legal counsel that the case would be lost and description of why it would be lost with respect to the linkage of these voice mail -- it was clear there was a losing case in the cards. there was an amount of money that was said stanton of. i was assured within a range, this is where it would settle at, and within that range, i authorized these people, mr. crone mr. myler, to negotiate that. the way the company has operated is rely on executives directly responsible for a unit of the business, paper, etc., to go and do the things that they needed to do they would be questioned from time to time and come to senior management with issues. . . sufficient information and asked the question, is there a legal

counsel opinion? what do they say? they say it's within this range, it's reasonable that it was a reasonable decision to take to settle that case, to agree with their advice. and take no further action because no other evidence or none of these other issues we have discussed today came to light during that conversation or at that meeting spent but what source of level with the settlement would have been or the advice of the council have to been for you to want to say let me have a look at that? we trust our executives to make decisions and go, maybe a few chunky questions here and there. if that's the case why was tom crone only had a 10,000-pound limit. he just might happen to say settle up to half a million pounds, and it doesn't strike me

as -- [inaudible] we will get a new authority to settle only to 10,000. doesn't make sense. it's a mismatch. this strict 10,000-pound authorization that tom crone has spent mister davies, there's a contrast here between controls and financial controls to make sure things are hopefully recorded properly, authorize probably and so on and so forth. and if they're not there dealt with in the right way. following the recommendation of experience council. this is a strong recommendation of very experienced number of years, some 20 plus years as counsel, the editor a new editor who had come in, a fresh look at all these issues i had assumed, and they made a very, very strong recommendation. and i followed it. and i think given, there ae two pieces here, if i can try to be

helpful. one is the question, decision whether or not to settle or to increase the authority within a range as i recall 500,000 to a million pounds, and all in cost, so and so forth. and then the decision with respect, or the lack of a decision to say are there other things a we should be looking at. and again, sufficient information was given to authorize reasonably them to negotiate within a range, the increase of the summit offers they had already made, but nothing more and nothing to indicate any other action. there are two sets of things to consider there. >> what parts of that was the confidentiality ? >> as i testify to you in july, at the meeting of june 10 in 2008, confidentiality as a cost item, if you will, was not discussed and it wasn't my absent at the time confidential

i was something that was a line item come if you will, that would increase the cost, so and so forth. it was entirely customarily for certain settlement agreements of this nature to be confidential. it's normal practice in many business passionate many, many businesses, if not all, when faced with certain legal things. as i wrote to you in august, it later became clear to me after my testimony to you in documents at had not been, that i had not been privy to conversations that i wasnot a part of the indie confidentiality was discussed at cost in that settlement. and i wrote to you in august to clarify at that point. i hope that's helpful. [inaudible] do you come have you aa result of this, do you now look at things differently? do you deal with things diffently? do have a more hands-on approach with the way you do with things in your company? can you not see that actually this really is pretty lax for

someone in your position? >> it is a huge focus to the business, and has been for the last year, to get to the bottom of this issue definitely, to cooperate with the police with respect to their criminal investigations and this committee as well as judicial inquiry, and to the press, politicians, police, that is underway. and and i think crucially as well to learn the lessons from these episodes, to say first of all, how c we improve on the ground government of operating companies around the world, including news international? how can we improve transparency with the senior management on a global or regional basis and operating companies in various territories. and we take a number of measures to do that. you ask how. for several at news international, all the operating companies i have a 34 we've instituted a more formal review

process. will put an intel board in place. appointed a chief compliance officer full-time round those things. i meet with outside executives of news international order meet with the board. we've had one meeting already with the substantive agenda around these things. the goal is to go through in great detl both legal matters that are facing the company, going an reputation risks, governance risk, compliance and so on. just in the last week we have instituted, for example, out of one of these in indy we trained over i think 1000 staff, we trained with respect to compliance and risk. these are things i take very strictly. it's something i have throughout my entire career, clearly the transparency that was achieved around this set of issues wasn't good enough, and something i

determined to sort out into something we would very, very strongly in. >> just one question i've got regarding mr. davey's line of questioning. your first meeting, they come to you to ask for authorization to increase what they're offering the doing of what they're offering before they came into the meeting? >> i now know the previous offer they made was 350,000 pounds. but i don't recall the exact amount they discuss with me at the time, that i would imagine they would. >> this is your first substantive meeting with people having alone opposition. did you even ask them who gave you authority to authorize 350 or whatever? >> again i don't recall him mentioning the 350. now i know that was an offer

made the week before i was abro. i didn't have that discussion with him at the time. i was more focused on what the total amount would be that this would seldom given the strong advice that the case would be lost. and that was what was focused on spent. [inaudible] >> their authority level did not come up during the conversation. >> would any of the people involved in that chain of operations, john chapman to your knowledge to? to my knowledge, the authorization process wathat there was about, mr. crone was authorized to make a 10,000 pounds legal some of the mr. myler would've been 50,000 pounds, and other members of the executive committee, the chief operating officer, chief financial officer would've been authorized i believe up to 500,000 pounds. >> did they go through any of those? >> i can find no record of those authorizations being sought or given. and we have looked and tried to

find out exactly how that escalation occurred during that riod. irit as far as you are what it really was tom crone and mr. myler show? >> i think very much in te documents given to you, you know, we're very much driving the agenda around the litigation but i think that's also what mr. chapman testified to as well spent i will come to mr. crone and mr. meyerle, but the matter of tom crone, wrote to -- on a saturday which was a very busy day for "news of the world." the following tuesday where he is clearly expecting colin myler to the meaning within, which he said he can't be advocacy group are in for a holiday. when did you first see that name of? >> i didn't see that memo at the time. i first saw that memo recently since i gave evidence to you in july spent so that was aprivate note from tom crone to colin

myler, and was not copied to? >> it was not shared with the. >> would you agree, the fact that you can't recall having a meeting, or discssion, certainly colin myler can't recall having a meeting that tom crone expect to happen, writing pretty serious memo, the question as to how thee two deal with each other and whether they fall in frank with what they're up to? >> i mean, i couldn't possibly spike lee about all the conversation they might have had with each other but i just don't know. [inaudible] people have occasionally refresh their memories, and colin myler has told he has been unable to verify details of the discussion th m or may not have aken place because news of the international have refused them access to the relevant documents, presuming relevant document exist.

would you let mr. myler refresh his memory, you would give them access to any guidance he needs surrounding that meeting or otherwise? >> i can tell you that mr., you know, as a matter of, if there's an occasion to review policy around former employees, access to systems, week in review that and i can get back to you on the. i can say that i had gone and looked for records around my own diary with respect to conversations during that period, and i'm happy to provide my calendar to you. there's no record of a conversation or meeting on the 27th of may with mr. myler or with anyone else on this matter. and i can provide you with that. those calendar events all the way through. [inaudible] wouldn't you agree with that?

>> i think the company around all of these issues can the independent committee for that matter, if there's an occasion to revisit those, certainly i will meet with them. >> in the spirit of trsparency? >> very much so. and i'm happy to provide you with my own calendar and notes about the entire period. >> because a peculiar meeting come or not needing? >> i don't think anyone is suggesting it's a meeting. mr. pike recorded know that mr. myler told him of the conversation, so secondhand note of the conversation that neither mrmyler nor i recall, neither of us rule out the possibility of a brief conversation on that day, a telephone call or what have you, but it certainly would have been a transeventy because otherwise one of us would have recalled. >> just the way people argue with each other, you're very clear, you talkedo go and settle, where as the notes made

by julian pike with his conversation of tom crone, quite clear he said he went to think the options and that's not the case. that again raises the question about what these people are telling each other, whether they are being honest with each other if you are telling us the truth spent by the mr. crone and mr. myler both testified to this committee, certainly mr. crone did, that he left that meeting with the understanding that they had the authority to go and settle. the authority they were seeking to increase their offer was something they left that meeting with. i don't know what the note from mr. pike is referring to, whether not mr. crone are mr. pike or somebody had to be gone but i just don't know. >> can i just got back a bit about your position, your responsibilities. you took over when -- was. [inaudible] moved over to "thewall street journal." and you were running a international operations for

europe and asia at news corp. where you effectively executive chairman of news international? >> i was chairman of his international when he moved to new york to dow jones. and did spend time on the business. and relied on senior manager put in place for some time. it was always the case that the company would appoint full-time ceo to replace mr. hinton. and it took about 18 months to get to that point. that was rebekah brooks? >> yes spent in september 2009? >> yes, although effectively i think was announced in the summer of 2000 and she started to play a much bigger role. >> so you were -- >> i think formerly the chairm chairman. >> not executive chairman? >> i don't recall. i may been the executive

chairman. >> who was the de facto chief executive of news international before running the show before rebecca was appointed? >> we had an executive group, chief financial officer and then, and i involve the editors more transparency. >> so you were an executive chairman? >> yes. i might have been but effective -- >> can i just come in this meeting on the 10th of june, the e-mail in its wid significance was not mentioned the fact that involve "news of the world." when you had this meeting did you ascolin myler, you know who taylor was?

>> pardon me? >> did you? >> did you know who gordon taylor was? >> i don't recall if i knew he'd he was beforehand, but mr. myler would have told me spirit did you ask any meeting who the hell is this gordon taylor? >> i don't recall if i asked. i recall being aware of it at the time. what it was prior or maybe where any meaning wh m. taylor was i don't recall spent do you know what he did for a living? >> i was told. as i just said to you to be clear, i don't know if i had a lot of knowledge about mr. taylor's role. >> the one thing that really, that really showed us and i think any 10 year old that the "news of the world" line did not stand up with the fact according to was not a member of the royal family or the royal household. so did you not say well he is not royal? >> i think the point here is not so much whether or not i was told gordon taylor was, but really what, you know, when i

came t news corporation in 2007, what didn't happen was, i did not receive a briefing on all the matters in 2006, december 2007 i was ware that the editor had resigned over these things, taepodong to jail, one of them was a reporter. thdetails involving the royal family, that was the royal reporter, those things were not brought to my attention spent you were authorizing a settlement, substantially above sort of damages what you see as they were talking about. and you are not even curious -- [inaudible] how can he pakistan's own? -- hack this man's phone? >> the original prosecution and that would not in terms of his being the royal reporter and it

was a voicemail interception involving the royal family were not of my mind at the time. i was given a set of information that this was a case, it was an old matter, there was a question of, it was the same person convicted before and so one who'd been working with the "news of the world" with mr. goodman, but mr. goodlatte i don't live was discussed at the meeting. and that there was a piece of evidence that would ensure that the company would lose the case because indeed the interception in question was only half of the company. that was information i was given spirit did not occur to you, did you ask? >> i don't believe so. i think it was known at the time that this was a voicemail interception that had already been prosecuted by the police and that the police had said there isn't anything more here. they shut their investigation

and successfully prosecute the individualsconcerned. >> i have a growly australian accent rattling around in my head at the moment that would take how much more is this person going to cost me question to you think your dad might've asked more questions than you asked for? >> i couldn't begin to speculate. >> and you didn't come it didn't occur to you to sort of ask whether glenn mulcaire -- >> no, it was specifically said to me that he was doingthis on behalf of the "news of the world" with respect to this. and that was the reevant, the evidence that was described to me. >> it's remarkably curiou are you so curious with all the other businesses you run at news corp.? >> i think its important to be clear here is that the question, the questions were asked with respect is there evidence, what is the evidence about, is the case going to be lost?

