, i think, too reliant on fossil-based energy sources. 94% of the energy used in the transportation sector comes from oil. only 10% of our electricity consumption is generated from renewable or clean energy resources. our country needs a diverse energy sector, like we have in my home state of montana. i'll just brag a little bit. we are an energy state. we are one of a dozen states that produce more energy than with we consume.