iwas told the council provide acting within a range that somewhat recommendations were made. it was not as if there wasn't a conversation. it was not certainly a long conversation. in my view it was a settled matter. i was given very, very strong recommendation by senior and experienced legal counsel, and the editor of the "news ofhe world." i think, unicom had been ith the business for some time. and in industry for something. i had no reason to believe, nor was i provide any reason to believe that anything further was a foot in spent entrance of the opinion, either dn't occur or clearly didn't seem relevant to you even ask for a copy? >> i interested at the time and he was described to me at the time deleting couel's opinion was with respect to damages. i was given an answer about the range of damages and what it would take to question with respect to what mr. taylor's requirements were, in terms of what you might want to settle

for an have to do that. that was the discussion that was had and it was deemed sufficient. >> we do not at all curious whether they said anything else? >> singh as a told the qc had been passed on damages and it was described to me with a range of damages there were, it didn't, it didn't occur to me to probe furtr. >> so you didn't even ask how long is this aqc's opinion, if 's a cute -- a few pages long? >> it was described to me that the opinion was made that it was with respect to damages and that there wasn't other things that but it didn't seem necessary for me to ask for a copy of it nor was a forthcoming. >> do you know how widely the qc opinion was to get a to get a? >> i did not know. >> do you know what it was a good are asked by rebekah brooks? >> i do not know. >> the e-mail was published of

far, far earlier than our report in february 2010, published to shortly after the 14th of july, 2009, when it was disclosed to us. >> if it was in the newspaper allegation in 2009. >> it was given to this committee by nick davis, the journalist. >> do you recall when the guarding produce that story and then a week later they came, the documents were published following our session, do you remember where you are? >> when a newspaper allegation was made i was in the united states. i was in idaho at a business conference. >> where you've been at the time based in london? >> yes, and i return to the u.k. the following week. >> did you ask for anything? >> my reaction was to understand whether or not it was true,that there were further allegations.

and i asked, i received a telephone call from the u.k. i received a copy of the article and the allegations made, was asked is this true. went back to the news of the will to say, because they been, mr. koh and mr. myler had answered the settlement that the answer came back very strongly that investigations have been made, inquiries have been made, previous investigations have been made and are, had uncovered no new evidence at all. the same surances that you received in 2090 and, indeed, it was only well before i return to london, was only 24 hours after the allegations in december 2002009 emerged that the metropolitan police issued a statement saying that there was no new evidence and this was a matter of very serious investigation by a series of detectives and is nothing new to investigate.

>> so when the story was published, but, you know, was published, you didn't even think about saying well, i'd better have a look at this, these transcripts that were mentioned to me previously? i'd like to have a look at the qc's opinion? >> the transcripts themselves a? >> the e-mail. >> as you said, there wasn't much in the. i think there was, a facsimile of our something like that. sort of a redacted one piece. >> even in the middle of 2009, the executive chairman of news international, you are possibly the only person in london who still thinks that there's one rogue reporter an one private detective? >> as you are aware, mr. fairley, within 24 hours, the police issued a statement, and recall that the e-mail came from the police in the civil trial disclosure process, so the

issued a statement saying there was no new evidence. >> bodmin spent but they said that the police had for longer than that because it had come from them. that there was no new evidence, that there was nothing new to investigate. secondly, the executives responsible were very, very clear that thorough investigation had been done, and the company as i said earlier on in state testimony, the company relied for too long on assurances about thoroughness and scope and completeness of those investigations, as was the assurances of the police. >> let's move back to news international and reaction to some of these events. and july 2009 you said too quick and too aggressive in defense and when they talk about a thorough investigation, didn't happen because their investigation didn't even, honor

the qc's opinion, which is pretty damned. cleanup you take responsibility as executive chairman for that failing. spent i think as i said, the company come and they do share responsibility as an executive, senior executive in the company, relied for too long on very strong assurances from both internally insidethe company around the quality, scope and authority of investigate have been made on an ongoing basis as was the 2006 in 2007, and also on the assurances from outside the company from the police who presume that more information and for the last word if you will on the investigations that they carried out and successfully led to successful prosecutn in 2006. and i have said that the company relied on those things to like and i have said i'm sorry for the. it's sometng that we're determined in how we operate a

business going forward that we make sure these things don't happen again. >> -- [inaudible] pretty much repeated news international statements and said there was no evidence that "news of the wor" instructed third parties or others to access voicemails of individuals. you except now that colin myler, the editor, produced that editorial and the lead manager, tom crone believed that statement in the per to be false? >> what i do know now is that in 2008 they had access to the leading counsel's opinion and other things. what conclusions they drew from that, and there are other things, is a matter that would be speculation if i got into that. and i think you have spent a lot of time with mr. myler and mr. crone, and i think also a matter for this committee. >> similar statements were made

about our committee report in 2010. could i just very, very qickly deal with mr. crone and mr. myler who have taken issue with you, clearly mr. pike has already told us he knew that people from news were not telling principally mr. myler and mr. crone as soon as they open their mouth. can't i just add something else into the mix here? as far as what mr. crone and mr. myler told us. originally, mr. crone told us as far as nevillehurlbeck. i questioned neville thurlbeck then and i questioned the same subject at his position is he is never seen the e-mail nor had any knowledge of it. ..

how do you think that reflects on mr. crone's reiblity as a wid? >> i think that's, with respect, i think that's a question for this committee to judge the evidence given to it. i have been very clear that i believe that this committee was given evidence by executives either without full possession of the facts or that was not as complete as it should have been and i'm sorry for that. that was not good and i'm determined to make sure it cuzz -- doesn't happen again. the only thing i am -- i can

speak to with respect to -- respect to the evidence and the assertions that mr. crone and mr. mile -- myler said without my knowledge were wrong. >> yes, mr. crone said the first time he een more cat goeric. again, how does that reflect >> could you repeat that >> yes, he came back to the committee to say of the settlement authorization for the first time you, he, that's you, realized "news of the world" was involved and that it involved people beyond clive goodlatte and on that basis he authorized the settlement. >> there's a lot of supposition and might have known and should have known. what never happened was mr. crone and mr. myler showing me

the relevant evidence, explaining to me the evidence and explaining why it was relevant. that simply did not happen and people can suppose that i might have understood, but at the end of the day mr. -- those things were not provided to me and as i said earlier i was a given sufficient information and only sufficient information to increase the size of the settlement they were seeking, who were already eager to achieve a settlement even before it came across my desk and nothing more. >> just to be absolutely clear, mr. mr. crone and mr. myler are telling the truth, you're not telling the truth. if you're telling the truth, they're not telling the truth. >> it's quite interesting. there is a lot of supposition in it. "i would have known," those

sort of things. what they never did was clearly tell you that they showed me those emails or showed me and discussed with me the real significance of the queen's council opinion. it was a very confusion and muddled session, to be honest with you. but it's for this committee to decide the quality of the evidence and the testimony it's receiving, not for me to predudge have. -- that -- prejudge that. >> my final question is given all the evidence that was clearly there within "news of the world," given the cost of all this and the closure of the "news of the world," the loss of the mergern -- merger and all this, do you think you have handled this competent sfli >> i've spent -- competently? >> i've spent quite a bit of

time reflecting on my own behavior and the company's decisions generally in this matter. for the time for which i had direct responsibility, had, as you put it, executive chairman, might have been in title, we don't focus that much on titles but for that time 2008 leading up to the middle of 2009 i think with respect to the settlement for example i think i behaved reasonably given the information that i had. i do think the company and i share in the responsibility for this and i'm sorry for it, the company took too long to come to grips with these issues, with understanding what had been done and what had been -- not been done in 2006 and 2007 with regard to the investigations, and i think part of sharing that responsibility and part of

taking responsibility is also making sure that those things don't happen again. and making sure of that, the quality of the business that we see and that i see with my colleagues everywhere around the world with my colleagues from hong kong to milan to munich, new york and california just to name a few, a huge and great organization that clearly in this instance has failed to come to grips with something important. part of taking responsibility is making sure to sort that out. >> yes or no, do you think this whole saga and your evident lack of curiosity in failing to ask questions that were screaming to be asked shows you to be incompetent in yes or no? >> no, i don't think it shows me to be incompetent. and i don't think, for the record, that i would characterize it the way you just did. >> i apologize in advance but i'm going to have to leave the

committee immediately after our lft question because i have children with their made and toif pick them up. >> yes. >> when your father testified in july he promised to undertake an investigation to ensure that this could never happen again. how is that coming? >> there are a number of activities underway. some of them discreet to -- discreet to different regions to the news businesses in australia, for example, have undergone a review of editorial practices. as you know, i think and as we've informed this committee in the u.k., the company set up an independent standards committee reporting to the board and that will review all the titles proactively, not just the news of the world. this is underway and i hope tp

concludes early early in the new year, although it's something being handled separately to the business. as a mentioned earlier, we're take -- making the changes we think that will hopefully ensure greater transparency around things if they do go wrong and also ensure the disciplines and really the prioritization of some of the matters around transparency up and down the chain of the business. so i feel they're coming along well. i don't have perfect knowledge of the management and standards committee's independent review, nor should i as an executive involved in this part of the business. i think one of the real lessons learned here as well is to avoid alieuing -- allowing, not to be too pat, but to allowing the news room to investigate itself and the lack of having

independent eyes and a stronger, month proactive corpse -- corporate presence when things are raised an -- or an alarm goes off. i think it's one of the key lessons we've learned. >> thank you. in advance of the australian government's inquiry over there, is the resignation of john hartigan yesterday as head of your australian arm yesterday so -- to your knowledge related to phone hack something >> no, i'm not related in the australian part of the business, but i would think certainly not. >> to your knowledge how many other international papers have been hacking either phones or newspapers, other than news of the world? >> the management and standards committee investigation is underway and i really don't want to prejudge the outcome of that investigation. it's an important investigation and if this is evidence, there willing matters of criminal investigations as well.

as you know, a journalist at the "sun" was arrested recently, which is a matter of great concern, but i also think it shows how seriously we're taking these issues and that the company is moving determinedly to provide whatever information there is to the police in those instances. but on that matter that is a matter of a criminal investigation and i shouldn't talk too much motch -- more about it. i might ask if it'd be in order for you not to say which journalist, but which paper if news international, to your knowledge, has been involved this -- because that wouldn't prejudice -- >> at this point, i have no knowledge of any of the other papers being involved in the hacking of phones, but i don't want to ejudge the management and standards committee's work, nor have i seen all the work their doing. >> okay. i asked you if youere aware of

the allegations that phone hacking had been hacked on american soil, and you said you were not aware of any such allegations. since that time mr. martin lewis, the hour for the victims, has told us he isepresenting victims who were hacked by news international journalists on american soil. what do you know of that matter today? >> um, i know that it's a matter of activity for the management and standards committee, they are looking into that and cooperating with the police here and the investigations that are ongoing as well as with any matters in any other jurisdiction with respt to activities at the u.k. newspapersbut i have no knowledge of the veracity or substantiveness of those allegations. >> so you still have no knowledge, you stand by your earlier testimony also that you have no knowledge that 9/11 victims or their families were hacked by news corporation? >> that's correct, and i think a loot of investigation and work has been done on that summit,

and so far there's nothing to say that confirms it, as i understand it. >> so far you we coming up empty. it would seem that, at best, mr. tom crohn misled this committee in his most recent evidence. in answering questions from my colleague, tom watson, the exchange went as followed: mr. watson, did you arrange for the phone hacking victims to be monitored by -- >> mr. crone, no. mr. watson, have you ever received a commissioned report from civil case lawyershat involved private information? mr. crone, let me just think about that last question. i may haveitigation, certainly not in the last few years, but a long time ago maybe i might well have used, i probably did, in fact, use private investigators. is itot, in fact, the case, though, that many crone

instructed news international's solicitors as recently as may 2010 to look into the personal relationship that may or may not have existed between mr. lewis and the lawyer, charlotte harris, also representing victims of phone hacking? >> i can say that, um, mr.crone and another news of the world employee at the time did engage certain private investigators. the details around it i'm not sure as y describe it, but to surveil plaintiffs' lawyers, and i want to say for the record it is appalling, it is something i would never condone, and the company should never condone, and it's just unacceptable. >> when did you discover the lawyers of plaintiffs had been put under surveillance? >> very recently. the last few weeks. and i think it's important to say that was absolutely not a corporate activity that was condoned, and it's absolutely not appropriate, and mr. crone

and the other person did not do that with any authority or knowledge by me, and i would never con tone that behavior. >> does your internal review of the record suggest that mr. crone authorized that surveillance on victims' lawyers? >> there was surveillance that was done by mr. crone and another executive at "news of the world," and which private investigator and what bits between them i don't know, but they were involved in that. >> are you aware that mr. lewis' family was trailed by private investigators including his 14-year-old dahter, and would you agree with me that that is completely dispick bl and h absolutely no place in the practices of -- >> i totally agree with you. if it's the case, as i just said, the whole affair is just not acceptable. >> are you aware that private investigators investigated my colleague, tom watson, and other members of this standing

committee and the predeaccesser standing committee during the time they were makg their investigations into your company? >> i am aware of the case of surveilling mr. wattton, and under the circumstances i apologize unreservedly for that. it's not something i had knowledge of, and it's not something i think that has a place in the way we operate. i think it's important to note that certain surveillance of prominent figures in investigative journalism is acceptable, but in this case it's absolutely not acceptable, you have my apology on behalf of the company even though it is something i didn't condone, wouldn't condone and don't agree with. >> i'm sure mr. watson will have some follow-up questions on that later. but can i put it to you, mr. murdoch, that it seems every

month if one is following the hacking scandal here in the united kingdom, there's revelations about unethical behavior from news international executives, the latest being the scandalous revelation of surveillance on the lawyers of victims, on the families of lawyers of victims and on members of the select committee investigating the company. you've spoken repeatedly here today and made reference to the review of practices in news international about the need to clean up your act, how proactive the company is trying to be. would you agree that it would be better for news corporation to get out in the ope every unethical practice that is yet to come to light and, therefore, avoid the drip, drip, drip of incredibly damaging revelations which seem to come out week after week, month after month in relaon to this scandal? >> i think, um, i hi it's important to note that much of the disclosure around, um, these activities around police payments, around phone hacking,

um, really stard to come out as we came to grips with this, and much of the disclosure has actually been disclosurey news corporation and news internatnal first of all with respect to the initial disclosure around a journalist who's since been arrested in january of this year that led to the restarting of the police investigation into the news of the world and into the phone hacking pieces with the disclosure of sufficient evidence that we thought e police should open an investigation into police payments as well. that was something that was there that we didn't know about previously, and when it came to light, we acted very, very quickly. and i think since the end of 2010 the company as it has found things out and discovered the extent of what has been isn'ted of happening -- is suspected of happening, we've sought to be as transparent as a company can be. and, certainly, that is the

posture of the business, of the executives of the business, of the management and standards committee and at the board level of news corporation that to the extent that we can be as transparent in as timely a way as possible as to any behavior that is unacceptable, um, or illegal, that, um, we are seeking to deal with it. and we're dealing with that with full cooperation with the police investigations that are ongoing and with being as transparent as we can given that there are criminal investigations ongoing and judicial inquiry with any other inquiries that come through. >> so just to be completely clear, obviously, you will need to clear all this with the police so that you don't prejudice ongoing criminal investigations, but with those matters which the police allow you to release, as the leader of thcompany, mr. murdoch, will you guarantee to this committee that you will publicize every nefarious practice that has

haened in your company and allow it to be exposed in other media outlets? will you not come forward and admit wrongdoinghere you have evidence of it and where such a mission would not prejudice the police investigation? >> i think, first of all, i just want to be very, very clear about the corporate governance structure we'vset up recently around these matters, that the disclosure of information both alongside with the police, to the police is something that is a matter of utmost importance to the management and standards committee, and the independent management and standards committee is responsible for the information and disclosure around, um, judicial inquire ris, new press practices, so on and so forth. it's my responsibility to be as transparent as possible which is why we asked in april of this year when the company admitted responsibility to wider spread phone hacking set up compensation funds, apologized

unreservedly to victims of those voicemail interceptions. we've asked repeedly for information to come forward that can help us get to the bottom of this to underscore the issue and move forward in a way that is as transparticipant and appropriat as possible. >> when mr. myler appeared before our cmittee last, i put it to mr. crone then that his credibility had been dadged. it's also going to be further damaged by the revelation he said he did not authorize surveillance on the victims' families and lawyers when clearly he did as recently as may of 2010. since your ansr to me shows that news international did know that tom crone had authorized this surveillance, why did you not write to the committee to alert us the evidence given by mr. crone in september was not true? >> my understanding that this information came to news

international's attention very, very recently, in the last few days or weeks, and it was something that was not known to us and confirmed, is my understand. >> so you would have done if you knew we had been misled, you would have supplied that to the committee? >> i'd have to -- i don't know exactly when ohs in the company became aware of it or our legal counsel and so on, but again, you know, those are the matters to december close before this committee i've tried to be as complete as i can in sending you documents and things that we've understood and found out since my last system. >> i'm sure you would agree that only news corporation can clear up this matter. i wish you luck in pursuing your ethical review of the company. thank you. >> i think given the line of questioning, louise has allowed tom to come in. >> be aware that the convicted ivate investigator -- [inaudible] prince william original inquiry, and this week we found out that the private investigator derek webb taunted prince william.

you will probably note that the private investigator jonathan rees targeted these one friend of prince william in 2006, is that right? >> i wasn't aware of that particular piece, but i may have been, i don't recall. >> i know that because i've got an invoice from news international's fly company limited from jonathan rees regarding that. could i ask that you check out your company e-mails and let us know when jonathan rees was contracted to work for the company when he came out of prison in 2005, how long he worked for the company, what he did and who appointed him? >> i don't want see that there's any reason why we couldn't share that. i think it's been shown that he worked for a number of news organizations including news inrnational. >> he worked for a number of news organizations in the late '90s, and then he went to prison for a serious crime. he got a seven-year sentence. when he left prison, he was then

contracted to work for what we now know is news international supply company limited and did a number of work for the company. and if you could check the -- >> absolutely. if you provide us with that, we can check that and come back to you. >> are you aware of any other private investigators that taunted prince william? >> i'm not aware of any other private investigators. >> [inaudible] >> it's the first time i've heard that, so -- [inaudible conversations] >> and alex layton. >> if you'd like, mr. watson, perhaps you could write to us and we could go through all of that -- >> i'd like, given that we're taing about private investigators, i would like to ask you now. could you, also, examine the activities of the private investigator barry -- [inaudible] >> i'm not aware of the individual identities of prite investigators were used. perhaps, mr. watson, it'd be helpful to just clarify one of the things the company is doing

around this. the use of private investigators clearly has been, i think, in the industry and by "news of the world" too widespread, and i just apologize to you and to the other members of the previous committee as it was described to for what was inappropriate. it seeo me. one of the key changes we put in place over the last year is that the use of private investigators in particular is severely restricted by the journalists at news international and, in fact, no private investigator, um, under our new guidelines and new rules around this can be, um, hired. or contracted by a newspaper without the editor going to the chief executive of the company for approval such that the use of these private investigators doesn't get out of happened and is only finish out of hand and is only in the extremist for appropriate public interest purposes. >> well, under the circstances, mr. murdoch, i'd like to say that's a great relief to me.

>> well, i'm glad. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> are you aware of the serious organized crime agency investigation code named operation millipede? >> operation -- no, i'm not aware of that. >> did you -- i won't go there, don't worry, i'm just asking if he was aware. can you let me know whether the company admitted liability to e-mail hacks during any of for settled civil cases? i'm thinking of taylor or clifford. >> i don't believe so. i'm not aware of any of that. >> if you subsequently find, could you go back and let us know if that's the case if you did accept liability? >> i'll consult with counsel about that to, hopefully -- but i'm not aware of any computer hacking that you've talked about in the past. >> whether that's a yes or a no. >> would you like me to talk to them now, or can i write to you at some point in the future?

>> we've got a bit of time, yes or no. >> where is -- they'd like to get back to you. if they did, they're not aware. >> a few weeks ago -- [inaudible] told me he would investigate allegations of computer hacking. has he started with you? >> no. he has oversight for the work of the management standards committee is doing, and i understand it's being pursued with vigor. >> are you aware that ian hearst has now had it confirmed that he's a victim of computer hacking? >> no, i'm not aware of that. >> and that 16 associated with him have had their e-mails read? >> i'll advise you, you are straying into areas -- >> okay, okay. this is about me. >> [inaudible] >> you may be aware or may not

be aware given the line of questioning that operation -- [inaudible] contacted me last week to say that my name appeared on seized electronic advances, and they need more information to rule out me as a victim myself. are you aware of that? >> i have no knowledge of that. >> okay. um, i thank you for your apology on behalf of the company for the surveillance undertaken by derek webb. key bring to your attention a conversation i had with another senior member, former employee of news international on this matter? asked me to allow him to remain anonymous about the consequences. he said to me in registration to the original -- relation to the original inquiry of members of this committee, dig up, you know, as much information as you can on the members of the committee. do you know who might have sent out that dictate? >> no, i have no knowledge of

that. >> he said to me about rebecca brooks, you might find this amusing, you might no he said, she didn't like you at all -- that's me -- she took an absolute pathological dislike to you. she saw you as a person that was -- she saw you as the person that was threatening. did rebecca brooks discuss my line of inquiry on investigation with you? >> not that i recall,o. >> he went on to say to me, she tried to smear you as being mad. sheas saying to blair, you've got to call this man off. he's mad. don't you realize he's mad? did you discuss the inquiry or do you know whether rebecca brooks discussed the inquiry with tony blair? >> i certainly had very little to do with the former prime minister, and i had no knowledge of discussions with him about this or other matters. >> okay. >> [inaudle]

[inaudible conversations] >> well, oay t steve sinclair in, if we can just wrap up. >> did the lack of appropriate corporate golfer nan give a false sense of security that are news international was -- [inaudible] >> i don't quite understand your question. i don't think there's a -- i wouldn't say that there's a lack of appropriate corporate golfer nance. i think we had an instance here -- in. [inaudible] >> we've tried to strengthen a number of procedures, but, you know, from the governance perspective, there is, you know, we -- i wouldn't call it failure of governance. i think there's a failure in transparency. we had individuals who were not making transparent information that was relevant and could have been more consequential to a higher level and what i tried to do is strengthen some procedures around that to make sure there's more traction participant si there. >> i didn't want menon failure or --

>> my apologies. >> you said earlier you want today strengthen it so, obviously, there must have been some flaws in the corporate governance. is it not the case that you failed the show the agency or the will to deal with unethical practices because, quite frankly, successive chief executives since 1989 have believed they could do whatev they wanted and get away with it? >> i can't possibly speak to what chief executives in the past had believed what they could do and what they couldn't. i can say that as soon as evidence came to light to me, unequivocal evidence around wrong doing, this company has moved with determination and with vigor, um, to sort this out. and i think it's very, very important that the company takes responsibility for what happened with respect to liability with victims of illegal voicemail intercepts which the company did and i fully support as well as

move to make whatever changes are necessary and pursue with vigor whatever allegations arise to make sure that people who are involved in wrongdoing are held to account and we aid the misto do that and, b, that we make sure to the extent at all possible that these things don't occur again. and i don't want think that there's been -- i don't think that there's been a, certainly not in my experience in the company that anyone can untouchable actually. what we want is a business and we want to be a business that is a business we aspire to be where we are doing the good work of serious journalism, oferious creative endeavor outside of the other businesses and that these things don't happen in the future. >> do you understand the significance that the data of 1989? . >> pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> no -- >> do you understand the

significance of the date i gave, which is 1989? >> i think i know where you're going. >> okay. do you want me to -- >> yes. well, are you referring to the hillsborough -- >> of course i am, absolutely. it's the case that the -- [inaudible] 1989 because that was when "the sun" newspaper published lies about the -- [inaudible] disaster under the banner headline and what the question i'd like to ask -- answer is the fact that "the sun" got away with tellg outrageous lies in 1989 lead news international to believe they could do whatever they wanted without reproach? >> all i can say about that, and i'd like to say it clearly, is that, you know, i'd like to add my full apology to the wrong coverage of that affair. i'd lake to add that voice -- likeo add that voice thehief

executives of "the sun," i'd like to add my voice to that as well. it was wrong to do so. it was 22 years ago, and i was far away and a much younger person and, obviously, no involvement or really proximity to it, but i've since looked at it. i'm aware of the concerns and the hurt that it caused, and it's something that is something we're very sorry for, and i am as well. >> in the public interest -- [inaudible] >> certainly not. >> okay, then. you mentioned that a journalist at "the sun "had been arrested earlier. did employees commission phone hacks? >> it would be inappropriate for me to comme on any of the circumstances around what was provided by -- >> no individuals, just -- >> i suldn't probably comment on the charges or anything like that either. i hope you understand. >> are you aware that the sun

appeared in the evidence file of convicted -- [inaudible] glenn walker? >> i was not aware of that. >> okay. this particular publication is indicated in phone hacking, and if it's revealed that the sun does appear nor the file, will you close this paper like you did with "the news of the world"? >> i think it's important to not prejudge the outcome of any investigations, nor is it, i think, appropriate to prejudge what actions the company might take -- [inaudible conversations] >> pardon me? >> can you rule it out? is. >> i don't think i can rule any corporate reaction to behavior of wrongdoing out. that'll be a decision made at e time given watever is out there. it's certainly -- i don't think it'd be right, but i think it's important not to prejudge any outcomes from these investigations that are

important police investigations, and they're important internal investigations that we're proactively pursuing so make sure that our papers can be as good as they can be and that they continue to perform the important role that i believe they have in their commitments. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> mr. murdoch, you've now seen the opinion of -- [inaudible] if any employee had seen it according to your code of conduct within news corporation, should that have been reported, and to whom? >> i think, um, i'm not, i'm not aware of the requirement in the code of conduct with respect to legal counsel being received and who it must be shown to and not shown to. i would say that given the allegations or given the findings and the content of that opinion, it certainly would have been appropriate f it to be shown to more senior legal come

in the company -- legal counsel in the company as well as away from "news of the worldas well as in full to me, for example, and others. >> okay. um, so far you've observed that you did not see the opinion and, certainly, not briefed on the full contents of that. >> that's correct. >> i cannot find any evidence that says mr. myler saw the opinion or was briefed on the full extent of it. but something's happened between 2008 when it's clear, certainly -- [inaudible] because he was amending it. and also a strong suggestion that mr. crone certainly saw it. nobody else seems to be made aware specifically ocertain allegations. however, 18 months later there is so much evidence that it is brought to the attention. so who brought it to your attention at the end of 20, this whole business of si yen that miller and all the other --

[inaudible] was it tom crone that ce forward? it was a matter -- no, first of all, there were a number of civil actions that were, um, that were following their process as it went through. and it was certainly in the second half of 2010 that the company -- and i was not at this point involved in the day-to-day management of the company. the company started to grapple with this. the company went and proactively requested both the police and the newspapers that were reporting this, i think it was refer today as a "drip, drip" of allegations of the evidence that they had. up until the end of 2010, the police still asserted that there was nothing new that they saw worthy of opening up a new information. but, certainly, the company and the management company decided that if evidence emerge inside the civil cases that was

sufficient to warrant further investigations, that it would react on that. d the company did. i don't recall who came to me precisely to discuss that, but it was a matter of discussion amongst a number of senior executives at e end of 2010. >> could it have been -- so you said no to tom crone, could it been mr. myler or rebecca brooks? >> mrs. brooks was certainly involved in the, in those activities. she was running the company until the summer of 2011. >> just going back to the transcript of julian -- [inaudible] on the 27th of may, it's already been read out largely by mr. watson. talks here about didn't believe culture in the newsroom, we've already had that discussion. how the investigation, were you made aware of the outcome of that investigation into those three individuals? >> i received throughout the

period in 2009 onwards after the allegations came out in the newspaper, i received repeated assurances that internal investigations had been conducted, um, that they were thorough, that they concluded there was novidence whatsoever of wider spread phone hacking, and this was something that was repeated, i know, to you, to this committee in 2009, and ose are the same assurances that i was being given as well, also by the public statements, um, of the police at the time. >> um, further in that notice there's e-mail from members' staff, nothing is written about it. is it possible for you to give us some assurance or at least go away and make se this happens that such evidence has been present today the police? is. >> certainly so. my understanding is that the police, first of all, cooperation with the police and providing them with erything that the company can as they require is paramount, and that's very, very important point to make. >> [inaudible]

>> with respect to what the particular document he's referring to, i can't speculate what it is. >> no, i -- >> i isn't it is the evidence we've been discuss anything the this committee. >> yeah. although, unfortunately, julian did not make that specifically clear. however, just turning to financial governance, i think i discussed this with you in july. with the evidence you sent back to us, you talked about how the editor hat a 50,000-pound limit, but any cash payments required the editor. is that still the case, or are there alternative arrangements? >> actually, one of the changes we've made is significantly tightening up cash payment requirements to the extent that for a period of time they were banned in the company, and as the new chief executive and the management and standards committee work, work through that with the editors in terms of what sort of petty cash arrangements should be made, um, those things have been adjusted a little bit. but the cash payment terms are

dramatical tightened up, and i think, um, are, you know, rare at this point if at all. and be i'd be very happy to send you the policies and guidelines that have changed as well as when the management and standards committee's recommendations are finalized after their investigations are complete, we intend to, you know, be very transparent with respect to both practices and a code of conduct with respect to journalistic practice, but also things like cash payments. >> well, building on that, sounds like you have made some changes, so it could be fair to now suggest that there is ntrol perhaps on maximum amounts that be paid out by a certain person to a certain person -- >> very much so. >> -- provided the evidence back in july, i think, you suggested limits. >> i think right now there are very strict limits. i don't have them at my finger tips the exact number of those limits, but not only are there limits, but actually the number of people who can make cash

payments and authorize them has been restricted dramatically. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. i've got, i want just to ask a final question on mr.-- [inaudible] and his legal costs of damages which i raised when we last met. just before that, chair, this whole inquiry is really about this committee being misled for, essentially, what news international knew, who knew it and when did they know it. as part of what you call an aggressive defend on the 28th of february in reaction to our record in "news of the world "editorials, tom watson was not called mad, he was called a top -- [inaudible] and i was a former jourlist on the observer mainly pursuing an agenda for my powers of the left-wing rag. sadly, the victims he are you, the public. well, how true is that? um, but very quickly after that

appeared, um, the next big settlement was with max clifford in march 2010. chair, this is a about what news international knew, who knew it and when they did. you were the executive chaman then, but rebecca brooks was the chief executive. were you involved in the, in the million pound settlement with max clifford in any way? >> i was not involved be the making of, with the arrangements with mr. clifford. i was informed of them, but in very general terms. but i was not involved in that, and at that point i was not running the business day-to-day. >> but you were the chairman. >> yes, i remained the chairman. >> did anyone come to y for the went fit of your experience in -- benefit of your experience in having settled the previous case? >> mrs. brooks did discuss the settlements or the arrangement with mr. clifford which was a

commercial arrangement, i think, for services in the future, but not in any greatetail. >> she didn't seek your authorization, did she seek your views? >> no. it was discussed with me in general terms but not with full day-to-day responsibity. she could make those judgments. >> and did you know who max clifford was? >> yes, i was aware who max clifford was. >> did you ask -- [inaudible] >> the question with mr. clifford, there had been a previous commercial areapgment some years earlier with mr. clifford, i was told, which was around publicity for the client or the like, and it was desirable to enter into an agreement like that for the future. that would be a good thing to do with mr. clifford, and with respect to any specifics about the litigation, it was just seen as rather you take a commercial arrangement with mr. clifford going forward which was in both parties' interest, and rather

than have an acrimonious litigation, i wasn't -- >> i've got this australian voice rattling around in the back asking how, how much is this going to cost me now? and in the future? were those, those questions weren't asked by you at that sustaining? >> i think it's important to remember, and i believe this is the case that mr. clifford was, again, one of the original counts of voicemail interceptions that mr. moll care had been convicted of. so it wasn't at that point a new piece of wrongdoin or anything like that. and, in fact, i'm not aware of the details and ins and outs of that case one way or another. i simply wasn't involved in the legal strategy -- >> do you remember whether these four particulars of claim on the "news of the world "-- >> i wasn't involved -- >> i know it's confidential, but could you just confirm whether you did serve a claim or whether

it was just a threat? >> i can discuss with counsel and me back to the committee whether or not that's appropriate or confidential. >> and do you know whether you went through the same process as with the,ith the gordon taylor settlement of seeking outside opinion? >> i'm not aware. i wasn't involved directly -- [inaudible] >> could the company confirm whether that was a process and whether there is a qc's opinion? >> we can certainly write to the committee about what details are appropriate around mr. clifford. i'm happy to do that. >> just on the basis of what the company knew, who knew be it and when they knew it. um, would you consider a request from the committee that if there is a work -- qc's opinion no doubt checking with mr. clifford to preserve any person detail, whether that might be released to us as the silverleaf opinions has already been released to us?

is. >> i think in general, mr. farrelly, it's probably wise, um, not to go down the path of routinely waiving privilege on legal advice around matters of litigation, matters involving individuals, matters involving the company. um, that said, i'm happy to provide you -- i'll go back to come and to the company and say, you know, what can we, what can we provide with respect to details around the mr. clifford arrangements, and i'm happy to write to you on that basis, but i don't want to make any particular commitment -- >> we'll follow up in a let or. now finally, following our last session you -- mr. murdoch sr. said that, effectively, it was wrong to pay legal costs, particularly issuing an apology to the family whose phone he'd so cruelly hacked in the circumstances. you then came out and said that those legal costs were being stopped, but subsequently

confirmed to us in letter that any damages that are awarded against glenn mull care, the company will stand in good for. >> i think, and i'm not a lawyer, forgive me, mr. farrelly, but i think there are questions where with respect to him being a co-for the and were to be a case or a damage award against him that he was conducting work on the company behalf, then really the company's liable for those things, is my understanding. and, again, i can provide more detail on that if you like, but i think there's a legal point there. and i'm not a lawyer, but there's a legal point there that is -- >> i'm sorry -- >> -- worth noting. an agent on behalf of the business. >> if he's -- [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> if he is where he can't pay

his costs and, therefore, he can't man his defense, if he is sued and the court just makes an award against him, that is an award the court make against him and not you because you will also be in the dark with the claim, and a separate award may be made against -- well, certainly, will no doubt be made against you. if you're backing him on any awards against him, we're back to where we were before the july committee. you effectively are making good an indemnity. is that right or wrong? >> i think, um, i don't want -- with respect, mr. farrelly, i don't think that's the right characterization. i think the word that i didn't, that i didn't want know but dr. coffee is right, this notion of vicarious liability is right. the matter of law and the courts and thquestion of paying for the defense is one thing. there's a question of the court awarding damages and the company being vicariously liable for those things is another. again, it sems like we're

engaging in legal speculation -- >> i don't want, i'm sure you are engaged in legal speculation because i see your lawyer nodding in unison with you. but we're back in the position where you will be effectively supporting the man who hacked llie dowd's phone s. that right or wrong? >> i think your characterization, and i'm happy to come back -- i don't think your characterization of our supporting mr. mullcare is right. the management this committee has taken into review legal expenses of various people armed these matters, has taken a view to cease paying legal expenses as my father, when h testifd to you in july, indicated. the question of what legal issues there are, in the event of fure litigation, they are ones that i couldn't possibly comment on. >> okay, my final, final question on this, um, there are

over 5,000 names that are now being looked at in the notebooks. y amount of whom might sue news international and glenn mullcare. what will be the test r news international as to whether they pay any awards? will it be just his word that somebody authorized, or will he have to satisfy a test, leap a hurdle to prove that, actually, there was authorization for the company for that particular hacking he did or whether it was just off his own back? will you discriminate between different cases in terms of standing behind mr. mullcare? is. >> the company has set up an independent process, i think as you're aware, mr. farrelly, to deal with civil cases coming through, and sir charles grey has an independent person, a former high court judge, as i you said it, is setting up a

process to deal with claimants coming through. >> i'm talking about the courts, not charles grey's -- >> yes. so there's a number oftest cases coming through over the next number of months, i believe, which will give, i think, the judge dealing with this a sense of what the damages number will be in these cases, what the ranges a. and then if company has admitted liability where legitimate claims are made, and this is a question of the independent management of these cases and the company to judge what claims are legitimate and what are not, um, with respect to voicemail interceptions and then the settlement procedure will then take its course. >> final question -- >> i'm not aware of -- >> should a case come to court and not be settled out of court, is it your position that in all circumstances no further questions asked you will pay any award made against glenn

mullcare, or will you be more discriminate? >> i think every case has to be seen on its merits, and that's the -- and i think that's the appropriate way for the courts and the company to proceed. >> i think we have finished up. i thank you for your attendance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> on veterans day, tomorrow, our entire "washington journal" program will be about military issues. first, major-general jeffrey p. cannon live from iraq. then, the f.w. legislator and iraq veteran ray kelly on a program to encourage the hiring of veterans. and and argue -- and an author of on a book on military suicides. then that the bureau chief from

the "military *" on who serves in our armed forces. we will be at arlington national cemetery tomorrow. president obama and secretary panetta and the veterans affairs secretary will take part in the up remembrances ceremony at tomb of the unknown soldier. you can see it live at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. defense secretary leon panetta said today he has asked for an independent review into what happened with the remains of soldiers at the dover air force base mortuary. a member of the senate arms services committee brought this up during a hearing on capitol hill today. specifically, she asked about a practice at the dover mortuary of disposing of portions of troops remains by cremating them and dumping the remains in a virginia landfill.

i want to go to the situation at dover. i don't want to dwell on this -- no one needs to convince me you want to get this right at dover. i will tell you what i do want to bring your attention -- that's the finding of the office of special counsel. so people understand what the office of special counsel is, it is an investigatory and prosecution does oriented agency whose primary responsibility under our law is to be independent of all the agencies and protect whistle-blowers. what i'm concerned about is their investigation into what the air force did in response to the whistle-blowers. specifically the fact that the i.g. at the air force failed to admit wrongdoing in their

report. while i understand people have been moved around at the result of the problems that have occurred because of the mishandling of the sacred remains of the fallen, i'm not sure they have been held as accountable as well we saw happen in arlington in connection with that heartbreaking incompetents. what i want to make sure is that there is an independent investigation as to whether or not the i.g. shaded it a little bit because everyone was feeling protective of the institution for all the right reasons. the vast majority of people who serve at dover and do this work do it with a heavy heart and with a passion for getting a right. but when we have a circumstance like this arise, i want to make sure the inspector generals are not so busy looking after the institution that they fail to point out wrongdoing, which was not ever acknowledged, and that

there is accountability for the people involved. i want you to address the special counsel's report as relates to the air force investigation. >> senator, there were -- there clearly were unacceptable mistakes made, whether they constitute wrongdoing is another matter entirely. when you look at a situation like this, you look at the facts of the case, as an attorney might say. you look at the context in which the events or the mistakes occurred. you also consider the demands that are placed on individuals and organizations. with respect to accountability,

we had an obligation to ensure the statutory requirements for due process were followed. we did that precisely. i can only speak for the case of that uniformed officer. but the uniform officer received a letter of reprimand. we established an unfavorable information file, we removed him from the command list, and his anticipated job as a group commander at shaw air force base was redlined. this is not a trivial sanction. >> i and understand that is not a trivial sanction. but i am worried there was not an obligation to notify the families in these instances. obviously this deals with more

than uniformed personnel. the secretary of the air force's also copied on the letter i sent today calling for this independent investigation. nobody was intentionally miss marking graves. there were mistakes. i just want to make sure we have clear eyes while we have full parts about the aggressive need for investigations by inspection generals in circumstances like this. thank you for all of you being here today. >> extremism in defense of liberty is no bias. let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1964 presidential alexian to lyndon johnson, but barry goldwater's ideas and

candor galvanized the conservative movement. he is featured this week on the c-span series, "the contenders." that's live friday at 8:00 eastern. this weekend, on book tv, but their reaction remind author corey robyn. a discussion of the history of conservatism. the national security visor under president bush recounts for years. then bill clinton of spots on the current state of the american economy and his plans for recovery. look for the complete book tv schedule online. our "washington journal" series on the u.s. military continues with a look the role of the coast guard.

>> tomorrow, we will focus on the demographic of who serves in our nation's armed forces. today, it is a look at the u.s. coast guard with prior admiral karl schulze. let's start with some numbers. how many members in the coast guard and what is your annual budget? guest: our numbers, about 42,000 active-duty members and a reserve force of about 8000. 7000 civilian employees with the coast guard. we have a unique all voluntary force called the coast guard auxiliary. >> what do they do?

guest: they have no enforcement authority, but they do a wide range of events. they are on the water all the time, during safety inspections of recreational boaters. -- doing a safety inspections of recreational boaters. they can do a ton of different things. our challenge is to keep them gainfully employed because they bring a tremendous amount of unique talent. they bring a lot of continuity, expertise, and passion they do for the coast guard. it is a great multiplier for us. host: is your annual budget? guest: about $8 billion -- the non-discretionary is about $10.4 billion. host: what is your mission domestically and do you have an international mission? guest: we are locally deployed throughout locations in the

united states. we are locally based, nationally deployed. we have an international mission and we are globally connected. we are doing search and rescue in our coastal waters along but united states. we are doing security in the nation's seaports. post 9/11 maritime transportation put a lot of responsibilities under the coast guard. we insure they are safe. we're on your waterways, we have 500 men and women deployed understand, combat and command. we have crews in bahrain protecting oil platforms. we are an international and domestic organization with a broad range of statutory authorities and missions. host: drug interdiction -- to

share that with other agencies? guest: we have been involved in that the four decades in partner well the third part of defense partners. we have attachments on navy combatants and allied ships. we would work with many agencies, the department homeland's security, so the drug mission is very collaborative in its nature. we like to think we are elite maritime agency in bed drug war. host: if a boater is out and his engine quits, who pays for that? guest: if the coast guard gets alerted, we are concerned with that boater getting home safely. if they're in a non-perilous situation, we have agreements and the policies that dictate what we call the marina

assistance broadcast. we would help the boater first and would track the case and that is a situation between that and the recreational boater. obviously, we are funded by taxpayers and we will provide that service. host: that sounds like a toy truck on the highway. someone has to pay for it. guest: we appropriate funds with that we try not to conflict with commercial interests providing the same service. the safety of the messenger is our first priority. host: how many ships and boats do have? >> we have high endurance cutters that were decommissioned. we have about 11 ships right now.

7 medium endurance cutters. we have patrol boats and built a class of 49 patrol boats and 87 foot patrol boats numbering in the high seventies. we have small boats stationed throughout the country. we have a 40 foot boat -- -- a 48 foot boat replacing some 40 foot boats. we have rough water stations for the pacific northwest and new england and other locations where there are surface situations. we have hundreds of small boats. probably in the range of 90 cutters. host: we're going to put the phone numbers on the screen. he would like to dial in and talk about the coastguard here on militarily, the numbers are on the screen.

we have reserved a line for coast guard active and retired duty. you can also reach us of the atwitter. the newest ship, the coast guard's newest ship currently is stationed here in washington -- is a visiting washington or what? >> they cover which is our newest ship, the national security carter was in baltimore harbor this past week. she is now working her way back around and will be based out of alameda california. she is doing crew work ups and we anticipate commissioning the ship sometime in march with the new calendar year. >> with a special about this ship? >> it is the most formidable in her class of ships -- is the do -- it's replacing a class of

ship that's about 43 years old, ships or built in the '60s. we were using them for ocean statement said david worriedly operations in vietnam and were allowed for the stevens fisheries and got a start up in the drug war, the mass migration events from cuba and haiti. those ships are still in service. this national security cover is really -- is unique. it is very capable and can operate in the chemical and radiological environ for a long time. it has sensitive compartments where she can handle materials of the highest classification. we are part of the ash and intelligence community in this ship is a collector and contributes be on the lifeline of coast guard missions. we are very excited. it's very fuel-efficient and will do a lot of great things

for the nation. >> so it will sail through the panama canal and back up? >> she will go it from there to your home port dorsey stratton was the namesake for the ship and a was they had of the women's reserve boosted up in 1942. we had 10,000 enlisted women. 1000 female officers. dorothy stratton coined the term for the -- for the aladdin motto. you get that and she is passed on by her legacy remains in the ship is named after her. >> where is the coast guard academy? >> new london, connecticut. how many cadets every year? >> the coast guard academy is a merit-based process. a class of 2015 does came to the gates this summer. i guess about 291 cadets that

entered the class this year. how long have -- >> how long have you been in the coast guard? guest: i showed up in june of 1979. active-duty going on my 29 year period to be frank, i was pointed to the academy by high school basketball coach. i had seen the coast guard as a kid on the beaches in rhode island and i was involved in sports and academics and at 33 years, you can call it a career and it has been fun. host: we are talking to a coast guard. william in delaware, ohio, you are first up. caller: i was in the coast guard back in 1942. until the end of the war. i was in the north -- in the

normandy invasion of beach. i stood on a little platform and saw the whole thing and wind. they called me up to the bridge and a navy captain asked me if i would stand on a little platform with a back pack radio to be able to talk to the fellows on the beach when we went in. so i had a lot of time involved. as far as length of time, it was only about three years and seven months. the coast guard did get involved overseas as well as just along the coast. it was a real exciting time i spent at the normandy invasion.

in san diego, out in the pacific -- we set of foresight and to case the b-29s that were landing there bombing japan. one of our duties was to save the fellows. host: thank you for sharing that story with us. guest: let me thank you for your service and it's great to hear from a shipmate and you served in a remarkably dynamic time for the country and part of our greatest generation. thank you for your service and that work you did -- that was probably some of the most treasuries and challenging work done in the history of the coast guard organization. -- treacherous and challenging work. you mentioned the international roles back here with coastal patrols on the beach and i think the coast guard, we are still that same kind of organization

today. we are highly adaptable. where locally based threat the united states but nationally deployed and globally connected. that is very much still our role. at the veterans day to you here tomorrow and thank you for your call. host: we got a tweet -- why does the coastguard patrol in lakes. guest: our jurisdiction said -- extends to federal bleak -- two federally neville waterways. >> what about lake tahoe? >> there is a jurisdiction at lake tahoe as well. we try to collaborate and

partner with the states and try to have redundant efforts. there is more demand for coastguard service then there is coastguard capability and we try to position those assets were we get the best return for taxpayers. we try to harmonize with state and local folks and we are out there for the benefit of the taxpayer to hopefully make the waterway's safe. it all depends on the geography of the lakes. host: isn't international work detracting from guarding the coastlines? also, why is the coast guard used in the drug war? guest: the question about international verses the coastline, the coast guard is a member of the department of homeland's security. one of the key components, you have to push the borders out. we like to think we are across

the spectrum. we push the boundaries out. if you have an incoming threat in terms of a terrorist threat, if it's drugs, if it is illegal immigration, if you don't set up for defense, you are set up for failure. we get the drugs when they are miles from the shore in large bulk quantities. if those drugs get through and make it into mexico and get further distributed, it's a challenge to stop the problem. we have stopped 60,000 piles of cocaine. just in the first month of the fiscal year, it exceeds the total on drugs stopped last year by all land-based units. that speaks to the effectiveness of pushing the borders out and the relevance of the drug war there.

>> with secretary panetta indicating there might be some cuts in military expenditures, has the coast guard targeted where it would make its cuts? guest: for an agency like the coast guard, we're always looking at our priorities. we are looking for the budget to be legislated, those are the unknowns we have. we are optimistic our members will be solid and we will be able to focus and keep the momentum on our priorities. boyer: i'm just an old 'nam and i would like to tell the commander he's a confident and competent individual. the gentleman who handled the oil spill on the gulf coast was unbelievable.

you could have asked the guy what phase the mood would be in 10 months from now and he could have given the answer. i think they should double your budget and i want to thank you for doing a good job. you help me sleep at night. guest: think you for your call and thank you for the service. we are proud by -- proud of our coast guard officers down there. admiral thad allen did wonderful work down there. we put responsibility in young coast guardsman work early and grow into the role. the deepwater horizon was a tragic event for the golf reason -- for the gulf region. upwards of 45,000 to 50,000 people. we're still fully committed to getting things right in the gulf and getting the gulf back for

the trajectory going forward. i appreciate your call and your service to the coastguard in vietnam. host: what is the status of the coast guard and the bp oil's bill? >> we're still very much involved down their and involved through it -- involved through the completion. the shoreline cleanup completion plan was signed earlier by our on scene coordinator in cooperation with the state on seen coordinators'. the beach cleanup is at about the 90% point of success. what we can get back to standards before the spill, any news bills will be dealt with and the process is we find oil on the beach, we examine the oil and send it to our research and development center, do the forensics, if it is from bp, we go back to them to make things right. this next step allows us to move

forward with the restoration efforts down there. there are restoration projects that have been transitioned and allows us to go to the next that for disaster assessment. we -- this is the next up. we are fully committed and empathetic to the situation in the gulf. the coast guard is going to stay involved. >> what has the cost then to the bp coast guard -- what has the cost been to bp? guest: at the end of the day, that is one of the beauties of the coast guard -- our agility, we can redirect assets. we pulled some of our ocean going bowie's from out in hawaii and brought them to the gulf built in the wake of the exxon valdez spill. at the end of the day, the

appropriate costs are passed on to bp. there are some costs we eat internally as far as regular activities. host: our next call is from melbourne, florida. caller: i served in the coast guard from 59 to 63 and then in the reserves in d.c. from 73 to 91. i was reading about the decommissioning of the coast guard cutter polar star. it says the white house and congress are -- the white house does not want to lose these guys breaking service of these two ships. are they going to replace them to keep the icebreaker unit in that area going on? guest: great question. thank you for your coastguard service and extensive coastguard service, active duty and reserve. i served on the great lakes and

that's a neat place to be a coastguardsman. the work is very valued up there. the polar class icebreakers, that is an interesting situation. the authorization bill has a provision right now. i'm not here to talk about pending legislation, but those ships were built in the '70s. there are 30 + years old and we have taken the polar sea out of service. we were going to run her until about 2014 when she needed to come down for major maintenance, we had some significant in cheering casualties that occurred down. there is a limited number of funding for our polar icebreakers. we have a medium icebreaker that is more of a science ship. to work within the existing budget framework, we could not afford to try to keep both of those large polers in service.

the polar sea is laid up. there was debate going on as you mentioned. we are focused on bringing the polar star back to service in 2013 and with the help of the congress, we have about $60 million going into fixing critical systems there. polar star is going to be bridging gap. is a broader discussion with the coast guard. what are our needs in the arctic as a cybernation. this is a national level discussion and polar star provides a bridging strategy to a longer-term plan. it is about eight to 10 years to bring a new polar ship on board, a new icebreaker on board. that's a big number and there is not the trade space in the coast guard budget to take that on with other things we're doing that are priorities for the nation. it is an interesting topic. host: do you have your own shipyard or do you contract out? guest: both.

we have a shipyard in baltimore yard and we have built some ships there in the past. the right now, the yard is full with a mission effectiveness program, taking our medium endurance cutters and doing critical system replacement and upgrades to keep those in service. i talked about the national security cutters before and we're looking to build a class of eight of those. we have had a good run in just awarded the production contract on the fifth national security cotter, backing off to november 2010. -- national security cover. -- national security cutter. we had to spend some money and the existing class because this thing plays out. it's going to take us awhile. we tried to get a quatre the

year in the budget and we are hoping the budget trade space to build those, but when you're trying to replace 25 of those ships, it's still a 12 or 13 year time frame. we're using the art as a bridging strategy as we move forward to the new year ships. -- we are using the yard as a bridging strategy. host: what does a cover cost? what did the stratton cost? guest: it is 419 feet. the average cost across those first five ships, which is the same class was $630 million per ship, as the average over the five ships we have delivered. host: the coast guard has 500 service members in iraq and afghanistan. iraq, shoreline -- afghanistan? we have about 450 folks

-- patrol boats, 100 tons of patrol boats. 10 or 20 men crews with a shoreside maintenance attachment three are protecting the iraqi oil platforms and we have folks of their working for navy central command also doing interception operations, working under commander task force's 1005151. we of the maritime security adviser working with the embassy in baghdad. we have almost 30 member redeployment assistance detachment working in support of the functional commander transportation command and they help move hazardous materials and containers stateside with equipment. we have the port security unit over there, about 120 person team, coastguard service that

provides security for high- value access to the ports. that gets you close to the 500 mark and we have some crypto logical specialist supporting the intelligence needs of the nation over there. host: key largo, fla., you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. i many coastguard auxiliary in the florida keys. i am calling about the stratton. looks phenomenal. i would -- it was good to hear they're planning more of them. do you see the use of it primarily on the west coast? guest: good morning to you and thank you for your service in the as a lorry. i know how hard you are working down there and we appreciate the efforts of our volunteer arm of the coast guard's 03.

the stratton is a phenomenal ship and i spent a couple of days on her last week. we are putting it out on the west coast and the final home porting decision on the entire class of ship are not done yet. we had the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff out earlier in the week with our commandant and he talked about hopefully being able to position a couple of those ships and the east coast. when you talk about the functionality of the national security cutter -- if you have a national or man-made -- natural or man-made attack, you could sail into that environment with that sensitive compartmentalized information facility with the ability to operate in a contaminated space for an extended time at the ability to interact at the national command level of the highest level of classification.

that cover can be very capable. we think there is a need on the east coast and west coast. the plans are to get the stretch and not their in alameda and we're building the fourth and fifth. our sights are set and we're keeping the momentum for 6, 7 and 8. host: our guest has served as chief of congressional affairs for the coast guard, as sector commander in miami for a couple of years, congressional liaison, several different positions within the coastguard, he graduated from the academy and has a master's from the university of connecticut and a national security fellowship at harvard university's kennedy school of government. he has won several awards, including the legion of merit. for what were you awarded that? guest: any awards when you are a serviceman is usually the function of the team around you. one of those four was -- one of

those was recognized for my time in miami and we had the honor to lead 600 active duty coastguardsman down there, large contingency of reservists. thinking back to last caller -- it's a great area with a lot of responsibility. south florida really touches all coast guard mission. i have been blessed to work around tremendous men and women of great folks in the organization. those are awards that represent -- host: do you arrest drunken boaters? guest: we pull drunken boaters off the water and we detain them. arrest action is usually turned over to local police unit. host: is that a problem as much as drunk driving? guest: boating while intoxicating is a problem on the water. creates a risk for other boaters

and commercial boaters and when we see that activity, we are aggressive about getting it off. our exit -- our galleries do great education. we do random boardings and take it very seriously. we want the folks who are operating intoxicated on the water off the water. host: it is military week on "washington journal." here are the numbers we went over at the beginning of the show. budget of the coast guard -- $10.3 billion or so. $8.7 billion in discretionary funding. $1.4 billion for acquisition, construction and improvements. $642 million for vessels. $289 million for assets. $187 million for major acquisition systems. those are some of the figures we have on the coast guard budget. as the colonel told us, 42,000

active duty at this point, correct? guest: yes, sir. host: next call, dayton, nev.. caller: i've been involved in coast guard auxiliary for a number of years. military, army side of the house. the pleasure i have had is starting in a reno nevada with the coast guard auxiliary and for the last three years, -- [inaudible] when these talks go on like this, very little was mentioned about the coastguard auxiliary itself. i wonder if you could enlighten the public a little bit? host: you started with the coast guard auxiliary in reno, nev.? were you on lake tahoe? caller: i was on lake tahoe a couple of times. host: what did you do as part of the eggs a lorry?

what did you do with the coast guard auxiliary? guest: thank you for volunteer service with the coast guard and celery. it's a tremendous group of folks, -- with the coast guard auxiliary. it's a great group of folks who support coastguard needs and missions there. there are we have people in small boat stations. recreational boaters are excited. you get more continuity with the exhilarate people -- auxiliaries people than those who come in and rotate. they become experts about the local area and the local waterways and stuff like that.

we have auxiliaries come in and work in our command. we had a hawkeye system, which integrated radars and cameras. there are few limits outside of legal limitations. we do not put them into our law enforcement. i mentioned education and training and the safety courses. they are out there on the campaigns every year. the auxiliaries will be out there talking about the doing volunteer examinations and they will be on the water. tremendous folks and they are dedicated. they are excited about supporting the coast guard mission. we could not do all we do without their support. it is a great part of the country out there.

host: we talked about this earlier. a tweet. when the coast guard rescue someone stranded at sea, do they get a bill? guest: when we rescue them, they do not get a bill. it is a non-crucial -- non- a crucial situation, we will get people to help them. if we make a rescue, we do not build the taxpayer for that service. host: oakland, california. good morning to you. caller: good morning, i would like to thank you for keeping us say along the coast. i registered for selective service. i then became disabled. i support the troops.

i wanted to let you know i feel good about the ones who will be coming back from afghanistan. when i was looking into the military about which one i should join, i thought the military of the marines all the way down to the coast guard. is the coast guard the easiest one on the soldier? can you guess? guest: thank you for supporting the men and women who wear the uniform of the country. as far as the easiest, all of these services are selective in who we have in this current situation and economic times. attrition is low. we have men and women who want to stay and continue beyond 20 years. we have remarkable men and women entering the service.

the coast guard is competitive. the other services find themselves in a similar situation. as far as it is between one or the other, i will leave that one alone. about the quality of our recruits -- they are first rate. our challenge is to get them out there and get them trained and into operational units. the problem we have is retention. it is not such a bad problem. last year, we had a clear retention selection problem. we had to weed the ranks so that the young people who want to come in have some upward mobility. host: on your uniform, what identifies you as an admiral? guest: is the striping on the sleeves. host: marc, good morning. caller: my father-in-law was in

the coast guard. my son went into the aim program this summer. i am wondering if i gave him a bad direction. he did some sports. the band was a much greater draw and much more time- consuming than anyone else. was i incorrect? guest: thank you for the coast guard family you come from. if you send your son to be -- the the aim program, that is a great program for him to get acclimated about what a service program is all about. it is merit based.

we are looking for well-rounded individuals. we are looking for leadership potential. you mentioned sports and he is a well-rounded individual. that will serve your son well. you probably get him good advice. the aim program is a great big way. -- a great gateway. host: we have one minute left with the admiral. caller: thank you for your service to our country. i appreciate you and your organization. my daughter has been in the coast guard for 16 years. her husband is in the coast guard and they are stationed in alaska. i cannot express enough about the confidence and pride i have seen this young woman grow into.

it is her association with the coast guard. i just finished reading "deadly at sea." i will never take for granted their work in the service and what our military does. i was honored to grow up in a church with a woman who was a -- i feel honored to have known her. guest: thank you for your call. it sounds like a coast guard family. there was a program called "coast guard alaska purpl." we have some great men and women out there doing super things for the nation and the fishing communities up there. a lot of challenges. we are focused on the work of

the 17th district, which is the alaska district. great distances separate the state of alaska and the lower 48. it runs from the east coast until the west coast. the new series a aired. there was one of the worst storms of the last decade. it makes it challenging for mariners. you have some coastguard men and women doing tremendous things up there. host: what is your website in case people want to contact you or get more information about the co-starred? guest: you can navigate around there and it will take you to a lot of places. there is a coast guard service blog. we are telling the story about

what coast guard men and women do everyday. host: admiral schulz is the director for the u.s. coast guard. guest: banking for the opportunity. day tomorrow,'s our entire "washington journal" program will be dedicated to military issues. we will talk about the drawdown in iraq. and iraq war veteran to encourage the hiring of veterans. and the author of a book on military suicide. on our america by the number segment, who stars in our armed forces? "washington journal" airs every

day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. a remembrance ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier lies at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> as a united states government, are we still doing business with these people? >> the parts that we have been purchasing as part of this investigation are rare, hard to find, obsolete parts that are still being utilized in major weapons systems. the internet purchasing platforms demonstrate that contractors or sub contractors that are needing the hard to find, rare, obsolete parts have an outlet through these purchasing platform to acquire

these parts. the concern is backed --that the intent to deceive still exists. >> are we still purchasing? i asked a simple question. is the united states government still purchasing from these counterfeiters? >> the internet trading platforms have 60 million line items of parts that are purchased on a regular basis. >> what more on this hearing on counterfeit parts from china on c-span. it is washington your way. >> we are live in concord, new hampshire. vice president joe biden is the keynote speaker. this is the ninth annual first

amendment events that features new hampshire residents who exercise and protect freedom of the press. this is expected to get underway shortly. in the meantime, from this morning's "washington journal," the department of housing and urban development program. washington, your way. "washington journal" continues. host: we're back live. this is military week. we begin our series on monday. tuesday, we look at the role and mission of the air force and its strong program. yesterday, we were live from arlington cemetery. tomorrow, our america by the numbers segment will focus on the demographics of who serves in the hour nation's armed armeds -- in our nation's forces. today, a look at the coast guard

with rear admiral karl scholz -- karl schultz. how many members are in the coast guard? what is your annual budget? guest: we have about 42,000 active members, a reserve force of about 8000, 7000 civilian employees, then a unique voluntary force of about 30,000- plus books -- folks. auxiliary folks to a wide range of defense -- do a wide range of events. they help us out with our waterways maintenance. they can do a ton of different things. our challenge is to keep them gainfully employed. they bring a tremendous amount of unique talents. we have some of them in our small-boat stations did they bring a lot of continuity, expertise, and passion --

stations. they bring a lot of continuity, expertise, and passion. host: what is your guest: we will have more on military issues. we are going live to new hampshire. the first amendment award. vice president joe biden is the keynote speaker. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we are having a slight technical problem with this event with vice president joe biden. we will get it fixed and bring it to you shortly. we will go back to "washington

journal" talking about the department of housing and urban development. clause -- "the washington post" recently did a series on the department of housing and urban development. first of all, what is hud's home program, the acronym. guest: it is really not an acronym -- it stands for home investment partnership program. it is a two-decade program to build and renovate homes for the poor. they had about $32 billion in funding to provide housing for the poor all over the country. it is a block grant program. is to provide annual

grants to local governments all over the country and they in turn hired developers to build and renovate housing. host: first of all, why did you go in to investigate the program? what caught your attention? guest: housing is a fundamental need and a huge issue given what is going on with foreclosures and the economy and everything else. this is the federal government's largest block grant program for construction for the poor. we wanted to see where the money was going, what was being built, how quickly homes were being built, who was benefiting. we decided to take a national look at this well-intentioned program. host: how long did you spend looking at it and how many reporters involved? guest: for over a year. it was a massive program, a huge investigation. pretty much myself and a couple of researchers and a great photographer. and i think i called 165 local

housing agencies over the course of the year. we visit a construction sites in a dozen cities. really what we were trying to do was to look at a snapshot in time and figure out how quickly houses were going up. what we found was a pattern of delays and defunct projects in cities all over the country. host: overall when you look at the $32 billion program over the last 20 years, has it been a success, from what you have found out? guest: that is a hard question to answer because we did not look at the history of the program over two decades. clearly this program is well intentioned. clearly it is an important program. i think there are success stories all over the country. housing officials say it has produced a million units of affordable housing over the life of the program. i do not know if it is true or not, but those are clearly successes. but we looked at points in time

and found a pattern of troubled projects and then we looked at government to see what was being done, and we found that hud does not routinely tracked the project. it tracks how much money is spent by local housing agencies but not what is actually coming out of the ground. that was the focus of the first round of stories. host: the first round of stories came out in may, and just to follow up this week, photos of unfinished projects. what are some of these photos we are seeing on the screen? guest: those are older projects where all of hud's money has been drawn and spend and nothing has been built. what you see is an old building that was supposed to be torn down. that is correct. a shuddered church in california that was supposed be torn down and renovated with new homes. i think that project is at least five years old. host: how much money has been spent?

1.3 million. guest: right. an empty lot. and you see another and the lot next to that. what we found over the country is delays. hud has pointed out. private financing hard to come by, sometimes permiting delays. but there is a pattern all over, and it is delaying the production of badly-needed homes. host: in your follow-up article that was it on the front page, you talked about finding more flaws in hud possible accounting. guest: since may, congress has been investigating this program. the senate has also been investigating. they have been asking hud lots of questions about the status of the projects. the problem is, hud is now

really track the status of its products. it really does not know in many cases what has come out of the ground and what is being built. sometimes projects are stalled, dead. so, congress asks hud for an accounting. hud did a mad scramble to figure out what was going on all over the country, and in some cases, the reports to congress were pretty inconsistent. guest: did hud cooperate and were you able to get information from the secretary at all? guest: we talked to hud in advance of our first story at length. we did not speak to the secretary but we saw a book to the assistant secretary in advance of the publication. we have been having conversations with hud all along. in this particular story you are talking about, we could not get secretary donovan to comment

specifically. we did get a written response from hud, which we quoted for about the story. host: has been congressional action because of your series? guest: there has been significant congressional action. in the house financial-services committee, they are calling for unannounced inspections and site visits and third-party independent monitoring. in the senate, they are calling for something that really does not exist now, which is construction deadlines to make sure these houses are built in a certain amount of time. host: if you were to put a figure on it, how much money has been wasted? guest: we have been asked the question before but it is hard to do. our original series found as much as $400 million tied up in a potentially delayed or defunct projects. this new round of stories that ran monday, we documented another 40 or so million dollars

drawn and spent on projects that >> more about military issues tomorrow morning. we return live to concord, new hampshire with vice president joe biden. >> thank you. [applause] please. thank you. you are very kind. joe was kind in his introduction. i understand my friend, rick santorum, is here. if he is here, good luck, old buddy. i hope you do better than i did. [laughter] rick and i worked together in the delaware valley issues. we represented pennsylvania. it used to be that we could disagree without being disagreeable.

rick, i miss seeing you. if you are here, good luck. joe and i have known each other for a while. he was kind enough to welcome me. i said joe, mr. loeb is probably rolling over in his grave right now. he pulled out a copy an editorial i have had for the last 32 years haiti in a gold frame on the wall in -- hanging in a gold frame in my bathroom to remind me that humility is always preferred. i was having a debate with jesse helms, who later became my friend. i wrote the preface or his book. i am still friends with his wife and his children. jesse helms was be eloquent in

our first year in the senate about why senators did not deserve to be paid. i found that difficult being looked at as the poorest man in the congress and jesse had significant wealth. joe said, always say what i mean. the problem is, i say it. i said, i can understand why the citizens of north carolina do not understand why he is worth $42 million. he did a black box editorial entitled, "such can see." this is the respect for the freedom of speech. mark, it is an honor to be with you.

mark is doing something that is remarkable. his company, which is leading in the forefront of renewable energy, is going to be part of the trail blazing possibilities for the united states to continue to lead the world in the 21st century. i want to thank the foundation school for inviting me to be here as you present an award that honors ideas, ideas central to the foundation of our nation, freedom of speech and the free flow of information. it is an honor to be at a school that in by these those principles. all of you know your state's -- live free or die. the governor knows that better

than anybody. the worst in things to happen -- thing to happen to do hampshire is that you are not running again. [applause] i see a sea of lights in my face. the governor is always reminding me that he motto -- the motto is live free or die. that quote came from a dinner celebrating the revolutionary war. today there is an array of the advanced technologies that john stark and bill loeb could not have possibly imagined. the internet, text messaging, e- mail and social networks. moving at the speed of light

linking people of diverse cultures in a world more closely connected at any time in history. these new technologies and the way they impact on the first amendment -- [no audio] as you all know, it has deep historical roots. thomas payne. our draft constitution was approved after a vigorous public debate friend as a consequence of the circulated essayed that reads and has been come to know all -- come to be known as the federalist papers. there was an uprising that swept

the continent in 1848. they benefited from the rise of mass circulation. the popular press. it gave ordinary citizens information about landmark events beyond their borders. it was contagious. during the cold war, radio and copy machines gave people trapped behind the iron curtain a window on the outside world and the ability to distribute banned material, fueling the drive for a better life that helped bring down the berlin wall 22 years ago. i remember going through checkpoint charlie as a u.s. senator and being searched, everything being searched. i brought my son with me so he could see and understand what

oppression was about. the one thing they looked for was any banned reading material and any ability to copy the material that was banned. from a control room in the empire state building, radio free europe and radio liberty began. they started off by using a simple tagline, "in the american tradition of free speech." despite soviet propaganda, they were tools of the u.s. government -- saying they were tools of the u.s. government, they earned worldwide reputation for dualistic -- can this journalistic -- journalistic independence. average citizens huddled around

shortwave radios listening to the truth denied them by their own governments. knowing that the world had not forgotten them. the most damaging thing in an oppressive government can do to oppressed people is to convince them that no one else knows and no one else cares. the greatest get the world can give people who are imprisoned literally or feared simply is to let them know that they are not alone, that there are others like them in other parts of their country and in the world spiting the same fight, they are not forgotten the -fighting -- fighting the same fight. talk to anyone who have escaped

-- who has escaped from an oppressive regime and i will bet you that they will tell you that they derive the greatest solace known. all this was driven home to me. in 1991, it was a relatively small world. we invited world leaders to come in and have lunch with us. they line up at the door of this beautiful room in the capital. i was the first in line because

i was the ranking member. i walked to a phone in the corner of the room. just as i got on the phone, in what it now president of poland. the leader of the polish solidarity movement who rose from the shipyards to help topple a communist regime. he was the newly minted president of a newly free nation. he walked by everyone in the door and walked up to me and put his hand in mine and said, thank you. i said, thank solidarity. and you. and he said, no. i will never forget it. , said -- he said, no. radio free europe and the holy father brought the wall down.

he was right. one of the things tyrants have always known is that information is power. it is a powerful weapon in the hands of a free people. lies, rips off the bandits of deceit for all to see an? --dennis bandage -- rips off the bandage of receipt for all to see. how rapidly they are on masking the lies of tyrants, -- unmasking the lies of tyrants.

they have given everyone a worldwide platform in their pocket in a way to listen and to speak. the printing press, radio, television and the other tools of liberty could not in did not do. technology is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. the same networks and devices that enable oppressed citizen is to take on oppressive dictators can be used by those same dictators to tighten their grip on power. for the leaders of the world who do not add 12 are in their

citizens' support are having an effect on governance. technology is enabling governments to be more transparency, to give citizens more insight into how decisions are made and for citizens to demand accountability if it is not offered. i will give you two examples. documents released under the freedom of information act can be up loaded on the internet so that it is available not just to the person, but for the whole world to see. it has a powerful impact on governments when they are deciding whether or not to withhold information in the first place. for example, the state department places online and historical series on american

corn policy, the daily papers newly declassified about decisions we made as a country. proof of the strength of our system and our democracy. part of what i would refer to as american exceptionalism. because many americans have lost faith in their government's ability to manage their tax dollars or do anything competently, technology has allowed us a chance to regain their trust. it allows us to put facts and figures in the plane view for all to see. there is a lot of debate about the recovery act. we can argue its keynesian consequences. there is no debate about the transparency and accountability of that money and how it was spent.

when the president asked me and gave me the incredible privilege of overseeing the implementation of that act, having been around washington a long time, i insisted that we literally set a new standard in the government, a new standard of transparency and accountability that gives people, democrats, republicans independents, who had an overwhelming amount of cynicism about the ability of government to handle their affairs -- we went out and hired the toughest i.g. that there was in the entire federal government. we asked him to put together i.g.'sheri.g.'s -- other

independent of me or anyone in the white house. they would be able to follow the money and account for every dollar. it was overseen by this independent group and monitored. it looks like a mini-norad. there were computers on the wall. they had gone to the intelligence community to ask what are we able to use in order to track these dollars and ferret out fraud, waste, and abuse before it happened. anyone could go to recovery.gov

and track the amount of money that was spent and for what purpose. a byproduct of this transparency was that it had a profound impact. it deputized hundreds of thousands of american citizens to go out there and tell us, tell the recovery board when the money was being misspent. they could go on line and see that they were going to put a crosswalk at second and johnson in a town and find out if there were 10 guys standing there eating their lunch or if it was being put in, whether it was on time, louis contractor was. citizens began to check -- whether it was on time, who the contractor was. citizens began to check on the government. we were determined to make this

standard the permanent standard for every government program in the future. we are not only insisting on transparency and accountability at home. we are also pursuing his agenda internationally, around the world, in any international forum we are about in. we want to empower citizens to fight corruption through new technologies. with the new technologies that are seeking our assistance and help, it is one of the things we are doing with them. whether it is in iraq as we help them set up their agencies and institutions, or in libya. these technologies also enable governments and the private sector to make important progress in international

development programs. earlier this year, the u.s. agency for international development launched the grand challenge in saving mothers livesat birds -- mothers' at birth. we funded 20 candidates to take up their intimate -- their innovations to the next level. [no audio]

>> we have been watching vice president joe biden. he is the keynote speaker at a first amendment awards ceremony. we are having a technical problem. we will try to fix it and continue our live coverage shortly.

>> on veterans day tomorrow, our entire "washington journal" program will be dedicated to military issues. we will have major general jeffrey buchanan to talk about the equipment drawdown in iraq. the government legislative director will talk about the federal program to encourage the hiring of a recentveterans -- recent veterans.

"washington journal" airs every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. we will be at arlington national cemetery tomorrow. there will be a remembrance ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier. you can see it live at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. [applause] >> that three -- let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson. barry goldwater's ideas galvanized the conservative movement. he is featured this week on the

c-span series, "the contenders." live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the senate judiciary committee approved a bill along a party line voted that would repeal the defense of marriage act, a 1996 law that allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. democratic members of the committee spoke with reporters for about 20 minutes. >> we took a step in righting and in justice that goes to the

core of where we stand as a nation. equality for all lawfully married american couples. we voted today, we listened, we agreed. i have heard some say, why now? if not now, when? if not us, who? the fact is, when i was a youngster, i remember some of the landmark legislation being proposed. people said, they will filibuster and stop it. we will keep going for it and eventually we win. they did. there is never a wrong time to right an injustice. there it is a matter for the states. if it is my state or any other state. those americans who are lawfully

married have the same protection under federal law that my wife and i enjoy. we begin with a single step. i am disappointed nobody on the other side join us to send this bill to the senator -- the senate today. it is important progress that we have repealed doma. if you listen to some of the voices, they are committed to seeing it happen. i stand in awe of the work that has been done. i will have heard speak because she is the one that should be standing here.

>> thank you for your leadership and our solid support. this, today, was a big step forward. we have to look at it in the historic perspective. 15 years ago, doma slept through. only 14 of must voted against it. we have co-sponsors to doma. that is a giant step forward. the second step is moving it out of the judiciary committee. i want to thank everybody here. i want to thank you for your comments this morning. we laid out the case. the case is a simple one. doma is discriminatory. it prevents people legally married in a state from getting the same rights and benefits,

federal rights and benefits, that heterosexual couples would get. it treats one class differently from another class. that is discrimination. we now have a bill that strikes a doma. it says that if they stay takes action to legalize same-sex marriage, that is a valid marriage and the federal benefits that would accrue to any other couple would accrue to a same-sex couple. time marches on. time does bring change. in this case, it stops a pernicious discrimination. >> we have senator durbin next. >> i want to thank senator feinstein for sponsoring this -- leahy forkeahy

bringing this forward today. it is rare that we are given an opportunity to extend freedom. today, we were given that chance in the senate judiciary committee. i listened to some of the arguments against it. they often mistake the reality of deep respect marriage act. when we have said is that the state has legalized same-sex marriage. same-sex couples married in that state are treated the same under federal law as other lawfully married couples. if a state has not legalized same-sex marriage, that state will not be forced to license, celebrate, or legally endorse a same-sex marriage. it isn't an important step forward. i thank senator feinstein for

her leadership. this is an idea whose time has come. >> thank you for always being at the vanguard of the quality. i want to thank senator find guard -- senator feinstein for her leadership. i would like to make two historic point. the first is the inexorable drive for equality that we have here in america. it was said that the thing that distinguishes the young american republic is the inexorable drive for equality. the only people who had fully quality at that time were white male protestant property owners. that would have left up the majority of the american people and the majority of the senate. he is right. the bottom line is that this will happen.

this bill will pass. marriage equality will pass. the question is not if, but win. -- but when. we should go forward and do it. there are so many other things we can do, someone said. i remembered martin luther king's letter from a birmingham jail. the leading business leaders of birmingham came to him and send ,wait. be patient. his letter was entitled, why we can wait. there was a line that said, to most of us, which means never. -- wait means never. people had all these reasons why we should not have racial equality. economic reasons, social

reasons. some even cited religious reasons. we see the same thing happening today. they come up with all of these reasons. they know they are wrong in their hearts. we know we are on the side of what is true. we know this will happen. we hope it is sooner and not later. >> we have senator whitehouse. >> i join my colleagues in silting and congratulating chairman leahy and senator feinstein on today's vote. i was proud to cast my vote in favor of the be peeled of -- repeal of doma. i regret that it turned out to be a partisan voted. the american journey toward equality should have no partisan

component to it. we have different states in this union who have taken different points of view on marriage. some, like my state, have endorsed several unions. others have endorsed full marriage equality. others will recognize only traditional marriage. the principle of federalism, which so many of my colleagues is spouse in other instances -- espouse in other instances is that states should be able to make that choice. marriage has traditionally been a state matter. on behalf of rhode island and other states that would like their full marriage equality marriages recognized, and on behalf of all committed couples

around the country who are willing to swear to each other in marriage, i think it is important that we continue to go forward. it was a productive step. thank you. >> senator franken? >> thank you mr. chairman and senator feinstein for your leadership. this is a good day. i have to agree with senator chuck schumer. this is sort of in next rubble. we know the progress we have seen -- this is inextricable -- inexorable. this will happen. i was a little disturbed by some of the things i heard today in the argument against this. that for thousands of years, the definition of marriage has been a union between one man and one

woman. that has actually been the case. women were chattel in marriage in many societies and civilizations. their work arrangements where men could marry many women. it is important that we be accurate about things. that no one is hurt by doma. there were examples of minnesota couple's married in other states. by not having the benefit of federal rights, were badly hurt by doma. this is a good day. it is one step on an inexorable march. we have seen in america a change in attitude. if you talk to young people --

george will once said that among his doctor's france, whether someone is gay -- dr daughter's friends, whether someone is gay is as interesting as if they are left-handed. this is a step in the right direction. thank you, mr. chairman and senator feinstein. >> senator cootz. >> thank you, senator feinstein, for being right from the start. thank you for calling forward this committee, this congress, and this nation. thank you for making real the aspirational promises in the constitution. as several senators have said, ours is a nation that has

continually made progress toward equality. that is not always easy. this was an interesting and difficult conversation among members of this committee today. there were a number of points made that i struggled with. a suggestion that progress toward marriage equality does not belong in the long trajectory of the civil-rights movement. that doma does not cause any harm to gay and lesbian partners that are recognized by their own states and that legislators are compelled to enshrine legislation in federal law by continuing doma. one suggestion was made that the democrats were simply pandering to a special interest group. i found the last most difficult to tolerate with patients. i am disappointed that this was a party line vote. a party line vote.